Trump was and largely continues to be immune to the kinds of scandals that would sink any other politician, largely by dint of not being remotely contrite about it and appealing to people who seem to see it as a badge of honor to get caught paying off a porn star or running out on creditors even if it is in contradiction to their ostensible personal beliefs. Bernie—or any other Democrat (e.g. John Edwards)—couldn’t get away with a fraction of that moral turpitude.
Stranger
I’m not happy about it. I support Sanders’ policies. I’d have gladly voted for him as a presidential nominee.
And trump exists in his own universe. His boring scandals would end anybody else (can you imagine if Bill Clinton had paid an adult actress to stay quiet on the eve of the ‘92 election?).
But I also hear and see the stupid knee jerk reaction to all things ‘socialist’ in this country, beyond all reason. I once saw a bumper sticker that said “no soldier ever fought for socialism” - it’s nonsense, not least because soldier is a government job paid for by taxpayers.
In a democratic primary, Sanders is only getting soft jabs from the left, but once the Republicans focus all of their ire (on 24/7 news) on criticizing his looks, behavior, words, ideas - everything they can find, or manipulate, or find some rando to rant about - I just see him being far more vulnerable than a more centrist candidate
Can you imagine Fox talking about his “rape fantasies” for months on end?
By the time they’re done, a person is just a caricature of their true selves. That’s why Hillary is a crook. And Biden is senile. There’s propaganda that’s still in the vault for Sanders.
I think it’s a broken system, but that’s how I predict it would have played out: some more Sanders voters would have shown up, and he would have peeled off a few Trump voters, but I believe it would have paled in comparison to those who would have come to believe him (unfairly, naturally) to be too extreme or dangerous for America.
Voters in 2016 were not voting against anyone for being “too extreme”. They were voting against “not extreme enough”. They wanted extreme.
To me it was more like they had a choice between the plain chicken fingers, or a platter of jalapeno-bacon chicken fingers slathered in melted cheese and Buffalo sauce, with a jumbo Margarita and a rail of cocaine on the side.
It’s really really bad for you, it will make you feel like shit afterwards, but it’s something outrageous and decadent and it appeals to peoples’ most base and venal instincts.
People underestimate Trump’s ability to work a crowd. I watched many of his rallies, and all of the debates, leading up to that election. He had people howling with laughter, something I had never, EVER imagined I would see in anything relating to politics. His jokes were dumb and mean-spirited but a LOT of people laugh at dumb, mean-spirited jokes. Remember how popular Cards Against Humanity was at the time? Everyone is susceptible to mean spirited humor. Trump spoke to crowds in a really off-the-cuff and colloquial way, the same kind of way people talk to each other in a bullshitting session with their friends. He was inarticulate and went off on rambling tangents and bounced from one subject to another willy-nilly, but again, that’s how a lot of people actually talk. He didn’t speak politician-speak. As fucked up as he was in so many ways, he was really, really successful at connecting with audiences.
That’s a gross simplification. What voters wanted to hear was that someone was going to fix their problems. Hillary offered complex policy statements. Bernie offered free stuff and “breaking up the banks” (whatever that meant). Trump offered to drain the swamp and burn government agencies to the waterline. In terms of Batman villains, you got the Riddler, the Penguin, and the Joker. And, you know, people really like the Joker.
Stranger
I agree. Clinton was definitionally “more of the same” but voters were not keen on more of the same.
Not to mention her neoliberalism kinda stank of conservatism and the left (voters) were not happy with it.
At the time, I was pretty disappointed with Clinton’s choice of a Vice President, Tim Kaine (right? He was a boring white guy - ooh look, he speaks Spanish. Ahh, Christian missionary work. Good to know).
I was (an am) a fan of Elizabeth Warren. I realize that a running mate is largely a symbolic position, but I had wished that Clinton had teamed with Warren.
People who wanted to do something “extreme”: you got your all-woman ticket.
And, perhaps, her selection as a more progressive candidate might offer some appeasement to the Bernie wing (No? Him or nothing? It really is just about the Ubermensch? Got it).
