Matt Yglesias is impressed with the size of the crowds Senator Bernie Sanders is attracting and thinks it could change history.
The Democratic Party stands for very different things than the Republican Party, but both parties are financed largely by very large checks from very wealthy individuals and the ability to cater to the sensibilities of some subset of America’s super-rich demographic is a crucial test of leadership for both parties.
Sanders stands outside that system. He’s managed to campaign and win in a small, cheap, and very liberal state without cultivating a following among the uber-wealthy and he’s happy to run a shoestring presidential campaign powered by small donors.
And you can see from this kind of huge turnout [in Madison, Wisconsin] that this is a message people are very excited about. To the extent that Sanders is able to move those people up the ladder of engagement from engaging with Sanders content online to showing up to Sanders rallies in Wisconsin to donating and volunteering in political campaigns, that can have a lasting impact on the world.
I don’t dispute that a surprisingly strong Sanders campaign can and will leave a lasting impact on American politics, but it’s a little premature to be getting overly excited about Bernie’s prospects. For Sanders to really reshape our politics, he’ll need to do more than pack stadiums in large, liberal college towns or attract hundreds of thousands of small donors. These are encouraging signs, to be sure, and right now there aren’t any better ways of measuring the appeal of his campaign. But Sanders understands that the key is building a grassroots army of organizers, and those organizers have to be able to deliver something.
Obama’s political team and grassroots army delivered victory and proved along the way that many things were possible that experts had previously thought impossible. Ross Perot took down a sitting president and put budget deficits on the public’s mind.
Unless Sanders somehow wins the Democratic nomination, he and his organizers will have to accomplish something more akin to what Perot accomplished than what Obama accomplished. This is definitely doable, and it could be that single-payer health care gains more credibility than anyone thought possible, or that Washington politicians finally concede that the public fucking hates the post-Citizens United world and does something about campaign finance laws, or it could be that President Clinton gets a massive transportation and youth employment bill through Congress. It could be as simple as providing a different model for financing and organizing a big presidential campaign.
I’m apprehensive about any effort to temper the enthusiasm of Bernie’s supporters, because all the goals I just mentioned are worthwhile and perhaps within reach, but a few larger-than-expected rallies and a lot of small donors shouldn’t get anyone irrationally exuberant. By the only metrics we have, Bernie is exceeding expectations and doing great. If you want to get onboard the Bernie train, do it so this can mean something and have a lasting positive effect. But don’t get thinking that Bernie is going to slay all the lions arrayed against him and win the nomination or the presidency. That’s not what his campaign is about.
[Cross-posted at Progress Pond]
Don’t sleep on Sanders really, truly getting 30% of the vote in IA and NH this winter and bird-dogging Hillary (and/or Biden) all the way to June Santorum style. He’s not even a Democrat, what does he care? And if his donors want to spend $20-30 to bloody up the all too frail fake juggernauts, they’ll surely get their money’s worth.
Folks have forgotten the old 2008 Edwards voters. Dumb, white, mentally unwell and in love with protest. But their votes count and they gotta go somewhere. Why not go for the discredited, clownish socialist?
Folks have forgotten the old 2008 Edwards voters. Dumb, white, mentally unwell and in love with protest. But their votes count and they gotta go somewhere. Why not go for the discredited, clownish socialist?
Nice attitude you have there.
30% of Iowa voters in 2008 voted for John Edwards. They looked at Barack Obama, they looked at Hillary Clinton and they instead picked…John Edwards.
They want to bury that down the memory hole, but I haven’t forgotten. And I can’t describe it as anything other than mental illness, even before you get to Rielle Hunter.
Explain thyself. What exactly was mentally ill about it and why do you think those voters voted the way that they did?
30% of Iowa Democratic caucus participants in 2004 voted for John Edwards. They looked at John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Dick Gephardt and they instead picked … John Edwards.
From 2004 and IMHO, Edwards supporters were by and large nicer people than those that supported other candidates. They were also the most naive — easily attracted to the kinder sounding words of Edward’s “two Americas” schtick and inclined to project that a more physically attractive man and a southerner can more easily win in the general election. They truly couldn’t perceive that Edwards was a phoney. And that his Senate record was telling.
