Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
also Sanders had a lot of personal likeability due to his humble nature and kindly old man feeling. Which is why leftists ideas that people like Elizabeth Warren or Keith Ellison would be able to replicate Sanders success seems wrong. None of them come across as likeable as Sanders
Well, actually Sanders was more grouchy than likeable, but he was "real." And the pictures of young Bernie from the 60s being rousted at protests by police and marching a few rows behind MLK presented him as someone who had been "keeping it real" for 50 years.
I think Dems should follow suit with the Freedom Caucus and Blue Dogs in their Party. Work on cleaning up corruption and expanding the Federal Goverment.
Well, actually Sanders was more grouchy than likeable, but he was "real." And the pictures of young Bernie from the 60s being rousted at protests by police and marching a few rows behind MLK presented him as someone who had been "keeping it real" for 50 years.
It is the ultimate irony that Hillary's supporters continued to mock Sanders for not being sufficiently pro-minority because he didn't have the lock, stock & barrel support of the minority political class the way Hilary did. She basically got less AA support and the same Hispanic support as Obama who was running against much less divisive R nominees. And she got those percentages with fewer people voting.
I always default to a Joe Scarborough column from 2006. He explained how the Republican wave of 1994 was fueled by the R base and more conservative factions not some magical move to the center. He said Ds would have to employ the same strategy in 06 and offered a catchy title or lead that was 'go left young man.' I think 04 and 14 showed similar realities. You need to fire up your base. HRC did not and in the end the loss of moderates (who basically refused to vote Hillary anyway) was offset by Trump pulling from the further right and a small but meaningful number of working class Dems.
except the idea of free stuff for everyone might not necessarily have appealed to the entire electorate, because many of them would feel there is no such thing as free and they would have to pay one way or another.
Not to mention this guy is someone that let Black Lives Matter storm into his rally and he let them take over without any protest. Not exactly the kind of quality some people want in a strong leader
If you look at the language used by Bernie Sanders, he generally doesn't simply say "free." He typically refers to his Medicare for all plan as 'making healthcare a right' and his free college is usually described as 'making college tuition free.' There are times when I'm certain he just says "make it free" but when he's being very direct about his plan, it's generally dishonest to say that he says 'make everything free.' Tuition free simply implies you do not pay tuition and making access to Medicare a right implies it's paid for in the same way that Medicare is paid for anyway, but at a larger scale. I'm really unaware of any informed person who his under the impression that he's somehow making medicine entirely cost free. They're surely are some very ignorant people who do think that, but in what universe are we to take an idiot's analysis of the world seriously?
As for the BLM thing, that ultimately is more a petty thing. He didn't want to force them out of the rally, knowing how that would look, so he probably just recognized that he would be wasting his time to really do anything about it. A leaders should balance strength and wisdom to the best of their abilities. A perfect balance is generally unachievable and I'd say he leans on the wise side more than the strong side, but he is strong in that he has very clear principles that are easily identifiable, which is something that cannot be said about Clinton or Trump.
I don't think Dems have to go far left, but they do have to get away from the same old, same old. Look back to the 1980s. Democrats lost 3 straight presidential elections because they kept running the same old liberal candidates. They were successful when they nominated Bill Clinton, who campaigned as a "New Democrat", more of a centrist. Then they lost with liberals Al Gore and John Kerry, but Obama won on a "hope and change" theme.
2016 was surely a "change" election. That's why Bernie would have done better than Hillary. For 2020 they better look outside the establishment, whether left or right.
Moving more left makes them just as contemptible as the far right. We need more balance, and having them move more left will just drive further separation. A more moderate third party would be a heck of a lot more successful I think. Instead of trying to win the small fringes of the left and right, why not aim for the larger pocket of middle of the road moderate voters?
also Sanders had a lot of personal likeability due to his humble nature and kindly old man feeling. Which is why leftists ideas that people like Elizabeth Warren or Keith Ellison would be able to replicate Sanders success seems wrong. None of them come across as likeable as Sanders
Moving more left makes them just as contemptible as the far right. We need more balance, and having them move more left will just drive further separation. A more moderate third party would be a heck of a lot more successful I think. Instead of trying to win the small fringes of the left and right, why not aim for the larger pocket of middle of the road moderate voters?
Because they get disgusted by the process and stay home. The unfortunate truth is that there has been more to gain by firing up your base than tracking to the middle since 2000. That was the year Gore lost to many leftward voters and the election by the scantest of margins.
If you look at 04 Bush & company ran a masterful campaign by appealing towards the middle & security voters while at the same time throwing far right ballot initiatives on the ballot everywhere possible. They juiced conservative turnout from those more interested in stopping abortion access and specifically gay marriage. And while those folks were at the polls they went ahead and voted for a President. But it was those initiatives that got them there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
