... the media has mostly presented Sanders as a non-serious kook....But his campaign announcement today drew a good crowd and his speech is making a lot of points that progressives want made. He's not just polling respectably in New Hampshire, a neighboring state -- Public Policy Pollling has him at 24% in Washington State among Democratic voters, admittedly well behind Hillary Clinton (at 57%), but far ahead of Martin O'Malley (4%), Jim Webb (2%), and Lincoln Chafee (1%).
Indeed, if anything Sanders is more credible than the likes of [Rand] Paul and [Ted] Cruz. He has risen markedly in the polls of late, where his support has about tripled since the end of last year. He's doing particularly well in New Hampshire, where a recent poll put him in second place at 18 percent support. As an opponent of the Iraq War and a longtime advocate for more progressive policy, he has a natural constituency in the liberal left, where he is genuinely admired.
... But more to the point, it is simply inappropriate for powerful media figures to consistently bookend any mention of Sanders with comments about his inevitable electoral demise.
... Bernie Sanders is a sitting United States senator who could easily finish second in the Democratic presidential primary. It is conceivable that he could even end up as Clinton's running mate. The fact that he is utterly fearless in advocating for Scandinavian-style democratic socialism is no reason to treat him like a kook.
So I think he's going to be the top alternative to Clinton in 2016. He may not really have a serious chance at the nomination, but he'll be heard.
One reason he'll be heard: The press wants to see Hillary Clinton knocked around a bit. The mainstream press wants a battle rather than a coronation. And the right-wing press is extremely eager to see Clinton damaged.
Hillary Clinton was treated with surprising warmth on Fox News for much of the first half of 2008, after Barack Obama took a lead in the primaries, and Fox really might develop a surprising fondness for Bernie Sanders in the next few months. I'm not guaranteeing it -- Sanders said in his speech today that he doesn't want to engage in personal attacks, and unlike, say, Ralph Nader, he seems smart enough to know when the right-wing press is trying to make him into a useful idiot. Sanders is making very specific complaints about the concentration of wealth in this country, and it's going to be hard for Fox to edit that sort of thing down to a wingnut-friendly attack on Hillary. But if he ever talks in generalities about, say, "crony capitalism," Fox will happily run with that.
I defend Hillary Clinton because we have a horrible electoral system in which billions will be spent against the Democratic presidential candidate, so billions will be needed to keep the Supreme Court from being restocked with four fortysomething Scalias. I think she's all that's standing in the way of that. But I like what Bernie Sanders says. I can't imagine him becoming president in the same country where the 2014 elections gave us the greatest Republican dominance of Congress and state governments in eighty years, but I want him heard. Don't worry -- for good and bad reasons, he will be.
Been following your blog for a couple of weeks now, and have been enjoying it tremendously.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little disappointed, though, that this quote:
"The fact that he is utterly fearless in advocating for Scandinavian-style democratic socialism is no reason to treat him like a kook."
with:
"...I like what Bernie Sanders says. I can't imagine him becoming president in the same country where the 2014 elections gave us the greatest Republican dominance of Congress and state governments in eighty years, but I want him heard."
If Bernie doesn't get elected, it will because of this oft parrotted nugget of convention wisdom.
You are talking about a guy who has not lost an election since 1981. He won for mayor of Burlington four times, won his seat in the House 8 times, and has easily held onto his seat in the Senate. On his Wikipedia page, the word "lost" appears only twice, and only once referring to Bernie. That was the 70s. Other than that, Bernie has won every single election he's run in.
His wikipedia page makes for good reading. He opposed Bill Clinton's co-operation with the Republicans to merge the commercial and investment banks. He opposes the PATRIOT Act. In fact, he has been on the rights side of just about every single issue since he assumed office.
So why does anyone take Hillary Clinton as a serious candidate? She's accomplished very little on her own, other than winning elections and making serious coin.
If she's running on her husband's record, that's even worse. Bill is just as guilty as any Republican regarding the world-wide meltdown since we worked hand in hand to deregulate the banks and bring back the Gilded Age boom-and-bust cycle. NAFTA, of course, was a knife slid right into the belly of our middle class. With Democrats like these neolibs, who needs Republicans?
As long as this is a debate about electability, the wrong person will win. If this, god forbid, becomes a debate about policy and the real world, no sane person would even dream of supporting that soulless corporate sociopath.
Hasn't Obama snivelling and grovelling before the Right been enough for you?
Thank you for your concern.
ReplyDeleteHillary would love to laugh off Bernie as the doddering old uncle who has a raft of semi-plausible ideas veiled in a manic, Doc. Brown style outrage. The well-intended comic relief we can feel sorry for before everyone gets down to what is the reality on the ground. She's gonna get a nasty shock.
ReplyDeleteActually, contra DAro, I think both Hillary and Sanders are smart enough to realize that they and the country need each other in order to prevent the Republicans from getting in through sheer fuckery. If I were Hillary I'd offer to barnstorm the country with Sanders, in place of debates. Because only so long as Sanders or any other opponent gets legitimate air time will the press lay off attempting to abort Hillary's run. I'd let him pull me as far to the left as I thought I could go and still get elected and then I'd win and implement as many of his ideas as I could. And I think Sanders would be perfectly happy with that.
