Immediately followed your quote.
But more to the point.
Can you see any part of this reality from that fantasy tower you are standing on?
He is “legitimate” … that much is real.
But you completely miss the how and why Obama was able to win.
Obama, despite being pegged a leftist or a socialist (oddly enough by both the Right and the Left, neither of whom seemed to believe he meant what he said), actually was espousing very centrist positions, positions that Americans cared about. He actually appealed to … well people like me … be it somewhat left of (like me) or right of, are more defined as “center.” Primary voters recognized he could win the general and would be a great President (and I think he has been, YMMV).
And more than anything else Obama’s team out-played Hillary’s in the game. His team created a complete game plan that they were able to execute well. His team knew that the race was not a national popularity poll but all about the delegate count. They were able to raise the money they needed and then some.
Sanders does not appeal across the spectrum of the Democratic Party. Hardly anyone voting in the primaries thinks he could actually win a general election, unless maybe it is against Trump or Cruz. The article you linked to, how he will run? Notably has little in it about how he will run. Okay … he will peg Clinton to Obama and run against Obama for the Democratic nomination. Yeah, that’s a winning idea. Yes, he will be competitive in New Hampshire and maybe even Iowa. And that is the game plan to pick up enough delegates to win?
Centrist liberals like me won’t risk throwing the Presidency to the GOP by voting for him, even if we personally liked him and all of what he says: he’s no Obama.
Sanders appeals to the Democratic equivalent to the GOP voters who are saying Trump: both are as “other” of a choice as is currently possible. And a sizable fraction on each side wants “other” - but it is not and will not be a majority for either party.
No question though - he speechifies better than HR Clinton does and he believably articulates a vision. Hillary is a bit more like GH Bush in that regard: a bit light on “the vision thing.” She is more just the best qualified applicant for an important job.
And speaking of distorted fantasies …
Yes, here is the “scandal” -
Within the State department some have, likely always have, likely still do and will continue to, disagree about what should be labelled “classified”. Some looking back over past documents will make a different call than people at the time did. As a result information that some now believe should have been labelled as “classified” was not and that information got onto the State department’s non-classified systems (which are no more secure than Hillary’s private server) and from there to Hillary’s private server.
The “scandal” is that there are disagreements over what should have been and should be “classified.” Really that is it. Once that decision was made by whoever was responsible for that decision at the time the “harm” (whatever the harm was) was done.
Clinton behaved according to the precedent in her position and had nothing on her server that was labelled classified, nothing that was not already out on non-classified (i.e. less secure and likely hacked) State Department servers. For all we know (given that “we” know other parties have hacked those systems) some of it was intentional misinformation meant to be overheard. Certainly I’d be leaking false information like that if I was in charge (with real information about the false leak only available via the most secure top level communication channels).
Yes, meanwhile deciding if a preferred toilet paper brand is top secret information or not is boring to most of us.
This really should be specifically addressed, especially since you are trying to compare Sanders to Obama.
What gave Obama his path to victory in Iowa and beyond was not packing in stadiums (although he eventually managed that as well). It was his bringing the techniques of community organizing to the campaign game, meeting smaller groups one on one and leveraging them. Hillary’s team has learned from that playbook. “House meetings” with a hundred or so in Iowa City do not make the news but they are the groundwork that this stage requires, the grassroots infrastructure that brought Obama his win.
And boy she does not hide so well.
I understand why you might believe that, but it’s factually inaccurate.
*Sanders is the amendment king of the current House of Representative. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker – not Tom DeLay, not Nancy Pelosi – has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions.
Bernie Sanders Reveals Truths About Horror Show That Is Congress *
[Quote=adaher]
has no foreign policy experience,
[/quote]
That too, it’s entirely untrue. You don’t spend 30 years in Congress and twice chair the committee on veterans’ affairs and gain no experience on foreign policy issues. You don’t have to like all his positions on matters of foreign affairs, but to say he’s inexperienced is inaccurate. Besides which, what foreign affairs experience did Reagan or W have before becoming president? Answer: absolutely zero. So it’s a straw man argument anyway.
[Quote=adaher]
and is way outside the mainstream on the issues.
[/quote]
This is also wildly incorrect.
*About three-quarters (74 percent) of Americans—including 84 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of independents, and 62 percent of Republicans—believe that corporations have too much influence on American life and politics today, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll.
A Pew Research Center survey found that 60 percent of Americans believe that “the economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy.” Eighty-four percent of Americans think that money has too much influence in politics. Slightly more Americans (85 percent) want an overhaul of our campaign finance system.
Seventy-three percent of Americans favor tougher rules for Wall Street financial companies and 58percent ofAmericans support breaking up “big banks like Citigroup.”
Sixty-nine percent of Americans—including 90 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents, and 45 percent of Republicans—believe that the government should help reduce the gap between the rich and everyone else. Eighty-two percent of Americans—including 94 percent of Democrats, 83 percent of independents, and 64 percent of Republicans—think the government should help reduce poverty.