Have they become more astute judges of character since 2008? We shall see.
Discredited?
How do you define that term?
He’s running on single payer from Vermont aka the state that immediately blanched and bailed on the idea when they saw the tax bill/reorganization that came with it. It was put up or shut up time, and they shut up but he still hasn’t.
What exactly is his legacy in congress after 25 years? The CPC and…the CPC. He’s an obviously inferior and ineffective legislator among his peers like Mikulski, Kennedy, Dodd, Leahy, Murray, etc. He’s the king of loud, pointless protest that goes nowhere and does nothing while the actually effective legislators have to actually sort things out in the backrooms.
Of course the (white) internet loves him, but for the Party of Barack Obama to become the Party of Bernie Sanders is inconceivable.
Ha Ha nice trolling, the (white) internet is so hypocritical! First they supported a biracial guy, now a white guy? lols.
“the Party of Barack Obama to become the Party of Bernie Sanders is inconceivable.”
I agree. Obama had a much better legislative record when he ran. And Sanders is no Dodd. He gets the white liberal internet ahemJewish support, and you can’t win with just the protest fringe.
Oooh, that would be an ideal campaign for Hillary, and almost exactly what Bernie is probably campaigning for. A extended campaign about liberal/socialist ideals bringing all sorts of ideas actively suppressed by the media to the public attention capped by a clear win for Hillary and a full-throated endorsement of Hillary by Bernie (’cause he’s no firebagging idiot).
Sounds like a plan.
I agree with you completely. But I thought exactly the same thing about the African American guy with the weird name eight years ago.
You shouldn’t have.
Obvious in retrospect. I keep hearing that there is a difference this time, but I’m still not entirely sure what it is.
Let’s see Sanders’ endorsements.
This was a place where Obama was already going stride for stride with Clinton in ’07 .
I worked a little in ’03/’04 for Dean.
In a party primary, people in the party committing to putting their part of the apparatus to work for you matters.
This is a interesting problem. If those who think Bernie has no chance focus on his lack of support within the party apparatus, instead of on him as an individual, it would be easier to understand their point. But, this also has the possible side effect of turning people against the party itself. If I tell my Bernie supporting friends that he can’t win because he’s not a Democratic insider, despite the fact that he stands for everything Democrats are supposed to be, they will fairly ask why they should keep supporting the Democrats. And “the other side is worse” is still true, but getting tiresome.
“Turning people against the party itself” isn’t really a problem. Jesse Jackson’s campaigns, especially the first one, in ’84, were pretty divisive at the time…
Didn’t wreck the party, though. In a general election, macroeconomics, peace-and-war, and a bunch of other stuff come into play before perceptions of the party apparatus of the day.
I know a lot of very liberal, highly interested people who are becoming thoroughly disgusted with the Democrats’ refusal to fight for traditional Democratic ideals. Yes, they will still vote for them, because the GOP is actively evil, but whether they will give money or take action of the party’s behalf is really up in the air. If Bernie can’t win because he doesn’t have the support of the American people, they will turn to Hillary. If Bernie can’t win because the Dems are more interested in who is on their team than in policy, my friends are not going to be much help. If we want to grow the base, we can’t tell our left wing that they don’t matter because they aren’t “inside” enough.
If he can’t win in the nomination, there’s no need to tell your Sanders-supporting friends that. By definition, if he can’t win, they can’t change it. In that case what you’d want to do is to set it up so they won’t be mad or discouraged when he loses.
Guess so. I’ve been doing my best to keep a “We’re all on the same side, isn’t it great” attitude going. I’m truly fine with either one. I would just really like for the winning features to be policy and trust instead of who has the most insider friends.
By August 2007, I didn’t. Although the general election was going to be easier than the primary.
Ah yes, let’s not get too excited about a candidate.
We’re Democrats, after all.
(Well, actually at the moment I’m not. But if Bernie doesn’t get backstabbed by the party apparatchiks, I might be again.)
He’s not a member of the party he seeks to lead. Why wouldn’t they resist him?
Because Bernie is a more authentic Democrat than the others?
that’s wishful thinking, isn’t it?
