Ignoring the fact that you didn’t answer my question :dubious: the Democratic “field” is only “so small” compared to the Republican one. Granted, it’s a year and a quarter to the election but this cycle’s GOP crop is astonishing in its breadth (if not its quality… :rolleyes:) My missus pulled up a site last night of GOP candidates (I wish she had sent me the link) listing 36 candidates. Besides the usual suspects (Bush, Trump, Walker, Jindal, Huckabee, Fiorina, Cruz, etc.) was a whole slew I’ve never heard of. And I follow primaries pretty closely.
By comparison, the Democratic field (including Clinton, Sanders, Chafee, O’Malley and Webb) is 16, at least listed on that site. BTW, that is not counting Biden or Warren, who are listed as “potentials.” :dubious: And Gore wasn’t on there at all.
As for “McGovern 2.0,” if he’s the guy getting the big crowds, sooner or later the money men are going to say “He’s the horse that we’re backing.”
I think those numbers might, might be reflective of how little affection the public has toward the Republican field than how much love they have for Bernie. I don’t see him being outright unelectable, but as his positions on the issues become better known his numbers will change. Whether good or bad is yet to be seen.
I’d love to see Sanders pull off a string of unexpected victories in the Democratic primaries at the very beginning, if only to see how the Hillary camp will respond.
I don’t think the numbers have any predictive ability at this point. I also don’t understand what “if things break well” might mean. What would those things be? Clinton having a stroke? Finding the equivalent of a Koch brother to give his campaign three billion dollars? The Democratic establishment drowning itself in despair? What rational turn of events could make Sanders a viable candidate when the party already has a certain winner?
I gave my criteria for the Republican candidate recently: not crazy, backed by the Establishment, a huge supply of money. Note that these are also what I just said for the Democrats. The Establishment is not as important to the Dems as to the Reps, true. But there has to be a equivalent force, like Clinton had with the Democratic Leadership Committee. I don’t know of one composed of progressives.
Lots of progressives would like to see one form. Possibly one will because of Sanders. Maybe that can lead to a progressive candidate in 2024.
Until then, a momentary spike of popularity for Sanders means nothing, just as Trump’s momentary spike in popularity does. That doesn’t gain nominations or win elections in a presidential year.
It’s interesting to look at Sanders’ unexpected popularity in the context of the similar surge by Jeremy Corbyn in the UK Labour Party leadership race. Like Sanders, Corbyn is an elder statesman from the far- (but not loony-) left of the party who entered the race on the presumption that his presence would drag the overall party position to the left, only to discover that a surprisingly large percentage of the voting public actually favor his positions. In Corbyn’s case he’s actually the frontrunner for a job he didn’t think he had a chance of getting, and the other more moderate (read: generic/corporatist/Tory-lite) candidates are working with the current party management to undermine his bid.
I’m not sure what will happen with Corbyn and I doubt Sanders will get out in front, but in both cases it does suggest that there is a significant left-of-center contingent trying to get their views heard.
(Personally I’m supporting Corbyn at this point largely because he’s the only one with any actual political positions and the only one capable of answering questions he’s asked rather than spouting pre-vetted meaningless babble unrelated to the question. I don’t want a return to Old Labour but Burnham, Cooper and Kendall are useless wankers who don’t care what the party does as long as they get to sit in the Big Chair. But I digress.)
Rick Perlstein has a long article in Salon that apparently disagrees strongly.
I have no idea who Nate Cohn is and I didn’t read the NYTimes article Perlstein is citing.
Perlstein’s counter-argument is that the Establishment sometimes backs losers and shadowy big money is calling the shots. Marco Rubio is completely funded, and I mean his entire life is funded, by one guy, Norman Braman.
So who’s going to win the nomination under this analysis? No idea. Perlstein never bothers to take it any farther. Apparently he thinks this is news unto itself and doesn’t need a deeper meaning. Of course the Establishment sometimes backs losers. But so did the big secret money guys. So what? Why will it be different this time?
Anyway, if this is what you want to believe in, here’s some ammunition. I don’t think this has much meaning. If you want a deeper argument along my pov, check out Cohn’s article, which also winds up talking most about Bush, Rubio, and Walker, my three likelies. Since there are obviously huge money guys behind all three then Perlstein is covered both ways.
As for Sanders, if he wants a truly national campaign he’ll find some money or they’ll find him or both.
I was going to say that Trump is irrelevant, but that’s not true. He’s been completely disruptive. First, he’s completely cut the legs out from under Fiorina and Carson, the other two non-politicians. And he’s cut the media time of the other low-level loud mouths almost as much. He’ll be part of the first debate. Who he pushes out doesn’t matter, because they never would have. Either he’ll emerge with all the media time or they’ll find a new toy to play with. If the latter then some trends will become apparent; if the former then the others will cut each other to pieces to get attention.
Dealing with elderly people (my parents, actually), I remember when Dukakis ran. My mom says, “He’s too short to be president.” No shit! She also thought (at the time) that Dukakis was not American sounding enough for voters to back him. Hmm… Even if Barack was white, HIS name would’ve had to be changed to John Stanford Harvard, or something back then.
But this is valid when discussing who’s getting nominated. Americans have a picture of presidents. They’re tall, rich, successful, healthy, etc.
So your “average” American doesn’t want a short guy named Bernie. Bernie’s the guy that sweeps the floors at night. John Stanford Harvard, that tall guy, HE’LL show us what to do.
Do you even support a living wage? I expect Sanders probably does, or a more generous negative income tax. Who, then, wants consumers to have more money?
I held one of those kickoff parties at my house. We were spilling out the doors, SRO.
Young college-age kids and twenty-somethings came … and brought their parents so they could see who Bernie Sanders is and hear what he has to say. Sound at all familiar?
You know who else he’s drawing, believe it or not? Libertarians. And don’t forget, he may be running on the Democratic ticket, but he’s actually a capital-I Independent. You know who likes Independents? Registered Independents who until now have *never * been able to vote for someone who is *actually * an Independent candidate.
They are coming out for him by the thousands in conservative red states like Louisiana (~5,000 people) and cities like Phoenix (11,000+ people. In July.). Even Barack Obama wasn’t doing that at this stage of the 2007/2008 campaign.
You know who else is going to really, really love him once this thing really gets going and we have debates and primaries? Old people. 1. He’s old; they can relate to him far more than that smarmy Ted Cruz. 2. This is the year the Republicans make their hard sell on vouchers for Medicare, making people work longer before retirement and handing Social Security over to the same Wall Street thieves who crashed the economy. Republicans are so screwed with this constituency this time.
Oh there’s more than hope, there’s a damn good chance. Voters are sick to death of the same shit different party and nothing getting better in their lives. Bernie represents something new, something radically different, but most of all, someone not another Bush or Clinton.
