Bernie Sanders Jumps In
We've had a President Jimmy and a President Ronnie, so why not a President Bernie?
That was my first thought on hearing the news that Senator Bernard ("Bernie") Sanders is going to formally announce his candidacy for president tomorrow. Often, first thoughts are not the most profound, as I seem to have proved here. But upon reflection, a deeper meaning can be teased out of my sophomoric response: why not a President Bernie? I'm pretty sure there will be many in the media who laugh Sanders off as some sort of "not serious" candidate, and attempt to pigeonhole Sanders into the role of court jester to Hillary Clinton: there to amusingly point out foibles, but in a way that cannot be taken seriously. This is a mistake. Bernie Sanders is a serious candidate, no matter what his chances at the ballot box may ultimately be. He cares deeply about the issue of inequality, and he is not afraid to say exactly what he thinks. You can question how viable a candidate Sanders will be, but no matter what the answer to that turns out to be, Sanders will be a serious candidate. The issues he will raise on the campaign trail deserve serious discussion and consideration, from not only Hillary Clinton but also from the media themselves.
Bernie Sanders will be unique among presidential candidates because the first step he'll have to take is to become a Democrat. Up until now, Bernie has called himself a Democratic Socialist (although he does caucus reliably with the Democrats in Congress). This raises a big question, one that he will hopefully answer tomorrow. Will Sanders, if he loses the Democratic nomination, run as an independent in the general election? This could set up a Ralph Nader problem for Hillary, but it doesn't seem likely that Sanders would actually go that far. But the question is a valid one, which is why it'll be interesting to see if he addresses the issue in tomorrow's announcement (or soon thereafter).
I realize it's pretty pessimistic to begin analyzing a campaign by assuming defeat in the primaries, so let's instead consider a path to victory for Bernie Sanders. Will he be able to raise enough money? Well, he sure won't be able to match Clinton's totals, at least at first. But will that matter? There is already a groundswell in the Democratic Party for a more Progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton, but up until now it has been focused on a woman who keeps swearing -- over and over -- that she is just not going to run. Sooner or later those advocating for an Elizabeth Warren candidacy are going to have to start believing the words Warren is saying, one assumes. When they do, the most attractive candidate for them to focus on is going to be none other than Bernie Sanders. Ideologically, at least on the major Progressive issues of the day, Sanders and Warren are two peas in a pod. There isn't a lot of daylight between them on, for instance, their attitudes towards Wall Street and Main Street. So Sanders will be a good fit for the Warren enthusiasts.
It remains to be seen how much enthusiasm Sanders could raise among Democratic Party primary voters as a whole, though. The policies he advocates are actually very popular -- something Progressives love to point out -- even if they do meet with a lot of sneering contempt by all the "serious people" inside the Beltway. If a Bernie Sanders candidacy catches a little fire with the public, however, the mainstream media might actually have to start discussing his issues. The more media coverage he gets, the more his ideas get heard. Which could spark a wave of support for Sanders among Democrats.
The conventional wisdom says that Sanders will be nothing more than a goad to Hillary Clinton. He'll be pulling her to the left, but she'll easily co-opt his issues (in some milder, more-centrist way) and bury him with the millions in her campaign chest. This could turn out to be true. But money doesn't always win in politics. Ask Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman, they'll tell you. If Bernie Sanders has a truly winning message, it just might trump all the money spent against him.
Obviously, if Sanders does have a path to victory, it would certainly help if Clinton stumbles at some point along the way. This stumble could take many forms -- a scandal that the public actually considers scandalous, a health issue, or perhaps getting caught saying something insensitive along the campaign trail -- but any such bump in the road for Clinton would help Sanders (and any other Democrats who run). Both Clintons are known for political stumbles, but they're also known for overcoming them and quickly putting them in the rearview mirror. So even a Clinton misstep might not be enough for Sanders to break into the frontrunner position.
Sanders has one other liability when compared to Clinton. He's an old white guy. That's not very demographically exciting. He wouldn't be the first old white guy to be president, to put this another way. The media has become jaded over Hillary Clinton becoming the first woman to (as she put it) "break the glass ceiling," but there are millions of women out there who will be very proud and excited to cast their votes for the first woman to lead the country. Sanders is at a disadvantage, due to not being the first of his kind with a chance at the White House.