A recent poll by Hart Research Associates found that 75 percent of Americans (including 53 percent of Republicans) support an increase in the federal minimum wage to $12.50 an hour by 2020. Sixty-three percent support an even greater increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020.
So his positions are mainstream Americans’ positions. Including Independents and Republicans. You probably don’t know that because you hang out in places where you’re more likely to get confirmation of your biases (other than here, if course).
[Quote=adaher]
If he does beat Clinton, it will be on character issues. He’s honest, he’s an adult when it comes to setting priorities and recognizing the tradeoffs involved(Clinton understands these things but doesn’t trust the voters to understand them so she talks down to us), and he’s a straight talker.
[/QUOTE]
But you are 100 percent correct about this. People are fed up with political double-speak and pandering and that’s a big reason why he’s going to cream Hillary Clinton.
This assumes that Sanders is a) unaware of how grassroots organizing works and b) that he’s not doing it. Both assumptions are incorrect. One of the big reasons he has been able to draw such huge crowds is because of the groundwork that preceded those events. More than 100,000 people gathered in thousands of homes across the country to watch him on livestream talk about his positions and how to oganize locally for him. Obama never did that and it has had an enormous impact on getting Sanders’ message out there. Second, he has a lot of experienced people working on his team, including former Obama campaign people.
- Digital firm Revolution Messaging runs Sanders’ online fundraising and social media efforts — big for a candidate who’ll rely on small-dollar contributions and benefits from a strong social-media presence. Four members of the team worked on Barack Obama’s insurgent 2008 campaign — Scott Goodstein, who ran Obama’s social media efforts; Shauna Daly, who was deputy research director for the campaign; Arun Chaudhary, who ultimately became the first official White House videographer; and Walker Hamilton, the site architect for Obama’s campaign.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/bernie-sanders-2016-campaign-staff-power-players-118282.html*
[Quote=DSeid]
And boy she does not hide so well.
[/QUOTE]
Sure. At another pre-arranged fundraising dinner. She refused to take the soapbox at the Fair like every other candidate did, according to a report by Donna Apter on NPR, “realizing she’d be heckled by the crowd.” You don’t win massive support hiding from crowds at fundraising dinners, no matter how many of your fans you manage to squeeze into a ballroom.
Bernie Sanders Draws More People Than Clinton Or Trump With Crowd That Stopped Iowa State Fair
Also? Massively hyperbolic headline. The real winner in Iowa was Bernie Sanders who beat her handily in the Iowa State Fair straw poll.
*Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders made dueling appearances just hours apart Saturday at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines. But if an informal straw poll conducted by the Iowa Secretary of State is any reliable measure of whose visit was more successful, the Vermont senator clearly won the day.
According to the Iowa secretary of state’s website, which monitors the votes in real-time, more than 52 percent of Democrats who have cast a vote in the straw poll say they support Sanders. Just over 41 percent said they support Clinton.
Bernie Pulls Ahead Of Hillary In Poll After Both Campaign At Iowa State Fair*
I already addressed most of this.
Sanders is employing the same and better grass roots strategies as Obama.
Sanders espouses policies a vast majority of Americans agree with. You can label him Left and yourself Center all you want, that doesn’t make the labels accurate. Bernie’s positions are mainstream. See above.
The electorate is in such a foul mood that it might not even matter what Sanders’ experience and positions are. This time the voters want real change, and so the most plausible outsider candidate might be the one to win it.
Although if I have to choose among outsiders I’d rather have Ben Carson.
Iowa State Fair-goers did not like the fact that Clinton refused to take the soapbox. It made her look sneaky.
*MCCAMMON: Clinton did not appear at The Des Moines Register Soapbox, a tradition where voters often question candidates directly. That can cause problems, as Mitt Romney found out during his campaign.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
MITT ROMNEY: Corporations are people, my friend. We can raise taxes on - of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people.
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: Where do you think it goes?
(LAUGHTER, JEERING)
MCCAMMON: That’s what can happen at the soapbox. And it may be why Clinton stayed away. That didn’t help her image with people like Jarrett Walsh of North Liberty, Iowa. He leans Republican but hasn’t made up his mind. He says the soapbox would have been a good place to demonstrate she can be transparent with voters.
JARRETT WALSH: It’s obviously something that’s classic Iowa, classic state fair. And if she wants to show herself as a person of the people, that’s the forum to do it.*
Fundraising dinners, not so much.
Ah, that really brings me back to 2007, and all those posts about how Obama was going to get the Republicans to cooperate with him through his powers of dreaminess …
If Democratic voters expect Republicans to not cooperate no matter what, then that means everything Democratic candidates say about new legislation is a moot point.
The candidates should instead focus strictly on what Presidents do on their own: foreign policy, managing the government, any executive orders that can legally be issued.
There’s a certain underlying assumption in that, isn’t there?
And if there isn’t, it’s a confession of a pretty serious failing, isn’t it?
No, it was anticipated due to his actual prior experience having done it throughout his entire legislative career. Copious examples of such were provided, including this testimony from one of his former Republican colleagues. No one expected the viciousness with which this batch of asshole Republicans would obstruct him since that behavior is *unprecedented * in modern politics.
