Starting from your comment, I was reminded of a comment a cousin of mine made who shall remain nameless (he works as a political consultant) that Sen. Sanders is actually very much in agreement with Clinton, but that makes the primaries a little too boring. Part of the drama is actually ginned up to generate interest and keep the Republicans from totally dominating this season.
I personally think that the āestablishmentā as such has been pretty quiet, and that for all the hoopla the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schulz actually do bend over backwards to portray this as a choice between two excellent candidates in public. What I see instead is that they rely upon surrogates to generate enough controversy to get attention from the news outlets. (An example could be how Vermonter Sanders is doing well in New Hampshire polls, so this is played as Clinton being in trouble).
And for the record, though I like Clinton better, I find Sanders a good candidate. I just think his priorities are better suited for the legislative than the executive. The real difference between the two is that Clinton is more tactics, Sanders is more grand strategy.
These lists of āestablishmentā endorsements rather disagree with your assertion, IMO.
Played? By whom? I watch broadcast television in the Boston market (which covers Southern NH). Bernie has better ads, other than that, Trump is getting the free press, not the Democrats.
Given the choice in a general election between the two, I honestly donāt see the bulk of Americans choosing Trump over Clinton. Sure, heās polling well in the early what-the-hell polls where thereās no stakes and he hasnāt even detailed his platform yet, but I believe the majority of people are more or less moderate/centrist folks. Theyāll be turned off by his racism and bluster.
I think a more likely scenario is Rubio vs. Clinton, but weāll see. Itās kind of a quagmire.
I am totally fascinated to see if that happens, and I very much expect it to. Cruz is a dingbat who the GOP establishment loathes. What I see happening is that a āsafeā moderate like Rubio (who is NOT A MODERATE, but acts like one) or, lordy, Bush, will get the nomination, Trump goes third party, and we get a new ultra-right-wing super-racist party to compete with the Rās for the next few years.
But I would clap my hands with glee to see Bernie debating Trump.
I though the candidate was going to end up being Rubio but he seems about as hapless as Bush, and his lack of interest in doing his current job doesnāt look good either. And I agree, heās no moderate at all.
The way itās going, itāll end up being Trump just because everyone hates Cruz so much.
I can say that when Sanders came to ATL, not a single democrat in the city/metro area backed him. His surrogate was Killer Mike (who has political aspirations of his own).
None from the major politicians at least (Kasim Reed, John Lewis, and Hank Johnson all came out for Clinton prior to the Sanderās rally). He packed the Fox Theater for his rally. I saw a pretty good mix of older leftists and younger people, and it wasnāt a lilywhite or uber-straight crowd (though probably white majority, if a slim majority). The democratic parties backbone in the city is probably majority black and Sanders has not had an easy time convincing the black community that he speaks to their issues and needs. And I can understand that. I think that Ralph Ellisonās Invisible Man still speaks to much of the tension between a class based analysis and a race based analysis of American society. The fact is socialists and to some extent Unions have, to put it mildly, spotty record on race. Itās not considered a ārealā issue by many leftists, but rather merely an artifact of class struggle. Itās a major problem that Sanders needs to address if he expects to win South Carolina, Georgia, etc.
He (Mike, I mean) got into a debate with Ta-Nehisi Coates who wrote a critical piece about Sanderās saying that reparations are too divisive an issue to address (but one that Coates feels is critical to address structural racism). Mike advocated for Sanders none-the-less, arguing that the issues that Sanders brings to the table matter to the black community and would go farther than other candidates policy proposals to helping the black community overall. I do think Coatesā support would be helpful too, but I can understand his criticism of Sanders.
Coates doesnāt support Clinton in preference to Sanders, from what I see, heās just (rightly) criticizing Sanders where heās weaker than he perhaps should be, as a āradicalā candidate. Iād like to see Clinton also criticized, but since sheās running on a āmore of the sameā platform, thereās no grounds to hope for anything more radical from her.
Agreed. I donāt imagine heās backing Clinton, especially since itās doubtful that sheād back reparations either.
[ETA] And I think this was why we saw Black Lives Matters protesters hammering Sanders when they didnāt do the same for Clinton. There is a hope for movement with Sanders.
I think the other difference is that Ms. Clinton is also more careful with her positions. Decades of attacks have left their scars, but also made her a really tough person to catch off guard.
I want to thank all who replied, by the way. Pretty good comments all around, and like I keep saying, I like both candidates for the nomination. My gut just tells me that Clinton is a teensy bit better for chief executive, and I regret not being able to name specific proxies, as I donāt know the staff members of the campaigns.
Well, without having to go into detail, a lot of the most out-there stuff has been from his campaign manager, and from independent supporters. If I suggested that it is somehow coordinated, then I did not make myself clear. Neither candidate can fully control their supporters, though Hillary does run a tighter ship. The kerfluffle with Sandersā staff abusing the DNC network access was not due to a command from the top, but due to overeagerness by some on the staff (which comes naturally when you think of your team as the underdog).
Both candidates would drive Republicans wild with fury, and both will face withering attacks. Hillary is used to it, sheās got the scars to prove it, and would be good in carrying on Obamaās strategy of not offering an opening. Oh, and she is good at smacking them right back, which only makes them madder. Sanders is less of a known, but his āzero fucks to giveā attitude may more likely help him than hurt.
