Very well said. Mind you, knowing how political candidates can live in a bubble and get a distorted perspective of their own popularity, I’m not sure I’d be willing to dismiss Bernie believing in some chance of electoral success, but I definitely agree that he’s a lot more for his principles than he is for himself. How many political candidates can anyone really say that for?
When this is all over – unless the campaign has totally worn him out – he’ll be back in the Senate, still fighting the good fight.
He could, in theory, do things. He mostly has not. IIRC in his tenure in Congress he has been the chief sponsor of three bills. One was a COLA for veteran’s benefits, and the other was renaming a post office or something.
He is not exactly outstanding in his record of getting his ideas into legislation. Apparently his supporters think he will do better as President, although I can’t see why that would be the case, especially since Congress seems likely to remain in GOP hands.
There’s always the option of running as an independent candidate for President. John Anderson managed to do it in 1980 after he lost the Republican nomination to Ronald Reagan, although his support tended to be exaggerated - either that, or most of his supporters didn’t bother to vote, since he finished in third (or worse) in every state.
The main reason he wouldn’t: fear that he would end up taking votes away from Clinton, and, as a result, a Republican would be elected President.
The main reason he would: his supporters would demand it. Iowa showed that he has quite a bit of support among people in their 20s (not surprising, with his “free public university tuition” and “free health care for all, paid for by The Rich” platform. It could come down to too many people saying, “Bernie, or I stay home,” and the more Sanders supporters vote, the more Democrats get elected to Congress on his coattails.
Afaik, nobody has an outstanding record getting bills into law. The vast majority fail. Am I incorrect about that? GovTrack.us ranks Sanders in the top 25% (of members serving 10+ years) in that regard. Would you dispute that, Shodan?
Paul Wellstone? Barney Frank? Ted Kennedy? Russ Feingold? Sherrod Brown? George McGovern? Hubert Humphrey? Birch Bayh? etc. etc. etc.
As a liberal Independent he has always caucused with the Democrats, but unless he now remains a Democrat, I don’t know that they’ll give him a chairmanship.
Like CarnalK, I’ve never seen that theory referred to in relation to the NDP. Rather, it’s been used to explain the “Red Tories” in Canadian history: conservatives who believed in a strong role for governments in national development, economic role of governments, and social matters. Things like workers’ compensation, first brought in by a Conservative government in Ontario, Crown corporations like Ontario Hydro, the massive government involvement in funding the CPR as an exercise in nation-building rather than leaving it to private enterprise alone.
Even Bennett’s “Canadian New Deal” package fits this model: although it’s pretty clear he got the economics of the Depression wrong, he brought in a major package of federal government social supports, like unemployment insurance. (Got struck down by the JCPC, but that’s a different issue … :smack: )
Red Tories have pretty much died out, as the conservative movement in Canada has moved more rightwards, and Red Tories no longer have a home with the new Conservative Party. For example, former Prime Minister Joe Clark never joined the new Conservative Party, and Scott Brison, MP, who crossed to the Liberals.
Wrong again. He’s been the chief sponsor of 362 bills. Most were not enacted of course. The Emergency Senior Citizens [Tax] Relief Act of 2010 and the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act (A bill to provide funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program) were defeated by GOP filibuster.
Senator Rubio has never had a bill enacted. He has had some resolutions approved, five of them being A resolution designating September 201x as “National Spinal Cord Injury Awareness Month” which he introduced for all years 2011-1015.
Ted Cruz has had one bill enacted (S. 2195 (113th)). Unlike Rubio, none of his resolutions has ever been agreed to.
But it is true that Sanders hasn’t got any of his "whacky schemes " passed as a Senator. Most of the bills he’s gotten passed are pretty innocuous. It’s a little silly to say, however, that he wouldn’t have more effectiveness as President over an independent Senator.
And as such he might decide that he could get a lot more done in charge of a Cabinet department, maybe HHS and maybe Labor. I’m sure Hillary would be happy to give him one like Obama gave her State.
Under Gingrich the Republicans started term limits on chairmanships and I was under the impression he just personally selected them. But each party decides on their own, afaik, so it should have nothing to do with Sanders’ chances.
That’s also true. But regardless of party affiliation, the House does not in any way set seniority rules for, let alone select, chairmanships in the Senate.
I would say that is different. IMHO, Obama was mending fences in the party and buffing Clinton’s resume for her next Presidential run by giving her that job. Sanders is neither a true party member nor likely to run again in 4 years.
If you remember, Obama had read a book on how Lincoln appointed some of the opposition to his cabinet. I doubt he was too worried about her running again in four years - she’s hardly a radical in that way. But he did keep her in the tent and made the Clinton faction happy.
Appointing Bernie would be even better, since that kind of position would keep the progressive wing happy. If she supported some of his initiatives, it would keep the progressive wing from revolting in four years.
I didn’t mean he gave it to her to stop her from running against him. I meant he gave it to her to HELP with THIS run. Sanders is too old for another run.
eta: and of course you’re right, D’Anconia. I got mixed up there.
I dunno, but if any Speaker could pull that off it was Gingrich – he was the acknowledged leader of the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” he imposed a party-discipline of unprecedented strictness in Congress, and for a short time he had the whole party dancing to his tune, like a British PM.
I think we all surmise he’ll be happen to go back to the Senate and with Elizabeth Warren try to do a bunch of progressive stuff. What I will be most fascinated by is what will happen with his supporters when Sanders backs Clinton in the general election (Sanders has already mentioned that Clinton is far better than any Republican). Will they feel completely betrayed? How will that affect his political revolution?