That's not an impossible obstacle to overcome, though. If Bernie Sanders does well in the first two primary contests, he'll be taken a lot more seriously. Iowa might be the tougher of the two, because it will require a lot of effort (and having a lot of money wouldn't hurt that effort). New Hampshire is right next to Vermont, where Bernie hails from, but that also doesn't automatically mean he'll be accepted by New Hampshire voters. There is a sort of friendly animosity between New Hampshire and Vermont, where anything from the other state is viewed with a healthy amount of suspicion. Still, Bernie Sanders is a lot more well-known in New Hampshire than he is elsewhere. He won't have to "introduce" himself the way he will have to in Iowa, in other words, because many New Hampshire voters already know who he is and what he stands for. In Iowa, Sanders will likely try a grassroots-style campaign, talking to as many voters in person as he possibly can. Sanders has always been comfortable talking to people in this fashion, so he could be more successful at it than might initially be imagined.
Bernie Sanders has one big thing going for him: authenticity. He's an honest guy -- he'll tell you exactly what he thinks without resorting to a focus group beforehand. There is no trust issue with Sanders -- if he gets elected, he'll do exactly what he promised he'd do (or, at the very least, he'd sincerely try to make good on his promises). Compare that to the way many Democrats view Hillary Clinton -- they're pleasantly surprised when she gives a speech that takes a liberal position (as she did this morning, in fact), but they also harbor seeds of doubt as to whether Hillary really believes what she's saying or whether she's just saying it because she thinks it's what the voters currently want to hear. There are questions about how much Democrats should trust Clinton's stances, to put it bluntly. There would be no such question with Bernie Sanders. He's exactly who he says he is, and he speaks from the heart about issues like inequality. That could play very well in places like Iowa and Nevada.
If, for the sake of argument, Sanders does somehow beat Hillary Clinton and becomes the Democratic nominee, what chance would he have against the Republican in the race? That's hard to predict, for a number of reasons. In the first place, it will matter how he beat Clinton. Did she stumble badly and take herself out of the running as a result? Or did Sanders just catch fire with the public and Clinton's ideas and message couldn't compete? How strong Sanders would be in the general election might depend on the answers to those questions. If his ideas were the reason for his primary victory, then it'll depend on how the Republican nominee stacks up against him on those issues. A more-moderate Republican might do better than an extremist, to state the obvious.
No matter who ultimately gets the Republican nomination, they'll be attempting to paint Sanders as a "lefty extremist." Look for the demonization of the word "Socialist" to be prominent in these attacks. Now, the spectre of the big, bad Socialism doesn't pack the same punch as it used to back in the days of the Cold War, but it still does have an impact with the public. People who can't explain the difference between Socialism and Communism usually don't approve of either. Sanders could overcome this built-in animosity only by clearly explaining his platform of taking the side of the little guy.
That sounds dismissive, but it isn't. Taking the side of the little guy is going to be a big issue in the 2016 campaign, no matter what happens. It's such a potent issue that the Republicans are actually trying to co-opt it. Of course, their policy positions are pretty much guaranteed to make inequality worse (especially when "give rich people big tax breaks" is so central to everything Republicans want to do), and Bernie Sanders is possibly the best candidate to point this out in no uncertain terms. Once again, Elizabeth Warren is not going to run, leaving Sanders to champion the Progressive positions. People are fed up with Washington coddling Wall Street, and Sanders (unlike all the Republicans) won't have to twist himself into a pretzel explaining what his plans are to fix this problem.
Not to be too dismissive, but the other Democrats so far mentioned as possible candidates seem like they're running to be first choice for Hillary's veep. I don't think they'll be challenging her in the way that Bernie Sanders will. Sanders is going to be an unapologetic Progressive voice in the race, and is going to freely criticize Hillary Clinton whenever she tries to advocate half-measures or use weaselly language to define her positions. No matter what you think his chances of winning the nomination (or the presidency), Bernie Sanders is going to force everyone else to focus on the little guy. Which, for me, absolutely makes him a serious candidate. President Bernie is a concept we should all take seriously.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I would vote for him.
