General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWOW, TNR: Democrats Need Bernie Sanders to Run for President
Democrats Need Bernie Sanders to Run for President
By Michael Kazin Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
................
His tough consistency on economic issues might also persuade some of the white working-class voters who now vote Republican, without much enthusiasm, to take a fresh look at the party that established Social Security, Medicare, and the National Labor Relations Act. Sanders, after all, did not score landslide victories in 2006 and 2012 (with 65 percent and then 71 percent of the vote) by appealing just to the one-third of the adults in his overwhelmingly white state who earned a college degree.
There is, of course, a danger that an aggressive campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2016 would expose divisions between Democratsof gender as well as ideologyand weaken her for the main contest that fall. Historians and political scientists generally agree that a party that undergoes a long primary season finds it more difficult to win the general election. But that's generally true only for those incumbent presidentslike Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992whose political woes already made them vulnerable to competitors. In contrast, vigorous debates and a series of close primaries and caucuses helped Ronald Reagan in 1980 shed his image as a dogmatic right-winger. Twelve years later, they gave Bill Clinton a chance to show off his political skills as the comeback kid after the revelation of a past affair almost drove him from the race. If there had been no long, tense battle among Democrats in 2008, Barack Obama would not have become president at all.
Unless American politics takes a sudden, unprecedented lurch to the left, Bernie Sanders has little chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Progressive voters in both red and blue states may agree with his positions and appreciate the passion with which he states them. But most are unlikely to prefer a man in his mid-70s to the celebrity stateswoman whose election would make history and whose appeal extends beyond partisan lines.
But if Sanders does run, he could perform a vital political service to Democrats in need of revitalization and to the country at large. Except for a small minority of dogmatic conservatives, Americans dont like the fact that rich investors have profited handsomely while wages remain stagnant or are eager to balance the budget by cutting Social Security or believe that politicians who routinely lavish their favors on multi-millionaires can also serve the interests of people who worry about paying the mortgage. A left-wing candidate who bluntly and repeatedly points all this out could embolden Hillary Clinton and other timid Democrats to do the same. Winning control of the government with such rhetoricand policies to matchmight actually nudge us further toward becoming a more decent and truly democratic society.
........
MORE:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117816/bernie-sanders-2016-campaign-why-democrats-need-him-run
devils chaplain
(602 posts)Any qualified Dem could win the presidency in 2016 and in the foreseeable future. If you think HRC would make the best President, then fine, by all means vote for her. But please don't vote for her because "otherwise the Republicans will win!!" That really really is not the case. :/
brooklynite
(94,591 posts)Given the alternatives, I WILL take electability into account, and a Socialist who hasn't had a competitive race in years in a State with fewer voters than Rochester, NY doesn't say "viable candidate" to me.
devils chaplain
(602 posts)But if you don't think Sanders is electable, I hope you're still open to progressive alternatives. I'd take a 70% shot with a progressive over a 85% chance with a moderate.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It might be that he's very popular -- and despite the stereotype, Vermont has many different kinds of people in it, including mainstrem and wing-nut conservations.
I'm not saying he'd be equally popular or "electable" nationwide.
But you seem so ready to dismiss someone who does know how to appeal to the hard-assed element of the electorate because they know he stands for their economic interests too.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)How about worthiness of electability. What you are saying is we should settle for the lesser of two evils. Not me, not anymore.
Why must both sides limit their options? Republicans only vote for the Republican candidate that is most electable and Democrats only vote for the Democratic candidate that is most electable. Why limit your options? There are better alternatives and we could have them if people would only realize one thing, the best candidates will win if we vote for them. Why settle for less?
brooklynite
(94,591 posts)...You may feel it's okay to have four years of Republican/Tea Party rule as long as you stood up for your principles. I'm not willing to take the risk.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the attitude that has watched the greatest middle class ever be worn down to nothing. One day your "less" will be nothing.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Quit complaining. What? You want a separate country or something? Stop fantasizing and get real.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)the case. I'm not even a Hillary fan, but I will vote for her if Warren doesn't run.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as if they're the key to the election.
No. The key is to get women and people of color and college-educated voters to turn out in greater numbers.
White working class men who vote Republican have already shown themselves indifferent to the economic differences between the parties. They vote Republican because of guns, abortion, and the right of Murika to kill brown people at home and abroad.
Indeed: it's entirely quaint to believe that these gun-loving, anti-abortion, isolationist, misogynist, anti-gay, anti-immigrant voters will be swayed on economic issues by a gruff septuagenarian Jewish socialist from a tiny northeastern state. Like they might have some sort of epiphany.
What are they smoking over at TNR?
I like Bernie Sanders a lot, but he doesn't have the panache to bring home the bacon with voters. Granted, they say in the article he can't win the nomination, and I can see the benefit of adding his voice to a debate. But, once again: he's not a Democrat. Is he willing to announce himself as a member of the Democratic party in order to participate in the debates? Will he use his powerful status as an independent who caucuses with Democrats as a cudgel to win a debate spot without declaring himself a Democrat (he could refuse to ally himself with the caucus unless he debates, and possibly cause the Democrats to lose control of the Senate) ? I don't know. But I'm staying tuned.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)I don't think that the American People would elect him mainly due to his age.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)from being elected? I personally don't think either are too old.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)We already have a warm spot under the bus.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)I hope with all my heart he runs.
brooklynite
(94,591 posts)The fact that a bunch of progressives on a political activist blog like the idea of Bernie Sanders offers no evidence that he would be competetive in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, etc.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)while they see the rich get richer.
And I'm sure they want to give over their SS to Goldman Sachs.
And healthcare? Foegedabout it. Nobody wants to use Medicare. They sure as hell wouldn't want reasonable priced public coverage if they know what that was.
And jeezus, unemployment compensation? People would rather starve is than lose their jobs.
brooklynite
(94,591 posts)Never confuse how you view politics with how 120 million other voters (half of them Republican or conservative Independent) view it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But I do think that, aside from the hard-core bigots and lunkheads, enough of the country is open to some common sense, if it were actually presented as an alternative.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)The country wants crap, and that's what we've had. Eight years of Bush, a dolt who they would like to have a beer with, who led us into a bogus war and financial decline, and Obama, a huckster who was great at speechifying, but not so good at delivering the change that we needed. I am really disillusioned with what this country wants. It's like a toddler who prefers a steady diet of sugar ladened cereal and soda pop. Tastes good, but will slowly lead to your demise.