So maybe Clinton/Warren could have beat trump
Why does this keep getting repeated? 12% of Bernie Bros voted for Trump. 28% of Clinton supporters voted for McCain over Obama. Bernie Bros largely delivered for Clinton.
Because turnout matters. And your polls don’t address those who didn’t show up to vote.
Warren is very much on the same part of the political spectrum as Bernie Sanders but with the policy experience and history of actual legislative accomplishments, and more personable than Clinton. She is also, unfortunately, seemingly everyone’s second or third choice. I’d like to see Warren teamed with with Gretchen Whitmer (two time elected governor of red-leaning state) or Tammy Duckworth (grievously wounded veteran who nonetheless continued to serve, elected to the House and Senate, and gave birth while a sitting senator) but that’ll never happen because the DNC would never go for such an ‘unwinnable’ ticket. Frankly, the DNC deserves to lose as they repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot in the name of “party loyalty”; it’s just a shame that they insist on bringing the rest of the country down with them.
Stranger
And this relates to my point quoted below. What seemed super obvious as a “bowl of diarrhea” was revealed to be the “platter of jalapeno-bacon chicken fingers slathered in melted cheese and Buffalo sauce, with a jumbo Margarita and a rail of cocaine on the side”. And that turned out to be what I mentioned below, and still scares the hell out of me.
Huh?
Sanders has been in a political office since 1981 (mayor of Burlington). A congressman in 1991 and a senator since 2007 and ran for president…twice.
Warren was in government since 2008 (as an appointee) and a senator since 2013.
I like Warren and would love to see her on a presidential ticket but not sure why you think she is the one with more experience.
Now that is a beautiful summation of US politics.
It’s a crying shame our political system has been reduced to a caricature of a comic book universe, but it seems remarkably accurate.
I have been saying here for years that the public enthusiasm for “superhero” comics was setting us up for a nihilist totalitarian.
Let’s hope in 2024 the public doesn’t vote for a comic book hero to sweep all in his path. (And yes, it’ll be a he). There are female superheroes in comics and the comic-based movies, but that kind of pathology in real humans mostly requires / demands an XY.
Other than being nicknamed the “Amendment King”, what legislative accomplishments does Sanders have to show?
Stranger
Exhibit # 27 in the GOP’s unending screed of “Sanders is the single most unqualified candidate for POTUS in the history of humankind.”
They will say anything imaginable against a Dem opponent, and on rare occasions what they say will contain a misleading scintilla of truth.
As others have pointed out upthread, there never was a “GOP screed” against Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. The Republicans deliberately held their fire against Sanders; they instead directed their smear machine at the eventual Democratic nominee, H. Clinton.
This is arguably the most important factor in understanding what Bernie Sanders’ true presidential prospects were.
Okay. So, what legislative or other accomplishments pertaining to being a good executive does Sanders have to show?
I ask the question because while it is easy to promise “a chicken in every pot” out on the campaign trail, relatively few Presidents have been able to make good on more than a small fraction of even modest campaign promises, and most of them have had far greater demonstrated accomplishments prior to being elected to that office than Bernie Sanders, a man who is largely know for attaching amendments to roll call votes and getting a few inconsequential riders to support Vermont National Parks and Landmarks. It’s easy to say “Free college for all!”, but getting Congress to agree to fund and support such an initiative is another thing entirely.
Stranger
I’m not trying to argue that Sanders is some kind of legislative juggernaut, quite the contrary. I concede your point. But that’s not much of a measure of how good a legislator is. I’m saying that the GOP will take any position, true or false, and blow it up into a cataclysmic event.
Maybe you are correct, but I don’t understand why.
I would have thought that Bill’s strong economic performance was a plus for her that was of course available to no other candidate.
After eight years of a Democratic administration, the GOP starts out ahead. And yet, Hillary won the popular vote. To do better yet, the Democrat would have had to be extraordinarily popular.
There’s an argument that the Democratic candidate should have won because the GOP opponent was electorally weak. I guess that Trump is a little weak as a candidate, but not nearly as weak as I wish he was.
Consider this from October 2016: