She is the Establishment incarnate, which is close enough.
So, I’m curious: do you believe that Trump will be better for the country (as President), since that will keep a member of the Establishment from the office?
Yes and yes. I can’t see how any fair-minded person could listen to Sanders’ speeches from (say) the past two weeks, and come away with the view that he is discouraging the Bernie or Bust movement. On the contrary, he has plainly been feeding it. I would challenge any skeptic to come up with any remark of his from those two weeks, in which he mentions Clinton with anything other than contempt–veiled or otherwise.
No, because Trump is even worse than his party’s Establishment, which is a thing always logically possible to be. But Sanders ain’t. The Dem Establishment is, I grant you, better than the Pub Establishment – but both are entirely committed to neoliberal economics and to the interests of the elite (the 1% for the Pubs, the 10% for the Dems), and America simply cannot afford to tolerate neoliberalism nor elitism any longer.
Do you have evidence of him doing that?
I have evidence of him doing the opposite:
[QUOTE=Bernie Sanders]
Yes, we do agree on a number of issues, and by the way, on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day.
[/quote]
Wow, sick burn on the evil incarnate opponent, huh.
Meanwhile, Clinton isn’t pushing for Bernie to leave the race because she has a good reason not to:
Clinton stayed in the race until the end in 2008. She gets enough people screaming he’s a hypocrite about enough things. Even if many of them are nonsense, why give them more red meat?
Sanders came into this race wanting to influence the narrative and put issues important to him at the foreground of the Democratic party’s concerns. He managed to do this despite great odds against him and it would be foolish of him to just wring his hands and concede when he can do that.
And as we can see, Hillary is also very cognizant of the fact that a unified front will be a lot better for her than one that alienates 40% of Democratic primary voters, a good chunk of them the future of the party.
Hillary Clinton is playing chess while the people who are rolling their eyes at Sanders staying in the race are playing checkers.
This was a last-ditch effort on the day that Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware were voting when in theory a big day might have helped him stay in the race mathematically. Since then he has definitely toned it down.
How is Bernie responsible for what Donald Trump says?
That whole “you’re not qualified,” “no, YOU’RE not qualified” kerfuffle was over in a day as Bernie backed away from the rhetoric.
Sanders is saying how terrible Trump is. A lot. And he started a long time ago.
And the troubles begin for Bernie…
Sanders’ fundraising is slowing just when he needs it most – for California
Unfortunately, the Times is the only place I could find this story and it will soon be behind a paywall…so hit it while you can.
Yes, a long time ago he said it a lot.
Recent months? A few times, somewhat begrudgingly most often when he does. The message to his crowds though? Attacking Clinton. And where he once discouraged his crowds from booing her, he now pauses for the booing expectantly.
I think I believe him when he states that once he accepts/acknowledges that he has lost the nomination
But I also think I believe him when he states that he will not accept that he has lost the nomination until the vote is actually taken at the convention and he has lost it. Taking him at his word, up to that point he will be doing his best to characterize Clinton as negatively as possible and stoke the unfavorables of her in his supporters as much as he can, no matter how much potential harm it causes.
CNN and The Washington Post have also covered this.
Please. I am not claiming he does not say it at all now, hell I quoted him saying it recently. The “a lot” part is the in dispute portion.
To whatever degree he is focusing on that message now I applaud him.
He started out saying this after he won NH a few months ago:
Now is the time to return to that rhetorical approach as the mainline message.
Sanders isn’t responsible for what Trump says, but it’s obvious that if someone attacks another person in their own party, it’s an easy attack for the opposing party to pick up. Clinton has been using other Republican’s attacks against Trump about being terrible and bad for America in ads. But all the attacks on Trump are true, but calling Clinton unqualified is undeniably not.
Regarding Sanders calling Clinton unqualified, here’s what he originally said at his rally:
And here’s what he said a week later at the Democratic debate:
So he did walk back specifically saying she’s unqualified, he’s otherwise still saying pretty much the same thing. Granted, it is a debate, and so obviously both candidates should be saying why they are better and should be voted for, but you can disagree on policy and decisions without attacking on judgment and character. The early debates were much more cordial, with the candidates basically saying that they agree on a lot, but disagree on some of the specifics.