No. Fact based. On all of the most important public policy issues of the day, Sanders has always gotten right. After voting for the Iraq War in 2002, where was Hillary on the economy in 2003? Still bragging about how great Bill on been on the economy and enjoying cocktails with Rubin, etc.?
Sanders 2003
the fact that Sanders has been right so often is exactly why he isn’t an “authentic Democrat”. That’s a defect in the party not in him.
Sadly, true.
Twenty points behind in Iowa is a long way, but not insurmountable. If Bernie wins Iowa, he’ll almost certainly win New Hampshire, after which an overall win seems at least plausible.
I’d love to have Bernie as President, but I’m a little leery of asking the Hillary supporters to suck it up again and vote for a different guy. There’s a lot of love for Hillary out there, as I experienced in 2008 arguing with them, and it’s a lot to ask them to accept defeat graciously twice.
Then perhaps she needs to learn how to actually win these kind of contests. If she gets beat again by someone else, she’s the one to blame.
Having Lanny Davis still around does not help matters one bit in this regard. He was trotted out to talk about her emails from State.
We’ll hold our nose and vote for Hillary if that’s all we have but for now we have a choice. Not to just get Hillary to spout things she thinks we want to hear but at long last, a real choice. Finally I get to vote and work for the election of a real progressive so why not? The real difference is that Bernie is running as a Democrat, not a spoiler in the Ralph Nader style. Since we can always hold our noses to vote in the general for Corporatist Hillary if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, what happens if everyone does just that? Bernie wins the nomination then the White House is what happens.
Every issue Bernie brings up is what all Democrats should be for anyway. Hillary could say all the same things but they will appear hollow since Hillary is already established as and is the Big Money Corporatist Established Democrat. Personal attacks will just come off as mean spirited because Bernie does not do negative politics, only issues. This is a real problem for Hillary and the anti-progressive Democratic Establishment.
Bernie has a real track record that shows how positive the impact of his progressive ideas can be as applied to Burlington, Vt. Giving Bernie a chance to do this on a national scale is a chance for people to rebuild the middle class for themselves and their children. This can and will beat Big Money.
I don’t expect Sanders to win. And frankly, I’m not sure if I want to.
What I am hoping for though is that he proves to be unexpectedly strong and that he keeps publicly extracting policy concessions from Hillary Clinton such that by the time the primary is over the idea of running a ‘status quo + tweaks’ election is just not possible and she finds herself tasked with implementing the stimulus packages and minimum wage increases she promised.
Why? They wouldn’t be authentic concessions; just campaign lies. Both Sanders and Clinton are politically mature — they know who they are and what they really stand for. Obama could fudge on that in 2008 because chronologically he wasn’t yet of a politically mature age and his political record was thin and mixed. If you want what Billmon calls a neoliberalcon, vote Clinton. If you want a democratic socialist with fewer foreign military adventures, vote Sanders.
Personally, I’d prefer Sherrod Brown. Ideally a Brown that’s six to ten years younger. Unfortunately, over the past twenty years, such voices and public servants have been purged from the Democratic Party.
The hope is that the campaign concessions that Sanders extracts from Clinton poisons her relationship with corporate America enough so that she can’t squirm back into their good graces once the campaign season is over. Once she loudly voices her support for a stronger version of Dodd-Frank and an increase in corporate income taxes, there’s really no easily walking that one back.
Now, you’d think that they would just do a nod and a wink towards Clinton, but it doesn’t work like that — even though it’d make a fine and obvious conspiracy. As we can see with Obama the billionaire class gets really histrionic over anything but total obsequiousness. Hopefully after they cut her off from the purse strings like they did Obama she’ll be smart enough to know where her bread is buttered and return to the ‘base’.
I mean, if she’s stupid enough to think that Wall Street will let her come hat in hand to them after she proposes a 50% top marginal income tax rate if she stabs the progressive caucus in the back once she gets into office, her Presidency will implode. As what happened with Obama.
Making up a “fact” to support a projection (either positive or negative) is not rational argumentation. I respect those that engage in fair debates, but facts are not debatable. Obama has never had his big money purse strings cut off.