But you keep forgetting that Sanders is not a Democrat; he’s a Big-I Independent.
Nor does it even matter a lick whether we can predict how big of assholes Republicans will be to him when he’s president: *Somebody * has to become president, it won’t be a Republican (they simply don’t have the electoral map to accomplish it) and if you think they’d cooperate with Clinton after how they’ve been relentlessly harassing her for years over made-up bullshit, I’ve got some swamp land in Arizona I’d like to sell you. They’d probably make an impeachment hearing their first priority if she god forbid won. I can imagine no worse scenario for accomplishing jack shit in this country than electing Hillary Clinton.
More out of Iowa on why Hillary is forked. Don’t just read the headline and assume it’s because of the crowds; read the whole article and see what people – including former Hillary supporters – have to say about why they’re supporting him over her.
I…actually kind of agree with this. Clinton may not have meant any harm, but the appearance of cover-up implies, rightly or wrongly, a cover-up. It may affect how people look at her. If they already had reason to see her as corrupt, then this plays into that.
I think corrupt is taking things a bit far. One of the funny things about the Clinton administration was that despite all the lies, the lack of transparency, and the scandals, they were never actually accused of official corruption much, and the few accusations there were ended up being pretty much nonsense(Travelgate, FBI files).
Hillary’s real problem is that she’s obsessive about hiding anything that might be remotely embarrassing. She needs to learn the first rule of scandal: It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup. Even when there’s no real crime, just embarrassing details. And if you don’t want your business or private life out there in the public eye, you shouldn’t be in politics.
OK, I can see how you argue that. But I think it can be argued both that Hillary is the better candidate for the head administrator of the federal government and that Bernie is the better choice to lead the party of the USA’s left-of-center.
If so, an outcome where HRC is the nominee of a party with a lot more Sanders in its rank and file is actually pretty appealing.
On the other hand: Hillary’s public-sector executive experience seems to largely be a few years as a political appointee to Sec’y of State? Is that what we’re basing it on?
Did you forget two terms in the Senate? There was also that eight years previously as, well, whatever role you want to call it, but First Lady doesn’t come anywhere near close.
Given your guys’ demonstrated level of responsibility as public servants in the endless stream of fruitless investigations, and simple personal invective, they’ve engaged in, isn’t keeping you from getting anything more precisely what she *should *do?
What have the Republicans learned from your endlessly, comically failed scandal-mongering campaign? Is there any responsibility you agree you *should *accept?
I find it remarkable that anyone would think the former Walmart board member, BFF with the Banksters, “misremembering,” was for middle class bankruptcy protection before she was under the control of lobbyists and voted against it, war hawk who voted to invade Iraq on lies that many of us saw through from the get-go, Trickle-Down believer*, would even remotely be the best person to administer the federal government. If none of that stuff disqualifies her, what on Earth would it take – an actual dead body laying at her feet?
*It’s right there in the No. 1 spot among the numerous “Four Fights” weirdness she’s got going on her website.: “Increased [infrastructure] investment will lead to economic growth, that in turn will increase wages and boost bottom lines for both families and American businesses.”
I mean, it doesn’t get any more boilerplate Right-Wing language than that. Since when does “economic growth” lead to better wages? Ever? “Economic Growth” is all about Wall Street, not Main Street! Government will “invest” (Wall Street language) in [lucrative contacts for cronies] and somehow this will magically trickle down on the grunts doing the labor with increased wages? Really? She still believes that garbage? Why yes, yes she does!
But wait; it does get more Right Wing than that! She wants to provide “tax relief” to families and small businesses! Tax relief is a Right-Wing frame! So, what, she’s going to starve the federal government even further by lowering tax revenue even more? From the infamous 47% who don’t even end up with a federal tax bill at all? She thinks that shit’s gonna fly, let alone get one single person over into her camp? NO! We don’t want or NEED “tax relief” due to what she acknowledges have been 40 years of stagnant wages – we want BETTER WAGES! We want corporations to be held ACCOUNTABLE for their own damn payroll and to stop foisting it on US through programs supporting the WORKING poor!
Seriously, it reads like it came from Mitt Romney’ website. She is so stuck in the Republican mindset. “Too many working families are struggling. We will provide tax relief to help those families keep up with the rising costs of child care, education, and health care. After decades of stagnant wages, Americans need a break.” She can’t even see what’s so very, very wrong with that approach.
She doesn’t know how to think like a Democrat or even talk like a Democrat, what would give anyone the impression she’d govern like a Democrat? She’s barely a centrist. Barely. And if she’s ejected not a goddamn thing will change in this country. Nothing. It’ll be business as usual. Just look at how she talks about the issues on her website.
I mean, I get that people like and admire her. She’s a strong woman with a great deal of accomplishments under her belt. She’d be great on the world stage working beside her husband in their charity. But she is the absolute wrong person to get us out of the corporate Oligarchy morass were suffocating under. She doesn’t get it.
Which is why she’s forked. Bernie Sanders gets it. He’s speaking to the fundamental changes people on both sides of the aisle and those in the middle want to see happen in this country.