I can’t watch the Youtube video at work, but the press release from Sanders is good, but it’s mainly talking about Trump inciting violence at his rallies, and I believe it’s in response to Trump accusing Sanders supporters of causing trouble at his rallies. Sanders did call Trump a national embarrassment last year, but that was a while ago in campaign time. And in a recent NPR interview, he does say “I think that a Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster for this country. And I intend to do everything that I can to see that that does not happen.” But right before that, he says this:
He doesn’t seem very committed to preventing a Trump presidency if he keeps going on about how he’d have a better chance of winning, and refusing to say he’d support Clinton as the nominee. I’m hoping he does come around and endorse her, but I’m worried that Sanders is keeping up the hopes of a lot of his supporters unnecessarily after he’s mathematically not going to win the nomination, and too many of those disillusioned supporters will not go vote for Clinton.
I totally agree. I don’t think Sanders should drop out necessarily, but he could stay on the campaign trail and promote his ideas without trashing Clinton and saying how superdelegates should change their minds.
This might get overlooked among all the rest, but Sanders has a very strong point there: Hillary was involved in negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Bill in NAFTA. Either should be viewed as a categorical disqualifier.
Bait and switch. There is a world of difference between Sanders describing her as part of the problem and saying she is “evil incarnate”, or really anything close to that.
And of course, if you care to learn more about my phone, do contact me in PM.
Granted, the email is a cheap shot. But I don’t find it to be part of a concerted effort to demonize Clinton. Sanders has previously mentioned, however, that he acknowledges that any Republican is terrible compared to Clinton. So it doesn’t seem to me that he is really trying to demonize her at all, or at least anymore than one is expected to do during the heat of a primary race when you’re playing from behind.
Not for me, especially considering the Neanderthal she’ll be running against.
Sanders needs to pivot to Plan B. Plan B involves a bigger Progressive Caucus and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. It also involves hundreds or thousands of motivated progressives taking seats at the local and state level.
Currently Hillary’s twitter feed attacks Trump. Sanders’ tweets remain generic and mostly concern income distribution and money in politics. I guess the Vermont Senator doesn’t want to get into a spat with Trump. If he has it in him, I’d like Sanders to go pit-bull on the Donald, after gaming the strategy out (figuring out how Drumpf would respond, then prepping a rejoinder). But I doubt he would take that course.
Sanders doesn’t have to. But I’m unclear about his current game plan.
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton
https://twitter.com/SenSanders
(Heh. While I was writing this post, a Sanders guy appeared at my door. Nice guy. I told him I would be voting for Hillary, but wished him well and said that I hoped he will be supporting the Democratic nominee in the Fall. I like Bernie, but in common with most Democrats I also like Hillary.)
Bernie was on Rachel Maddow Friday night, and he said unequivocally that if not the nominee he would do everything in his power to defeat Trump. It seemed pretty unambiguous to me.
Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
(Warning to Bernheads: better get your cymbals ready.)
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Bernie Sanders has one of those middling intellects that are sufficient to memorize and spout talking points, but not to really think independently or deeply about policy. Here’s an example from an interview I heard recently on NPR:
Here Sanders has stumbled across a center-left talking point he likes the sound of, one that would be perfectly at home in a speech by someone like Hillary Clinton; but he doesn’t seem to realize how it clashes with his other, more “socialist”, messages about health care. Let’s unpack this a bit. He is actually objecting to the middle class having to pay taxes for single-payer (Medicaid) health care for the working class (which is also dishonest because most of the cost of Medicaid is paid by wealthy or at least affluent taxpayers) because Walmart’s “wages are so low”. So apparently he believes that a private company should pay higher wages so…their employees can buy private insurance on a free market not subsidized by the government? What is this, the Cato Institute? :smack:
But of course, the rest of the time he advocates single payer socialized medicine, and increasing everyone’s payroll taxes, including the middle class, to pay for it. And one argument you often hear for why universal, government-provided healthcare is good is that it frees businesses from being responsible for their workers’ healthcare. So all in all, this message is just very confused and incoherent. If he were more intelligent, I think that would have occurred to him by now.
Not to mention, he needs to make up his mind about whether it’s society’s responsibility to subsidize the poor, or corporations’. We created some of these programs specifically to include the working poor, but if the working poor take advantage of them then we’re subsidizing the corporations? Were these corporations providing health insurance before Medicaid?
Anyway, anyone who has followed Sanders for long enough knows that his honesty is his primary virtue, not his depth of policy knowledge. He keeps talking about Europe, but little in his agenda relates to the Scandinavian model. It’s basically the same old American version of democratic socialism that’s been pushed since the progressive era. As with most American versions of other cultures’ ideologies, it’s a cheap knockoff.