Billmon July 2, 2015
Perhaps I should be saying the same to you? If you want sources then just ask, rather than implying that I can’t get them.
http://www.opensecrets.org/PRES08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indus.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638
Just looking at PACs, Law cut their contributions to Obama’s campaigns by a third in 2012. Misc business? 40%. Finance cut their contributions by half. Obama made up for it in some areas (because PACs cut their contributions by a little more than 20% overall) but the trend is pretty clear: Obama didn’t completely capitulate to corporate interests between 2008-2012 despite all of the sugar they got and they cut him off at the knees. Obama was pretty stupid to pursue neoliberal policies after 2012 because he was able to manage parity even after being punished by the bigger corporate interests, but there’s no reason why Clinton should make the same mistake.
The size of Bernie’s crowds has two immediate functions. 1) It gets him a slight increase in MSM attention. That in turn bumps up his poll numbers because Americans become quickly, and often briefly, enamored of the “new kid.” 2) It pisses off Hillary.
He now has approximately 60 days to make a few first downs.
Labor day the year before?
Yes. Not a year before but only six months.
Organizationally and operationally, Sanders is likely already way behind where team Obama was at this point in 2007.
The contradiction in democratic governance in the United States.
Bernie Sanders need a Southern strategy to win the nomination and the general election. That’s really a broader test of bring working people and farmers back to a populist agenda that benefits progressive Democratic candidates. Goldwater shaped the change in options for American politics in the 1960s. And Reagan instituted the coalition that slammed it in institutionally. Sanders must do both in the same election. I’m not yet seeing how that happens.
At the moment, Sanders is building excitement by rallying the base of the progressive movement. He has not yet begun broadening that movement. And he has yet to get black Democrats moving towards his corner; moreover, he has not done a major speech about what he would do to curtail white supremacy. That’s a political split in possible electorates that he needs to figure out how to bridge to build a progressive coalition. And it is a tough, tough task. Of the canidates running, Bernie has the style that could potentially do that, but it is going to take more than style and ideology and good policy ideas to solidify voter commitments to go to the polls and vote for Bernie.
But Madison was exciting as all get-out for six months from the first primary and sixteen months from the general election. But can anyone gather 100,000 in Iowa before the caucuses? That’s when you start getting excited. Because something like that would likely happen between the first snows.
Other signs meriting excitement. Filling a municipal auditorium in one of South Carolina, Alabama, or Missippi’s cities. Having a thousand show up in West Texas.
If the man is talking sense for ordinary Americans, and if he can end run the Wall Street media games, that is posible.
But it would be a radically different kind of American politics. At the moment, I’m pessimistic that we are capable of it as a national polity. I think that the politicians and lobbyist have finally just whupped us. I’m hoping this mood is temporary.
Speaking as a black American myself, I wonder why this idiotic talking point keeps coming up.
Look, black people know what side our bread is buttered on. We don’t need bromides and pretty speeches and glittering generalities. We know about the hypocrisies and doublethink that Democrats need to engage in for the greater good, bullshit like police militarization and War on Drugs and Welfare reform. This is why FDR and Truman were able to pull in a record number of blacks despite having to pander to Dixiecrats.
However. Centrists. Please don’t get high off of your own supply. The Clintons only get support because they’re dominant. As soon as something better comes along, she’ll get abandoned. It’s a fatal error to read her current support among blacks as rejection of economic progressives. Because when you get right down to it, Clinton and the rest of the DLC Dems don’t plan to do anything more than John Edwards, Bernie Sanders, or even Martin O’Malley specifically for the black community than the so-called ‘first black President and his wife’.
Now, please don’t interpret that last post to mean that I resent Clinton. I don’t. I know about the unstoppable domination of the post-Southern Strategy Republican party and I don’t blame the Democrats for doing what they need to do.
However, that kind of talk is extremely insulting because it’s the worst kind of pandering tripe. It’s like going ‘my opponent didn’t mention clamping down on human traffickers and child molesters once; what’s he going to do for your children?’ when A.) you, specifically, didn’t really do anything for the children/blacks/community/etc. above your basic job requires either and B.) your opponent wouldn’t do any better or worse on you than this score because of A.