He could win in Iowa. Democrats in Iowa seem to be pretty liberal, and they have already shown (in 2008) that they would vote for someone other than Hillary. That would certainly shake things up and give him some credibility heading into New Hampshire.
The policies he advocates are actually very popular -- something Progressives love to point out -- even if they do meet with a lot of sneering contempt by all the "serious people" inside the Beltway.
There is a reason for that contempt..
Yes, those policies are actually very popular with the American people.
IN THEORY.....
That's the problem with practically ALL of those policies. They sound good on paper and in sound bites...
But when the rubber hits the road??
When it comes time time to IMPLEMENT the policies???
Crash and burn....
A perfect example is TrainWreckCare...
The individual aspects of TWC sounded great...
But look at the debacle that occurred once TrainWreckCare was implemented... It was a disaster...
Give Sanders the credit for knowing what buttons to push.. But he is living in la-la land if he thinks that any of his ideas are actually workable and doable..
There's a reason why Sanders has been relegated to clown car status..
Because the only people who will vote for him are the ones who are in the same la-la land as he is..
Michale
I was today reminded by friend of the political operative persuasion that Senator Sanders is Jewish. Would this not be the 'first' for which you're looking?
Mayhap the reason you overlooked this circumstance is that in this 21st century of the Common Era, Jews have become mainstream.
T41,
Ooohh, nice catch...
Sanders would definitely be a Pro-Israel POTUS...
Credit where credit is due... That's a point in his favor...
Michale
"This could set up a Ralph Nader problem for Hillary"
I hate to have to point this out again, but here goes . . .
Al Gore did not lose because Democrats voted for Ralph Nader. AG lost because Democrats voted for King George W, the GOP rioted, The Supremes decided that their nine votes were the only ones that mattered, and the Democratic Party played along like good little corporate robots.
We Nader voters were not going to vote for AG anyway.
Al Gore did not lose because Democrats voted for Ralph Nader. AG lost because Democrats voted for King George W, the GOP rioted, The Supremes decided that their nine votes were the only ones that mattered, and the Democratic Party played along like good little corporate robots.
In YOUR opinion...
The fact of the matter is Democrats had recount after recount after recount.. They wanted to recount until they got the result they wanted, the country be damned...
THIS is the reality..
Michale
M-5
You might want to read up a bit more on Senator Sanders' background. He'll be pro Israel, but no soul mate of the Netanyahu crowd, either in Congress or the Knesset. Sanders supports Obama's efforts to get a nuclear deal with Iran. Not preemptively ratcheting up sanctions, not bombing the nuclear facilities.
Sanders worked on a kibbutz as a young man. Sanders still self identifies as a "democratic socialist," so I guess he found the collective farming experience to his liking. Once the right wing cable shows pick up on this, I expect you'll be considerably less enthusiastic about Bernie.
Teacher41
I predict we'll find out how main stream Jews are when a hot mike picks up it's first "New York Jew" (or similar angrified slur)from a pair of hard right Republican lips at a Republican event.
I suspect Clinton is delighted about Sanders entering the race. He'll be a useful fulcrum as Hillary levers herself towards a more center-left economic position. "Let's not change the business friendly government, let's just make it fairer." Right in the middle needed to win those dozen or so states that will actually decide who get to be the next Prez.
Yay Bernie! Now I have two possible candidates I like!
TS,
Sanders supports Obama's efforts to get a nuclear deal with Iran.
Ahhhh...
So Sanders wants to see the country that has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map acquire nuclear weapons..
Apparently Sanders does NOT support Israel...
My bust...
Michale
Al Gore did not lose because Democrats voted for Ralph Nader.
There are many factors, any of which could have made the tiny difference between the candidate more Americans voted for, and more qualified Floridians tried to vote for, and the president-unelect that we got. Nader's candidacy was one of them.
