Bernie is old. And that does matter. Campaigning is grueling. And with the exception of the fat slob in the White House, being president is grueling too. At least if you do it right.
Other things matter, too.
One is that he helped elect Trump. And he has yet to apologize or atone for that.
Two is that it is way too early to start ascribing meaning to poll numbers. The likely reason that Bernie leads Harris 2 to 1 in the polls at this point is because most voters have heard of Bernie but are unfamiliar with Harris. And Booker. And Klobuchar. If you want to play the polling game, why is it that Bernie trails Biden (also too old) by 10-20 points in the polls? Biden hasn’t even announced.
Three is that Bernie has baggage. Private jets. Sexual harassment in his campaign. Difficulty connecting with black voters. A reputation for nastiness.
Lastly, Bernie is not a Democrat. He gets all the benefits of running as one, but refuses to commit to the party. There’s something wrong with being a Democrat only when it’s convenient.
Bernie’s policies have become more widely accepted. That does not mean he would be the best candidate for president.
Let’s see if Sanders’ supposed support translates into actual primary success. Last time, he did pretty well, probably better than he expected himself (and definitely better than I expected!), but nowhere near as well as you’d think based on the fervent online fandom of his.
“polls also showed Hilliary beating trump” – Exactly! Beware (oh beware) of the media assertion: “the polls are showing Ignatz is in the lead (with <subset>)!!!” Polling has never been more inaccurate, nor more weaponized, than at present. (Just ask a political pundit how one assures a proper random sample with modern phones or (worse yet) web-polling. 9 outta 10 you’ll get some version of “bah…‘random’ is meaningless!”)
Important political decisions are made using highly dubious polling results and that’s bad. Elected representatives really should just be representing us with their own (campaigned on) understandings and not covering their butts with paid-for give them the result they paid-for polling agencies.
Bernie is an excellent grassroots organizer, a wonderful inspiration for young candidates, and has been doing a great job with local politics. And I agree, I wish he’d stick to that strength.
My concern regarding Bernie’s age has never been “he’s too old to win the votes.” My concern is “if he does win he’ll enter office a full decade older that Reagan did, and Reagan was showing clear signs of senile dementia before the end.”
The person who makes it to age 87 without suffering significant physical and mental decline is the rare exception, not the rule.
I like Bernie and his policies but there’s no way around the fact that to support his bid for President is to hope that he defies medical odds. I’m more likely to support his candidacy if his supporters acknowledge and address that simple fact instead of waving it away as a non-issue or accusing me of being a fake liberal who wouldn’t support a candidate like Bernie under any circumstances.
No, the linked polling research asked voters to classify themselves as “Liberal”, “Moderate” or “Conservative”, so it’s using the common but inadequate left-to-right scale that’s usually used in the US.
Thankfully, even in the US, there’s now an increasing awareness that social liberalism is not the leftmost extent of the political spectrum, but you have to stick to the same set of questions to ensure validity of the survey over time.
The current single vote system requires us to consider tactical voting. Suppose we have three candidates: candidate B we support, candidate T we oppose, and candidate H is as close to the middle to get that sweet territory in the middle of the bell curve. If B really stands a good chance of election, you have no dilemma. If not, then you have to consider voting for H, or risk voting for B and getting T.
If the electroral system changed so you could vote for any number of candidates, and the one with the most votes wins. This means you could vote for B and for H, and presumably people on the other side who dread socialism could vote for T and for H in theory. This would favour centerist parties such as the Lib Dems in the UK, rather than Labour or Tory. The US might get a centerist party if the rules changed.
Bernie’s attacks on Hillary, continuing long after he had lost, hurt her and helped Trump. His support for her was lukewarm, at best. About 10% of his followers voted for Trump. Here are some links explaining further:
One of the key factors is that many of his supporters were not registered Democrats, and many discovered that it was too late to register as one in time for the primaries. I imagine that his campaign will do more this time round to get people registered.
For Bernie to win, he needs to get more of the non-affiliated voters, and non-voters, to engage and to do so in time to vote in the primary
Cory, are you naturalized American? I don’t see how it’s legal for Canadians to contribute to US politicians. It would be like Russians trying to elect a president, and we know that wouldn’t be tolerated.
This is the most ridiculous and disappointing post I’ve ever read on BB.
Bernie won’t release his taxes, has voted against sanctioning Russian oligarchs, has a horrible record on gun control and has written rape fantasy literature. He has almost no significant accomplishments after decades in Congress. There are easy attacks on his honeymooning in the USSR, and support for the Sandinistas. And he has yet to come up with a way to actually pay for most of what he espouses (unlike, say, Warren).
He is high in the polls now because of name recognition. He is in no way “eminently electable.” God help us all if he wins the nomination.