Oooo, you’re making a verbal stand against racism despite not having anything in your record to show otherwise. You’re so fucking brave, centrists. And those socialists and progressives! Even though racial egalitarianism is part of the basic modern leftist ideology they didn’t mention it in speeches so they’ll be worse at it! Boogey boogey boogey.
Give it a rest, centrists. Seriously.
The necessity of him addressing white supremacy is not for the support of black people. It is for the reassurance of white people and to preserve his straight talk bona fides; he needs to get real with white people and get them to nod.
I am far from a centrist in this.
The black endorsement issue is a check box that he has to do for the sake of the media.
I think that you are correct about blacks and Clinton. And what Democrats “plan to do for the black community”. And there is the nasty matter of Congress and state legislatures that this talk about the Presidency always overshadows.
And the abiity for black candidates other than Allen West and Tim Scott to get elected from majority non-black districts more frequently.
How much support did Obama have from Black Democrats at the beginning of July 2007? iirc, not much. And even less than “not much” from Black super-delegates.
But it came when he needed it. For Bernie to be more than a Carter-type outsider in clout in DC, he has to pull off a black-working white populist fusion. And he has to have competitiveness outside of Obama’s map. Failure to do that means that money either rolls you in the primary, the general election, or in governance.
To get that cross-over means a willingness to stand forthrightly for policy principles. And to let the public know what those are even if it provides a target list for the opposition. Then it requires the authenticity to deal effectively with the oppositions shadings and wafflings in a way that builds more public trust.
Jesse Helms could use the “You know where he stands.” gambit very effectively against opponents. (But he also allowed his campaign to indulge in the big lie at the last minute. Last minute surprises don’t necessarily have to be lies to win, just imaginally gripping.)
Which was when? After Bill played the race card in NH and when it worked well enough that not so many ethical Democrats noticed and loudly cried “shame on Clinton,” he repeated it in SC where it did blow up in his face both in state and among prominent national Democrats and liberals.
If Black Americans want to come home to Mama Clinton after decades of being thrown under Clinton buses, there’s not much that Sanders can directly do about that. His message of ethics and morality translated into one rule of law for all and economic fairness and justice for all will either resonate with enough in all demographic groups or he’ll fail. IMHO he needs to tighten up his message with actual promises that he can keep and more specific and concrete areas in serious need of rethink. For example, what good is promising “free” college education to all who want when more than half the kids barely do time during the last two years of high school and just want and need a job? What about them?
College has become a racket. An expensive racket. With young people mortgaging their futures for class time they don’t want or appreciate and doesn’t provide any actual skills that employers need.
Back on topic — to discuss what Sanders should do, we should differentiate between the primaries/caucuses (and that sequentially) and general election. While also recognizing that there’s some overlap between the two. There’s a sweet spot in simultaneously running for the nomination and general election. Too much or too little attention to the general during primary season almost always leads to failure in winning one or the other. Obama did seem to find that sweet spot or maybe it only appeared that way to me because his competition was so herky-jerky.
Iowa is a tough nut for Sanders to crack, but if he does, the votes for him are there. For lessons in what not to do, he can look at the Dean campaign. For lessons in what to do, check out Edwards.
I’m not sure that Iowa is a tough nut for Sanders to crack because of its idiosyncratic caucus process.
South Carolina is a tough nut to crack because it requires mobilizing people who think they are at each others’ throats to realize they really are allies in the current political moment. Simultaneously running for both primary and general elections this cycle has to do with building organizations where there are none that in fact extend the geographical reach of the Democratic Party. And to transcend ideological litmus testing and positioning, which the modern conservative movement introduced into American politics in 1964.
Trying to turn big tent parties into ideologically pure parties on the multi-party European model has made US politics massively disfunctional. Coalitions are based on interests; big tent parties are inevitably coalitions. In multiparty democracies the equvalent of big tent parties is called “forming a government”, The biggest coalition of interests right now is the 99% economic interests. The problem for Bernie’s primary campaign is putting that coalition together, making it self-conscious, giving is organizational form for the general election, and providing it with slates of down-ticket candidates to vote for. And having a 50-state campaign running smoothly by January 1, 2016.