The criteria for what counts as a valid ballot in Florida were a matter of Florida law. ("Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof shall direct ....") Florida law was not clear on what to do about a complete FUBAR that results in a tie. There are reasonable interpretations that would have resulted in a Bush win, and others that would have resulted in a Gore win. If the Supreme miscreants had let the process go ahead, Bush probably would have won the count.
If you want one and only one reason, I'll pick the butterfly ballot. The punch-card ballot failed to record enough attempted Gore votes to make the difference, given that the butterfly ballot was there. But the butterfly ballot had a friggin' line from Gore's name to the spot to vote for Pat Buchanan.
But there are plenty of other factors, such as the disenfranchisement of thousands of people, legally entitled to vote, whom the Republicans had identified as likely to vote Democratic and therefore had misidentified as felons and purged from the voter registration.
"Nader's candidacy was one of them."
Sorry. I'm not buying it. The Democratic Party was not entitled to the votes that Nader got.
There are millions of eligible voters who just don't bother to register to vote because they are so repulsed by the Republican and Democratic Parties and their stranglehold on us. Are the Dems entitled to their votes too?
Also unmentioned in your list is the fact that Gore wasn't a very good candidate. He was your basic next-in-line wealthy white guy who inherited name recognition and rode it all the way to VP. He was stiff as Rmoney.
"If you want one and only one reason"
I don't. I just wanted to point out the phoniest one. Democrats like to accuse Nader of taking votes away from them while ignoring how many Democrats voted for Chimpy. I will concede that Gore had a "Nader problem" only in the sense that he also had a much larger "Bush problem".
TheStig avowed: "I predict we'll find out how main stream Jews are when a hot mike picks up it's first "New York Jew" (or similar angrified slur)from a pair of hard right Republican lips at a Republican event."
Yeahp, you have the right of it. Meantime, the LSM will take notice and it will become the meme of the day.
N.B. The former half-term governor seldom makes sense, but she was spot on with 'Lame Steam Media'.
Now I have seen everything...
A Weigantian quoting Sarah Palin!! :D
Kudos, T41.... :D
Michale
M-11
"Apparently Sanders does NOT support Israel..."
Judging from the above knee jerk, your reflexes are still top notch...
but, hate to tell, you've still got Sanders completely wrong.
Here is a distilled summary, courtesy of Juan Cole to get you back on track:
"When you’ve Lost Bernie Sanders: How Netanyahu destroyed the Israel Lobby"
and
"By overreaching, Netanyahu may be shattering the hammer his partisans in the US have used to destroy critics of his policies in America. And Mideast policy in the US may never be quite the same."
Thinking Netanyahu is a blustering, bumbling idiot is not the same as being anti-Israel. I'd venture about half of Israel feels that way about Senator Netanyahu.
Thinking Netanyahu is a blustering, bumbling idiot is not the same as being anti-Israel. I'd venture about half of Israel feels that way about Senator Netanyahu.
And yet, Israel just gave Netanyahu a huge victory...
That's like JFC saying that the vast majority of Americans don't want the GOP to govern...
It doesn't jibe with facts and reality.. :D
Say what you want about Netanyahu..
But ANYONE who wants to help Iran obtain nuclear weapons is NOT a friend of Israel..
Period..
Michale
I'm not buying it. The Democratic Party was not entitled to the votes that Nader got.
What does entitlement have to do with anything? If Nader hadn't run, some of the people who voted for him (or didn't vote at all) would have voted for Gore. They were entitled to vote for Gore, if they had chosen to do so, as long as he met their state's criteria to be on the ballot.
while ignoring how many Democrats voted for Chimpy
If someone voted for Dubya, did they really count as a Democrat? The guy was as repulsive as John Edwards, albeit in a different way.
If someone voted for Dubya, did they really count as a Democrat? The guy was as repulsive as John Edwards, albeit in a different way.
And, which way would that be, exactly??
Michale
M-17
You keep jumping onto, and slipping off of, one wobbly rhetorical rock after another.
