I don’t see much of a movement to get rid of the superdelegates. I think the prevailing attitude is they’re a good thing. I also don’t think many people care if primaries are open or closed, although I’m not opposed to open primaries. The caucuses have to go, however.
I am cautiously optimistic you are on target here.
As has been mentioned in other threads, for Bernie’s campaign to have a lasting impact it is imperative that the people drawn to the progressive cause get involved on the local or state level and work to see people elected who support those positions. Change is possible but to bring about a more progressive Democratic party it is necessary to work from the grassroots level up. Imposing this type of change from the top down is not likely to work.
Unfortunately, from the temper tantrums I am seeing on social media today that doesn’t appear likely to happen. The idea progress requires sustained effort over several election cycles seems very unfair to many of his followers. :rolleyes:
Right now, there is no evidence that the Sanders campaign will birth a lasting progressive movement, and plenty of historical precedent to suggest it won’t. It’s pretty much up to the man himself. How he comports himself in the next couple of weeks (basically now til the convention) will be very telling.
Given polling I’ve seen, there’s no evidence Sanders’s supporters as a whole are particularly progressive.
The ones I’ve come across fall into three camps - or a combination of them:
Progressives - “moderate democrats are almost republicans, we need to have European style social benefits - UHC, free college, better social safety net, do more for the environment.”
Disestablishmentarianists - “the establishment is corrupt. Outsiders are good. Change is cathartic. Hillary is part of a corrupt establishment”
Liberal unconscious (for the most part) misogynists - “I don’t like Hillary, she seems bitchy, mean, aggressive. She isn’t qualified. She is riding Bill’s coattails and has no accomplishments of her own.”
The last two are not progressives, they aren’t pro-anything - those people are simply against something.
Well actually a lot of support for Trump and Tea Party Republicans came from people who also share this view. So we have a situation where currently both the Democratic and the Republican establishments are tightly aligned with Wall Street and the clear majority of the population very negative about this. So it could well be a candidate who shares this view without the flaws of Sanders and Trump could win the in 2020.
Really? Maybe. I would say, rather, that it’s a mix of [ul]
[li]good government voters not wanting to vote for someone with Hillary’s record of dubious conflicts of interest and shady deals;[/li][li]anti-regime-change voters who want someone who didn’t push for the Second Gulf War;[/li][li]the younger online generation who realize that they’re getting a raw deal compared to people in other First World nations;[/li][li]ideological progressives who want a politician whose progressivism isn’t just campaign lies;[/li][li]environmentalists upset about Keystone XL and fracking (Bernie was the only anti-fracking candidate);[/li][*]and probably some protectionists who really hate TPP.[/ul]But yeah, your list is in there too.
Or, more likely, Trump will win this year.
Keep whistling past that graveyard!
The word “reform” in that sentence is superfluous.
his only major legacy will be to further pit the left against the Jewish State of Israel. No one is gonna accept his crazy proposals, communist tax levels, trying to implement single payer in the US, etc. Maybe the Dems will do $15 min wage instead of $12.5, maybe. But that’s it.
You are becoming a one-trick pony. Neither Sanders nor Obama has said anything upsetting about your beloved country.
When was the last time a nomination runner-up had a “legacy”? (No picking someone who was runnerup once and later actually got a nomination, like Reagan.)
So Sanders is one of those self hating jews, eh?
Is there no beginning to your knowledge on any given subject?
I WISH American taxes were as low as taxes in the Soviet Union.
yes, Bernie is a self-hater; he pretends to be from “Polish immigrants” even tho in Poland and much of Europe, being Jewish is considered a different ethnicity than Polish in Poland, Russian in Russia, etc. as Tatar and Chechen aren’t considered to be ethnically Russian even tho they’re physically in Russia. Bernie feeds deliberate mischaracterizations of Israel (like the Gaza death toll); you only lie about someone when you don’t like them and intend to hurt them. He tries to pal around with the Pope to make everyone think he’s “not really Jewish.” He hides from being Jews and demeans real Jewry; He’s a self-hater.
Given that Israel is a free democracy, per Freedom House, one’s moral compass can be gauged by how well or poorly he regards Israel in contextual comparison to its unfree, autocratic, closed society neighbors.
And back to Bernie’s legacy, it’ll amount to a big nothing, because the protectionism he and Trump are pushing will sound good until economics unpeel the economic recession it would cause. This country is too big as is the current health system to dismantle it and replace it with single payer. 90% taxes 60 years ago is very different than 80% taxes would be with today’s laws. Bernie was opposition that was supposed to be token but has no outworn its welcome.
You seem to be as ignorant of ethnicity in Europe as you are of the statements of the politicians you criticize. It’s ridiculous to claim that because someone mentions the country of their ancestry that they’re a “self-hater”.
Cite?
More utter nonsense.
Provide evidence that he shows less regard for Israel than Israel’s neighbors.
And does the same go for America? Given that America is a free democracy, is your moral compass gauged as very low considering the consistently false statements and baseless low regard you hold for America’s President?
He will have the same lasting legacy as Perot and Nader, which is to say…none. Basically, the same legacy as Trump, who will, happily, be forgotten when Clinton crushes him like a bug in November.
As to Clinton being pulled left, I doubt it. Candidates always run to their base during the primaries, but in the general election and certainly once she is elected I fully expect her to be basically Obama all over again. That’s why I’m voting for her in fact…I thought Obama was a good, solid choice and he certainly has been mostly a moderate as president and I expect the same from Clinton. Honestly, I think that’s the natural level most US presidents actually administer from in the end…possibly a bit right or left of center, but mainly if they want to actually get anything done they need to be fairly close to the US center. Bernie I expect would have either conformed to that model as well or he’d be another Carter, and outsider with very little political capital or ability to do more than make speeches. Trump, if he was elected would be the same thing…either he’d conform or he’d basically just be some idiot frothing at the mouth and posting on twitter about how he wants his stupid wall.
Small donor campaign financing. So big a change, we haven’t absorbed it yet. If TV advertising and such doesn’t work any more, and evidence indicates that it doesn’t, then what? How do you write a check to influence Facebook? Who do you bribe?
Remember when they spent $40 million dollars just in New Hampshire to bump Jeb(!) a couple of points…just a couple of points!…and failed? Why? Did Jeb(!) publicly eat a live rat onstage at his rally? Was he outed as a transexual Nazi? No, just the usual Candidate. Operating in the time honored, tested and reliable methods that always worked before.
Nothing changes. Until it does.
He should’ve eaten the rat. Donald would.
I have one thing to say in response: SCOTUS.