Bernie’s doing this because he believes he can pull Hillary leftward. He has no delusions of actually winning the nomination; he just wants to have an impact and an airing of the issues he cares about.
That’s what I was thinking. It’s certainly much more parsimonious than proposing some secret cabal of DNC members recruiting Bernie. And then assuming he would agree to go through the rigors of a campaign just to help HRC get elected through some imagined effect that will supposedly linger into the general election. Still, I think it’s rather futile to think that anyone is going to “pull Hillary leftward” in any meaningful way-- ie, that will have an effect on how she would govern. I think the idea that it gives him a platform for his ideas is the best answer to why he’s running. He’s smart enough to know he isn’t going to win.
Is there anyone else out there who would?
Maybe you guys are speaking a secret lefty lingo here, but what does “crippling the oligarchy” involve? Hard to analyze how Sanders or Warren or Clinton or whoever would do it if we aren’t sure what it is they would be doing.
Also, given the nature of power vacuums, who is the new boss once the old boss is done away with?
Works for me. John Edwards had a similar effect on Obama and Hillary in 2007-2008, even though his chances were remote (though not as remote as Bernie’s).
Does it really matter though? That kind of talk is only for the primaries. Then there’s the crap they say during the general election campaign, followed by how they actually govern. How Clinton actually governs is likely to be affected not one iota by Bernie Sanders, or even Liz Warren if she ran. All that changes is the kind of things she says to mollify her left flank. Which will be just words.
I’m just a little nutball and have no sense of subtlety or cunning, but I’d be pleased enough to see someone who could inspire congress to rapidly implement a taxation and commerce structure that strongly favors sole-proprietorship businesses and penalizes large ones; eliminates the concept of corporate personhood so actual individuals are held personally accountable for the actions of their company; and generally compels the very rich to provide decent living conditions for the very poor. How does one inspire congress to do that? Well if I knew, you’d be voting for me in a couple years; and only me because nobody would dare challenge me. As for old boss/new boss–that’s an issue humanity has been dealing with since forever. Not a problem that needs solving.
Talk of Overton Window and pulling HRC to the left are where it’s at.
If he can garner enough excitement and pull in a significant number of apathetic Progressives, he can build a block of voters that will give him leverage to get some of his ideas onto the party platform. He can bring up issues and ideas that HRC would have to respond to.
I was going to cast a write-in for Kucinich in the primary (and then maybe Mickey Mouse or Alexander Lukashenko in the general), but if Sanders is really going to run, maybe I’ll vote for him. I can’t stand Hillary, that’s for sure.
I don’t think Sanders or Kucinich would remotely have a chance of winning, but hopefully they can expose Hillary Clinton’s neocon-lite foreign policy.
By this logic, isn’t Cruz pulling the Window to the right?
Sadly I can’t find it now, but I read a fairly convincing article several years ago about how, despite the conventional wisdom to the contrary, Presidential Candidates generally do try and deliver on their primary campaign rhetoric, even the stuff they initially adopt just to fend off a challenger.
The example I recall was the Bush tax-cuts. These were probably Bush’s signature domestic policy, but it wasn’t part of his primary campaign until Steve Forbes started polling well in New Hampshire due to his aggressive tax-cutting rhetoric, and forced Bush into a bunch of “more tax-cuttery than thou” back-and-forth.
(ETA: I think this is actually a different article here, but it makes the same points and cites the same studies)
Good point, but there are counter examples. Obama responded to Clinton and Edwards’ health care plans by taking a stance firmly against an individual mandate, which he knew that young voters, people he needed to win, didn’t like.
No, because he is just too ineffectual and ridiculous, which Sanders is not.
In politics, ineffectual and ridiculous is all about how much support you get. Cruz is going to win more delegates than Sanders.
Yes, but neither Obama nor Clinton put anything like universal health coverage on the table until Edwards did. Ditto climate change - Edwards got out front on that, and the other two followed.
And of course, any plan mandating no penalty for pre-existing conditions has to have an individual mandate to work. A PPACA that didn’t work, or no PPACA at all, would have been a much greater failure to keep a promise than the reversal on the individual mandate.
Interesting point. Aside from the “ineffectual and ridiculous” argument (which I think has some validity) they can both be pulling in opposite directions at the same time. In which case Sanders can at least negate to some extent the effects of Cruz.
But it’s not necessarily about the Overton Window which, as I understand it, refers to the overall political spectrum. It’s possible the Sanders could pull the Democratic Party towards the left, while Cruz pulls the Republican Party to the right.
I think the opposite is just as likely to happen. He’s not likely to be a serious challenge to Clinton for the nomination, and she can use the whole primary season hippie-punching on Sanders to play to the center of the general electorate.
The Republican system for delegates is completely different. It’s like saying Cruz will hit more three-pointers than Sanders hole-in-one drives.
Sanders has never called himself a Democrat before - has long insisted he’s not one - and now he wants the party’s nomination for President? Feh. Take a hike, pal.