Every politician ever has seized on expediency from time to time, even the least duplicitous ones. If Bernie running as a Dem (a decision made in no small part because the DNC was only interested in running wet blankets against Clinton for a paper thin veneer of competition) is one of his worst negatives, seems to me in comparison that he oughta be the most popular politician in the country…
Oh… Wait…
Sorry just momentarily forgot that Sen. Sanders is in fact the most popular politician in the country.
What I’d also ask is this- if a tree fell in the woods, etc.?
No matter the ending, Bernie running as a Dem is one of the shrewdest political moves in my lifetime. I mean, just for starters the guy went from sub 5% name recognition to aforementioned popularity in the span of one year. One year!
Sanders promising multiple times to rebuild the Democratic Party with the people that supported his Democratic Party run and then completely reversing it because he only wanted the benefits of tying himself to a party without any of the drawbacks is absolutely a black mark against Sanders. If you are so concerned about politicians lying and cheating and being corrupt you can’t turn a blind eye to a “shrewd” politician igniting a movement within the Democratic Party only to drop the effort as a matter of convience. Especially when the charge of “Sanders was cheated by the party” is based on Sanders not being someone looking to take advantage of a party’s name and infrastructure when there is no other way to interpret his actions.
And as far as Sanders’ popularity goes, Clinton went from the most popular politician with the greatest name recognition to being the least popular politician in the country in a span of 18 months. Sanders is literally filling the popularity void that was previously held by Clinton that was entirely reversed in an extremely small amount of time. Even conceiving of using Sanders’ popularity with people as a selling point is lazy.
DSA rising:
So, you’re a purist who wants to lose. Because thats what we need, more Nader votes.
As for superdelegates, I guess if you look at it very superficially it seems “hypocritical”. But any real inquiry shows they have nothing in common.
-
Can a electoral delegate change their vote? No. Can a superdelegate? Yes.
-
The electoral delegate is intentionally weighted to systematically favor certain states. Are superdelegates? No. Are superdelegates weighted to favor any specific region or candidate? No. And, by the way, did superdelegates “override” Sanders? No, he loses the DNC convention even without the superdelegates-- but the superdelegates could have been used to override Clinton. Which is its purpose: to provide some mechanism for preventing the DNC driving off the cliff with “another McGovern.”
Whats your point? Clinton supporters thought she was the better candidate and know the risk of her losing. Sanders supporters thought he was the better candidate and know the risk of him losing. Your point seems to be that Clinton-supporters choose Clinton even “knowing” that she’s doomed to lose-- which is ridiculous. Your implied counter-point, that an atheist-Jewish Socialist from Vermont has mass appeal among Undecideds and Trump-leaning Democrats, is dubious.
Complete garbage. I have a lot of problems with Clinton the person and Clinton the candidate. But I’m pragmatic. I want to win. I know how high the stakes are and how different a country will be 4 years after a GOP win. So with eyes wide open, I pick the candidate I think can win in the general election. And its hilariously hypocritical how rabid you Bernie people are with “Queen” this/“Khallessi” that-- you’re the ones doing the idolizing. I have no problem talking at length about Clinton’s shortcomings. And, for a somewhat longer period, I can do the same with Sanders.
From the way Sanders’ fans talk, its like Clinton has substantial policy differences with Sanders. She just doesn’t. They’re differences of degree not of kind. And I would bet if she had won, Sanders would have played a part in her administration and policy making.
We are at war with the oligarchy. That is the issue. The wealthiest 0.1% now own in excess of six TRILLION dollars. They rape and pillage the poor and middle class with impunity, and nobody pays for even the most blatant of crimes. With a couple notable exceptions, the few members of our government who aren’t among them, are beholden to them. They are pushing both our economy and our biosphere to the point of collapse- Not like “recession” collapse, but “everybody fucking dies” collapse.
And at the end of the day, Clinton is on their side. Not ours. That’s the difference, and it’s about as black and white as things come.
As a president? Sure. I’m sure she’d be fine. Token gestures on climate. Maybe some consumer protections. Stand up for a whole host of rights and programs we know and love. Great stuff if it weren’t for, you know, the impending end of civilization. Bread and circuses while Rome burns. I’m sure we’d all die quite comfortably in the end.
The DNC hasn’t really acted like it wants that. Like, one iota.
That’s the only reason why? Let alone the primary thrust? It seems more likely to me that the establishment dems wanted Bernie’s voters, but didn’t think they had to give anything up for them.
I’m not, really, aside from being aware that majority of ‘em are in on the take, if not worse. I mean, we live in a country where the secretary of transportation’s in-laws run a shipping concern (who’ve, shock of all shock, been caught with narcotics in their cargo)- we are a banana republic.
The charges are based on a lot of things, the party’s petty-ass cheating probably the number one reason in my book. Sure, they didn’t have to play fair- it’s their party after all. But now they just look like blatantly hypocritical jerks. Jerks riding a flaming dinghy swirling down the toilet bowl of history.
I’ll admit I haven’t checked the numbers recently, but for most of the last year the party polled lower than Trump.
She polled in the 50’s. Bernie’s right about 70. Where’d the extra come from?
His position on quite a few issues, like healthcare, financial reform, free public universities, to name three, all poll with similar levels of support. So maybe, just maybe, he’s so popular because he’s telling the people what they want to hear.
I also think it’s worth looking at his history in Vt for a deeper understanding, and that history is telling- his margins have grown every election. Off the top of my head, his last victory was something like 30+ pts. and he enjoys an approval rating ~90%.
What that last bit says is critical. Crunchy hippies do not account for 90% of Vermonters (cows do 
) What it means is that it isn’t just the people that are supposed to like him that like him, it’s the freaky mountain men, ardent libertarians, and likely quite a few garden variety republicans.
So that’s why I think he’s popular.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