Without that big a vision, you don’t expand the map and you don’t deliver the downticket political offices that allow you to govern and deliver on your policy platform.
And to put on an additional burden, there needs to be someone aligned with Bernie’s ideas on policy who is drafting legislation ready to go for the first hundred days. Ronald Reagan assigned that drafting task to the Heritage Foundation and put them on the map. Interestingly enough, IMO a lot of that first hundred days’ legislation could be repeals of existing legislation that is gumming up the works, making government cost more, and driving individuals and small businesses nuts with the forms and rules they have to deal with. For corporations, it is a different matter. What you would be repealing is a whole lot of loopholes and carve-outs that amount to hidden subsidies.
The negative lessons from Dean (don’t invade the state) and the positive lessons from Edwards get you a victory but don’t necessarily set up Iowa to be in your corner in the general election. Especially, if you intend to run a people-powered campaign. Having campaign organizations in each county with local fired up staff and a corps of volunteers be the residue of every state primary campaign should be a target. The candidate’s job is to provide the fire that gets them fired up during the retail politics events. To the extent that Bernie Sanders is doing that right now, he has drawn media attention. The next step is to get those fired up people engaged right now in their local areas, with their personal networks, and with their farflung online social networks in effective ways.
There are a bunch of serious challenges that the campaign must navigate quickly in order to build the momentum that allows the candidate to govern. And the ability to govern has to be the bottom line for progressives in this election cycle. Because at some point there is a point of no return to the dysfunction in our political system.
Whoa — first things first. Long term, multi-election cycle, goals are how one builds power, but only initial groundwork can be done in one cycle (barring a massive wave election). But wave elections tend to be misread and tend to be unstable, particularly for Democrats.
Iowa looks to be tough at this point because Clinton is polling above 50%. In the early going of 2008 — regardless of the MSM hype — Clinton never broke through that marker. Had 2008 been a two-way instead of three-way race, would Clinton have easily won? What were those Edwards’ supporters in 2004 and 2008 responding to? Populism? Racism? Sexism? Was any significant portion of Gephardt’s 2004 showing of 11% based on union members?
Agree that SC is a bigger nut for Sanders than Iowa. However, the results in IA and NH will have an impact in SC. Until his team figures out what they’ve got and where they’re going in IA and NH, they won’t have a good sense of how to tackle SC.
The reason that Bernie Sanders is getting support is the hope that he will be able to govern more progressively than Clinton. That requires a massive wave election, which we really have not had in a progressive direction for quite a while (2008 was a false spring). I am not highly optimistic that Sanders can even “send a message” unless he can take steps quickly to architect that wave election.
It is early. I am looking to see signs that those are being put into place. Foremost among them is some sense that he will have the power to govern.
I’m looking for signs that he is putting together a team and strategy capable of beating the big money oligarchs. Otherwise, it’s just a political campaign version of “GoFundMe.”
One other to do on the list. Someone needs to be ginning up progressive candidates to primary the candidates that the DSCC and DCCC are assembling as challengers. The strategy of the Democratic leadership is transparently to shut out progressive candidates.
I think we are looking at a major internal conflict in the Democratic Party in which the establishment loves losing.
Someone needs to be ginning up progressive candidates to primary the candidates that the DSCC and DCCC are assembling as challengers. The strategy of the Democratic leadership is transparently to shut out progressive candidates.
I think we are looking at a major internal conflict in the Democratic Party in which the establishment loves losing.
They don’t mind losing just as long as they’re picking the candidates. As you say, they hate progressives. It probably makes raising money from Wall Street harder. And Steve Israel is a loser but he still gets to run the rusting hulk that is the DCCC.
rusting hulk, very nice
Here’s a typical challenge that Bernie Sanders has even within the Democratic base:
Who the hell is Richard Trumka, that he can presume to tell me who a real Democrat is, or tell me which candidate might do the best job for labor?
To pull that kind of shit off you should be the head of the AFL-CIO or something. At least head one of its bigger constituent unions.
The gall of the man
Look at it this way.
We don’t think much of people who can’t figure out which side of their toast is buttered.
That’s fine.
