Written from a Sanderesque POV of course (polling at roughly 13% up is “barely hanging on” in NY? Really?) but still it does represent the anti-Clinton sentiment now fanned that will need an active healing process before the general. Yes, Sanders condemned it later, but he is being introduced by people calling Clinton and company corporate Democratic whores to cheers of approval from the crowd.
Now I do believe that of the 42% that have voted for Sanders so far only a small fraction are the hardcore who think of the rest of the part as neoliberal scum and corporate whores. BG’s link overstates by far. But I would not want to understate either.
Somehow I never seem to hear about those things when Sanders speaks. What he mostly talks about is wealth inequality, etc., and that is a sign of loyalty to the public.
There isn’t a lot to do about the lack of wealth a typical Bernie Bro or Sanders voter in Vermont. They tend to be so gullible or stupid that they waste money on stupid shit like lottery tickets, organic food, worthless social justice warrior college degrees, or alternative medicine. Some people should have no wealth. Money is simply a ledger that keeps track of how much society is in debt to you for. Some spend every bit of surplus that they can get their hands on. It’s their right to make dumb decisions that lead the them being broke.
I suppose if you start from February polling and include that ridiculous Emerson poll that showed her up 45pts then she’s lost all kinds of support.
The stability of the polling since the first of April of course suggests that earlier polls didn’t represent a trend so much as they represented a need for better polling which includes polling closer to the election date. If there was a huge trend of Clinton shedding 50% of her support in March, it wouldn’t have immediately leveled off come April 1st.
So, one of the most expensive places to live in the world, where new college grads have the highest debt to income ratioin the world, on a continental scale?
It’s fanciful to think it is possible to scale that system over such a huge area and diverse population, even if it was desirable. It just won’t work here. It’s not even working well there.
Not what the data shows, Vermont is 4th among states with **the least **amount of bankruptcies per capita. 115 per 100,000 population.
The top ten with more bankruptcies? Almost all Red states, with only one battleground state (Nevada) and one blue (Illinois).
The worst is Tennessee with 610 per 100,000, so if there is some logic on what you are talking about we really need to get rid of Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, both of them Republican.
It is not the enemy in front that I fear, but the division which too often makes itself manifest in progressive ranks - it is that division, that dispersion of forces, that internecine struggle in the moments of great emergency, in the moments when the issue hangs in the balance - it is that division which, I fear, may weaken our efforts and may perhaps deprive us of success otherwise within our grasp. - Winston Churchill, May 4, 1908
You are subtly shifting the goal posts. Claiming someone has ties to an industry is not the same as claiming their “loyalty” lies with that industry ahead of the people. By that logic, Sanders, along with Clinton, is loyal to the defense industry. Pox on both their houses, right?
Moment taken. I think the author is wanting the take-away to be that socialism is a popular identifier among Democratic voters. But I think instead the take-away is how unreflective of the general Democratic voting population, let alone the general voting population, caucusgoers are.
Agreed that that is the main fuel. The attraction is less what that unknown devil is than that it is a different thing.
Well, no. It’s really meaningless, period. It is just something easy to say. Which isn’t to say it can never be done but the actual path will require some patient dedication to a long game.
Get some power at the state legislature levels, voting in all elections, not just Presidential ones, and progress can be made. Will this “revolution” deliver that day in and day out putting miles in the bank (to use the marathon training analogy)? That’s the biggest question really.
So let’s look at a couple of those candidates.
Canova primarying Wasserman-Schultz. That should be the cage match of a progressive taking on the establishment of the party. Very liberal district and poster child for everything the progressive movement is against within the the party. If the movement cannot prevail there then where?
Well maybe NY. Zephyr Teachout has been fundraising very well and is one of the three progressives that Sanders has now identified he will actually help fundraise for. Sanders may have done poorly in NY but he won that district. Still, winning the general is not a given.
The second progressive that Sanders has agreed to support is also already strong: Lucy Flores in Nevada has been polling with a 20 point margin pretty much since last June. Hopefully a November win too!
His third labelled helpee is Pramila Jayapal, running for very liberal Jim McDermott’s seat as he retires - Seattle area. Good shot but not much of a change from what they’ve had.
Those multiple other challengers listed in the article he is not supporting so far? I haven’t researched all of them but did one at random, Susannah Randolph. Soto seems favored in the primary but the district is fairly solidly D. If she pulls it off she has a good chance of winning. Not quite the anti-establishment candidate though. She was the current representative’s district director and her husband is the Tax Collector of Orange County. Her sales pitch?
Sounds like a realist, an incrementalist to me.
Another listed in that article is Tom Fiegen, an early and enthusiastic supporter of Sanders in Iowa, hoping to be the Democratic standard bearer against Grassley. But not one of the three that Sanders has said he’d help so far. Of course the race is considered safely Republican.
Yet another, Jamie Raskin in MD? Did not endorse Sanders, has the support of the Democratic establishment, and is proud of it.
This is the evidence of “a wave of candidates committed to a bold set of progressive ideas and a mass of voters with the political will to elect them”?