Many? I wonder how much of the American electorate says to itself “none of the candidates are far enough to the left, so I won’t vote at all.” Given that many of the far-left parties don’t run their own candidates, but endorse the Democrat, I doubt if many of the die-hard lefties are going to change their vote in 2016.
Plus Sanders is caught in the usual dilemma - if he is far enough to the left of the Democratic mainstream, he risks alienating the moderates who will decide the general election.
If Sanders is pinning his hopes of election on yellow dog Democrats and socialists, he is going to fail, not merely among Republicans, but among Reagan Democrats as well.
If he gets the nomination, which I hope but don’t think he will.
How effective an attack can it be to compare Sanders to Corbyn, when both of those men have been quite open about comparing themselves? Especially when the ways in which they’re similar are things that both want to want to highlight about their campaigns? That looks more like free publicity than like an attack, to me.
Not particularly - Trump is anti-immigrant, and an attention whore. Sanders is anti-rich people, and an idiot.
Both would be disastrous for their parties should they be nominated, and neither would be able to achieve anything of what they advocate should either (God forbid) be elected. So they have that in common.
But overall, no - large numbers of disaffected voters are not going to turn out for Sanders, and large numbers of disaffected voters are not going to turn out for Trump. Certainly not nearly enough to make up for the “anybody but that ass” voters, on both sides of the aisle.
The Democrats should be hoping that Trump gets the GOP nod as fervently as I hope Sanders gets the nod for the Dems.
Do you think that disaffected voters are going turn out MORE for Hillary?! And I say this as a pretty big Hillary supporter, but I don’t see how this is an argument against Sanders really given his almost Obama-like ability to inspire supporters.
If Sanders gets the nod he beats anyone you put up. Until the GOP makes some serious changes in how they reach out to minorities in this country they are going to keep winning midterm elections when no one really votes except old white people and losing in Presidential years when youth/minorities turn out.
I don’t think they will. I doubt there is a lot of enthusiasm for Hillary per se - she is the default, as the candidate most likely to succeed. She is not very charismatic - it is just sort of taken for granted that she is the next up.
Among moderates? I have seen no indication of that.
We will see, if and when Sanders gets the nom (he won’t). But I strongly suspect you are incorrect - he would do a lot more to energize the Republican base than he would the Democratic one.
That was basically true in 2008. 2012, Obama won because he was the incumbent (although the Dems lost ground in Congress overall).
I seriously doubt if Sanders is so charismatic that he will energize the youth vote, and he won’t get the automatic black vote that Obama does/did.
But like I say, I hope and doubt that Sanders is the Democratic nominee.
Adlai Stevenson’s quip applies here. He was once told, “Don’t worry, all the thinking people are on your side.” He responded “That’s not enough - I need a majority.” He wasn’t quite right - Bill Clinton got elected twice without ever getting a majority of the vote. But either Sanders sells himself as a socialist, in which case he loses badly, or he tries to veer centrist, and loses somewhat less badly.
Early days, of course - the first primary isn’t for five months.
Sanders has an “almost Obama-like ability” to inspire the people who already support him and get them to the polls. He doesn’t have Obama’s ability to inspire a much wider base.
In this he’s more comparable to Ron Paul supporters who always rabidly insisted that THIS time he was going to swept into office based on the fervor they feel for him (although I’d take Sanders over Paul Sr in a heartbeat).
Yeah, Sanders is more Paul than Obama. Or to be more generous, Howard Dean. Given Sanders credit for trying, but right now he’s only winning over the white male portion of the Democratic base, which is a pretty small demographic. If Republicans can’t win just appealing to THEIR white males, how can a progressive win doing that?
Now don’t get me wrong, I do think Sanders can win, and I think he’ll make progress on expanding his base because he’s trying hard. But comparisons to Obama are just a bit inaccurate. What he’s got a better chance of doing is duplicating Howard Dean’s campaign momentum without the sudden flameout.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Among moderates? I have seen no indication of that.
[/quote]
I don’t forsee Sanders getting the nom so this is more about engaging in fun hypotheticals, but on the off chance he does I do see him getting some moderates. Hell, he went into Liberty University andgot supporters based on thatso I think as he expands his campaign he gets more than only the far left.
[QUOTE=adaher]
Yeah, Sanders is more Paul than Obama. Or to be more generous, Howard Dean. Given Sanders credit for trying, but right now he’s only winning over the white male portion of the Democratic base, which is a pretty small demographic. If Republicans can’t win just appealing to THEIR white males, how can a progressive win doing that?
Now don’t get me wrong, I do think Sanders can win, and I think he’ll make progress on expanding his base because he’s trying hard. But comparisons to Obama are just a bit inaccurate. What he’s got a better chance of doing is duplicating Howard Dean’s campaign momentum without the sudden flameout.
[/quote]
Howard Dean’s campaign failed because the people behind it did a poor job of centering the movement around the candidate. I feel they’ve learned those lessons. “Eg: Feel the Bern.”
I also misspoke earlier about that Sanders beats anyone you put up. I do see Kasich who is probably the most rational candidate in the race winning over him but that would take a win in New Hampshire and enough momentum from that to go into the rest of the competition. Then again, that was McCain’s unsuccessful strategy in 2000 and successful one in 2008.
The problem with Sanders isn’t the candidate, it’s what happens to the Democratic Party if he’s the nominee. The last time the Democrats nominated someone much more liberal than average, the party fractured and a lot of mainstream Democrats refused to endorse the ticket.
A lot of Democrats are not going to support a self-proclaimed socialist on the ticket.
. . . The last Democratic nominee “much more liberal than average” was McGovern. In 1972. And he was liberal mainly in opposing the Vietnam War, which many self-ID’d liberals supported. You really can’t draw comparisons between the political climate then and now.
Translation: Became a cuck for the plutocrats on Social Security
Anyways both McGovern and before him Eugene McCarthy went about being more liberal than average the wrong way-ie by emphasizing cultural and foreign policy issues rather than economic ones. It was this sort of civil libertarian streak, no doubt, that caused McGovern to cuck on SS and McCarthy to endorse the Libertarians in 1980.
I’m not sure what you want them to do. the US has been slowly moving right on economic issues since the day WW2 ended. We’re not turning that clock back. Now there are some new ideas out there which could be helpful, like free college, but the age of redistribution has come and gone.
I’m pretty sure this contradicts the other neoliberal/conservative narrative of the social welfare state having constantly expanded without ever having been reversed, only delayed.
Simply put I would want the full and complete application of the Second Bill of Rights as outlined by President Roosevelt in 1944.
Why should we not turn the clock back? The “postwar consensus” period in American and Europe created universal middle-income societies with basic social safety nets, well paying jobs, and low income inequality all of which have been eroded in modern times as every statistic will tell you.
People aren’t interested in Corbyn and Sanders because they like Doris Day, Hula Hoops and Levi shrink to fits.
It’s a horrid phrase for most Americans but the fact is unfettered capitalism, through it’s political agents, has led a class war against working people for 40 years - employee rights and incomes have stagnated or reduced while the owners of capital get richer and richer. Proportionally, it’s becoming more and more like some Dickensian novel.