Netanyahu won a surprising victory, but not a big one. It's a practical impossibility to win a big victory in Israeli politics. Likud won 29 out of 120 seats. Zionist Union was 2nd with 24. To keep things in perspective, the Joint Arab List was 3rd with 14. Netanyahu was able to cobble together a coalition government with 69 seats, which is large by Israeli standards, but it took him a long time to do it, and the coalition is fragile (another characteristic of Israeli governments, which tend to drop dead before their time).
"But ANYONE who wants to help Iran obtain nuclear weapons is NOT a friend of Israel.." Who is this ANYONE, outside of some elements in Iran (obviously) plus a few James Bond style renegade scientists and arms merchants looking to move up to a bigger "lair" with a better school system (likely). In terms of US and Israeli politics, I think your Anyone is just a straw man, and Walmart straw man, not the nicer ones at Pottery Barn. It's certainly not the negotiators trying to halt the Iranian bomb program. True, negotiation might fail, but then those favoring a military solution are arguably even more likely to fail, but with a rather high risk of a very immediate and disagreeable regional fallout (literal and figurative).
In terms of US and Israeli politics, I think your Anyone is just a straw man, and Walmart straw man, not the nicer ones at Pottery Barn. It's certainly not the negotiators trying to halt the Iranian bomb program. True, negotiation might fail, but then those favoring a military solution are arguably even more likely to fail, but with a rather high risk of a very immediate and disagreeable regional fallout (literal and figurative).
Once again, you are caught up in the total BS meme of DEAL or WAR....
Sanctions WERE working...
There was no reason for this deal, save Obama's ego/legacy....
That's the point that no one here wants to address..
Probably because there is NO response to it other than a concession...
Michale
M-21
"Sanctions WERE working..."
They are working, but with respect to nuclear weapon research, sanctions were intended to make Iranian R and D slow and expensive. Sanctions are not a blockade, but they make the value of obtaining nuclear weapons (in a more distant future) not worth the ramped up cost (experienced in the here and now). Theory being that by changing the Iranian calculus, you push them to the negotiation table. Which has happened. A limited objective, paired to negotiations, which may or may not succeed to our liking.
Nobody wants to address the ego/legacy because it's, how, you say, bull shite. Shop it around a right wing blog and you'll find takers.
Seriously, your constant morphing of the topic amounts to throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something, anything, sticks. Remember topic Bernie?
Thought for the day: Wikipedia is proof than an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of keyboards doesn't produce Hamlet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no_elVGGgW8
Nobody wants to address the ego/legacy because it's, how, you say, bull shite. Shop it around a right wing blog and you'll find takers.
So you say... But the facts clearly show different..
They are working, but with respect to nuclear weapon research, sanctions were intended to make Iranian R and D slow and expensive.
So slow and so expensive that the Iranians would eventually give up..
That IS how the US destroyed the Soviet Union.. Remember??
The simple fact of the matter is that Iran would have eventually given up or been FORCED to give up it's nuclear program if the sanctions had been continued and increased..
But Obama needs a foreign policy "win" to cement his legacy...
Even if the "win" is very VERY bad for the region and this country...
But regardless of all that, it's a fact that the DEAL or WAR meme is complete and utter BS...
Which was my entire point...
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that it was universally documented here in Weigantia that, if the deal requires that the Iranian sanctions be dropped immediately then it's a bad deal and Obama should walk away..
Obama has hinted that dropping the sanctions immediately is exactly what he intends to do..
Now, assuming that's factual, do ya'all stand by what ya'all said before??
Or are you supporting Obama still??
Michale
M -
Netanyahu just lost the secular, but ultra hard line Yisrael Beitenu as a coalition partner. Netanyahu is down to 61 seats, a slender thread even by Israeli standards. He's hostage to his ultra-orthodox religious constituency.
M - Look up Haredi Judaism and ask yourself who is not supporting a viable State of Israel? As the saying goes, "with friends like these....."
Netanyahu just lost the secular, but ultra hard line Yisrael Beitenu as a coalition partner. Netanyahu is down to 61 seats, a slender thread even by Israeli standards. He's hostage to his ultra-orthodox religious constituency.
That's yer opinion and I respect that..
But it doesn't change the *fact* that there are other options between Obama's giveaway and war...
Michale