ReplyDeleteAs for the hatist and Daro--if it isnt obvious that Vermont and then the Senate are entirely different institutions than the national presidency, and that incumbency in the greenmountain state doesn't tell you anything about the electorate in the rest of the country, you are really too dumb to walk and chew gum. Bernie is a niche candidate, much as I love him. And the tendency to discount the achievements of blacks and women is just jaw dropping. Yes: HRC has accomplishments. And rather a lot of them considering she got into the Senate late in life. Obama's accomplishments are enormous for a presidency hampered by the kind of economic disaster, war, and reactionary politics that he has been faced with. Its astonishing to me that self proclaimed liberals will act as though the ACA wasn't the biggest lift since Medicare and Social Security.
ReplyDeleteAs always, what aimia said!
ReplyDeleteAnd how were Bachmann, Cain, Trump, and Newt legitimate candidates in 2012, and Carson, Cruz, Rubio, and Paul considered serious candidates now, but our MSM treats Bernie like some old Socialist joke?
Oh, that’t right:
IOKIYAR.
NEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeever mind…
Please allow me to add...what aimai and Victor said and double that!
ReplyDeleteSanders could wind up the nominee, if the sisterhood doesn't go all nutso over Hillary being sidelined by a man, again, and if the younger and non-white Democrats and official liberals can get past his being an OLD WHITE MALE.
ReplyDeleteIssue for Issue and position for position, I prefer Sanders over Hillary or account them about the same.
And looking as well and even especially at character and commitment to progressivism, including opposition to the plutes, Sanders is much better.
Could happen, I say, though not likely.
@theHatist and Daro, good points all.
@aimai, play nice. And the sexism card against theHatist and Daro? Wow. I say again, Sanders could get the nomination if the sisterhood doesn't go nuts and the women and children among the Democrat voters get past him being an OLD WHITE MAN.
Of course, if it's Hillary in the end I will vote for Hillary to avoid disaster with a GOPster in the WH.
I'm going to vote for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general.
ReplyDelete@aimai Your argument is just a reinforcement of the status quo. In order to be a REAL candidate you need to have come up through the proper chain of ascendency? That bodes endless runs of DNC approved, DCCC pushed candidates who have been pre-vetted by the usual suspects. Time for a break-out candidate!
ReplyDelete@aimai:
ReplyDelete"As for the hatist and Daro--if it isnt obvious that Vermont and then the Senate are entirely different institutions than the national presidency, and that incumbency in the greenmountain state doesn't tell you anything about the electorate in the rest of the country, you are really too dumb to walk and chew gum."
Stay classy.
Are you saying that NY state is more representative somehow than Vermont? Do you have a shred of any evidence to support your argument? When was the last time someone from New York was elected president?
Nice appeal to conventional wisdom to go with your ad hominem attacks on my character. Unfortunately, neither counts as an actual argument.
"And the tendency to discount the achievements of blacks and women is just jaw dropping."
Very, very classy.
"Yes: HRC has accomplishments. And rather a lot of them considering she got into the Senate late in life."
You know how grownups debate? By citing examples. Being elected is no great acheivement, especially when it's shared by people like Bush, Bush (again), Bush (a third time), Santorum, and, well, the rest of the Republican party that currently holds office while also believing that Jade Helm is some kind of military takeover.
I noticed you didn't actually name any accomplishments. Are you capable of anything other than pulling nonsense out of your butt? Because i see no evidence of you being capable than regurgitating out the conventional wisdom. You'll note that in my post, I cited examples. Examples you haven't bothered to refute.
"Obama's accomplishments are enormous for a presidency hampered by the kind of economic disaster, war, and reactionary politics that he has been faced with. Its astonishing to me that self proclaimed liberals will act as though the ACA wasn't the biggest lift since Medicare and Social Security."
Yes, Obama's accomplishments are staggering:
he's prosecuted more journalists and whistleblowers than every other president in history combined; the only person to go to jail over torture was the guy who blew the whistle on it.
He's steadfastly defended Bush/Cheney from war crimes prosecution.
He's steadfastly shielded the banks from any meaningful prosecution, limiting their punishments to fines that represent a few weeks profits, no admission of guilt, and no meaningful regulation. TBTF is bigger and more prone to failure than ever.
Obama did manage to pass the arch-conservative Heritage Foundation's profits-first insurance company fee bonanza, rather than just expanding Medicare, which works better, for less money, and is wildly popular among the GOP's base- old people.
The Republicans ran the guy who passed the HF's healthcare plan first (Mitt Romney passed a similar bill first during his one term of MA's governor, with similar results) against his own moderately successful policy- arguably the only thing Mitt's done of value in his whole, horrible, misbegotten life. Obama certainly didn't pick that plan because he thought that he was going to get bipartisan support. So he could have done anything he wanted. And he chose a Republican plan that still enriches the parasitic insurance industry.
He's expanded the surveillance state, bringing the NSA, CIA, and FBI ever closer to the KGB. Edward Snowden, who exposed illegal government activity, is still hiding in RUSSIA (of all the god forsaken places) because obama will jail him, just like he did Chelsea Manning, who also blew the whistle on illegal US activity.
Obama has done absolutely nothing of value to fix the broken economy, opting instead to pour money into the 1% (at least he's proven that trickle-down is entirely a fantasy!). So when you read those glowing economics reports, remember that only 1% of those gains went to the people who got screwed and 99% went to the people who did the screwing.