But we don’t applaud people who can figure it out.
So, relax.
What’s the challenge? The locals, even state level, aren’t supposed to endorse on their own. The more that state and locals that endorse Sanders the bigger problems that create for Trumka. It’s also a threat to his power. That’s another reason he’s pissed.
In 1988, for about a week, Jesse Jackson led all Democratic candidates in actual delegates.
Just sayin’…
Good point! However, did it really matter whether Jackson or Dukakis was the nominee?
No. Absolutely wasn’t possible in 1988 that the country would elect a Black President. Nor anyone that has zero time in elective office.
The choices in 1988 weren’t top drawer — serious shortcomings to each of them. OTOH, GHWB was also a weak candidate. Always seems better to me to lose with a credible candidate of substance that represents the base than one that can easily become a laugh line and doesn’t even represent the base. As the CA primary didn’t matter, I didn’t bother to become well informed about the Democratic candidates — also spared myself any grief from backing a loser. However — I was quite fond of Jesse Jackson back then and not for a moment would have considered him for President. Was leaning towards Simon, that was absent any knowledge of his campaign skills which may have been no better than Dukakis’.
Was that Paul Simon of Illinois? I didn’t even realize he was a candidate. The last good Senator from Illinois.
Yes. He came in second in IA and third in NH. He and Gephardt were contenders until Super Tuesday when Dukakis, Gore, and Jackson took them out.
Thanks. I read the Tribune at the time and I’m sure they downplayed him. I remember Gephardt.
Interesting that way out here on the west coast, I not only knew Simon was running but he was also the only one that I was leaning towards supporting.
The Chicago Tribune had the biggest circulation and owned (still owns AFAIK) two local TV stations and one or more radio stations. I think that one time (more recently) both the Trib and the Sun-Times were jointly owned. makes a good case against media concentration. If the Trib doesn’t want you to know about it, you’re stuck with the internet.
BTW, I rather liked Dukakis and think he got a raw deal on the “Belgian endive” remark. He was right!
The Kitty Dukakis rape question response really hurt him and those revolving door Willie Horton commercials, unjust as they were.
Don’t you have a responsibility to join or volunteer for Sanders? Youve said you get on the Obama media calls then you obviously have some connections or influence, or offer your analysis or experience at organizing in your area. None of this will prevent you from helping a different winner if Sanders doesn’t get the nom.
So help him.
He’s committed to Hilary.
I don’t expect Sanders to win nor do I think he would be very effective as President. But I do think he’s very valuable to progressives in that he’ll keep the pressure on Clinton. He’s playing the Warren role in this race. The flaw I see him in is that he’s not radical enough on foreign policy. Democrats need to adopt a coherent foreign policy vision that is not Republican-lite.
Pressure? To do what? Say pretty things during the campaign that she has no intentions of following through on? Look at who she has in her inner circle and ask yourself if you want those people running the country. Again!
Seem to have several “Charlie Browns” in this thread.
hmmmm, make sense….
Tolak Reklamasi
Reklamasi Teluk Benoa
Teluk Benoa
Tolak Revitalisasi
Tolak Reklamasi Bali
Tolak Reklamasi
Reklamasi Teluk Benoa
Teluk Benoa
Tolak Reklamasi
Reklamasi Teluk Benoa
Teluk Benoa
I might start to get irrationally exuberant about Bernie when I hear him start to talk rationally and critically about our current policy towards Russia — the Obama policy of severe sanctions and treating Ukraine/Crimea like they aren’t an important part of Russia’s history but are instead yet another area of vital security importance to the US of A.
Is it too much to ask that the only democratic socialist running for either party have a FP posture that is significantly different from the rest of the pack? 18 people out there running for their parties’ nomination, but not one takes less than an idiotic hawkish stance towards Russia. Or China..
I’ll give Bernie Israel. But why does he fall in line on the rest?
Based on the last fifty-two years, if a decent candidate runs for the Democratic nomination he/she will get shot, the plane will go down, there’ll be a sex scandal or some other thing to smear the guy. He won’t be allowed to win. So I manage to restrain my enthusiasm by knowing that someone’s probably going to get killed. “Lone nuts”, start your engines.