A Trump-Sanders Debate...

[liberty]

I it is quite possible that a majority of Sander’s people would prefer that Trump defeat Clinton. That would allow Sander the run again in four years. Who knows what will happen in eight years, in politics that is forever. A man like Sanders may never come on the scene again in our lifetime.

[MajGenl.Meade]

.,.. or at any day, given his age

[Scooter]

As usual, one can count on anything the villiage idiot believes to be true as actually being demonstrably false.

A new New York Times/CBS poll finds:

"Twenty-eight percent of Mr. Sanders's primary voters say they will not support her if she is the nominee, a figure that reflects the continuing anger many Sanders supporters feel toward both Mrs. Clinton and a process they believe is unfair."

That sounds worrisome. But it turns out that things may have been worse in 2008, as the primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wound down.

A NYT/CBS poll from April of 2008 found:

"Looking ahead to November, 35 percent of Clinton's voters now say they would vote for McCain in the fall if Obama is the Democratic nominee."

According to this one metric, at least, the percentage of Clinton's supporters in 2008 who seemed prepared to bolt was marginally larger than the percentage of Sanders supporters who now say the same.

Meanwhile, in Friday's poll, Clinton is viewed favorably by 62 percent of Democrats. But in April of 2008, Barack Obama was viewed favorably by only 57 percent of Democrats — again, worse.

[Lord Jim]

A lot of Democratic pundits also point out this comparison, but there are a couple of significant differences...

In 2008, (as again this year) the bulk of Hillary's support came from mainstream Democratic Party loyalists; these are precisely the sorts of voters most likely to unify behind the party nominee once they've had a chance to reflect on it, even after a fairly ugly nomination fight...

This is not true of a large portion of the Sanders voters. Many of his voters haven't even been Democrats previously, some are political nihilists who just want to see "the table turned over". These are the ones (though not a majority, as Lib speculates) most likely to vote for Trump over Clinton.

Others are left-wing independents, (many previously a-political) who would just as soon vote for the Greens, or stay home and fire up a fattie rather than turn out to vote for Hillary...

Also, Hillary wrapped up her campaign four days after the California primary and worked pretty hard to mend fences and get her supporters behind Obama.

Sanders by contrast, like many of his supporters, has absolutely no investment in the fortunes of the Democratic Party. Far from being ready to get out even when mathematically eliminated, he shows every indication of gearing up for a nasty and noisy scene at the convention...

He says he'll support Hillary over Trump, but he's also said it's not his business to tell his followers who to support. There's no reason to think that he would campaign energetically all around the country for Hillary the way she did for Obama.

So in contrast with 2008, you've got both rank-and-file supporters and a candidate on the losing side far less committed to the success of the Democratic Party...

Hillary's got a big job ahead of her to get these people on board. A much tougher task then Obama had.

And if she goes too far in appeasing them, she risks alienating a lot of the political center...(Frankly it looks to me like she has already bent over backwards to court and coddle these people, but nothing ever seems to be enough for this self-righteous bunch)

[liberty]

Frankly it looks to me like she has already bent over backwards to court and coddle these people, but nothing ever seems to be enough for this

self-righteous bunch

)

Jim I freely admit that I do not have the time to keep up with current event as you do. But I feel I have pretty good instincts so with the limited information I do have I don’t see it as self-righteousness as much as fear. People on both the left and right are worried about the future of their children in this country. The middle class continually gets smaller and eventually it will catch up with us and we will become a poor third world country. Many people now have reached the point they are willing to take a chance. I don’t know how big that number is, but I believe it will get bigger every election cycle unless things turn around. In the end, the economy dominates everything; people have to make a living.

[Lord Jim]

Sanders was at the Warriors game last night...

And he tried to draw an analogy between their phenomenal comeback in the Western Championship series, and his campaign...

But he's not a like a team that comes back from being down 1-3 to win a best of seven series...

In his position, he's like a team that's down 1-4 in a best of seven series but shows up at the arena for game six anyway...

[Big RR]

And if she goes too far in appeasing them, she risks alienating a lot of the political center...(Frankly it looks to me like she has already bent over backwards to court and coddle these people, but nothing ever seems to be enough for this self-righteous bunch)

Jim--I'd be interested in seeing examples of what you see as Hillary's appeasement to the left; despite some occasional left-sounding rhetoric and reaching out to them without any real specifics (usually followed by some bonehead comment from her campaign attacking Bernie), I haven't seen any change in her positions since the campaign began. And FWIW, if you do want the support of a group, doesn't it make sense to actually implement some policy changes to court them? I think it does.

[rubato]

"...

But he's not a like a team that comes back from being down 1-3 to win a best of seven series...

... " .

That's true, he's more like someone who shuns the Democratic party for decades until he wants to use them to run for president and then complains that they aren't making the rules to suit him


yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

Exactly.

[RayThom]

I've mentioned this before but I want Bernie to stick around as long as possible... hopefully all the way to the convention.

I don't want Hillary being sworn in thinking she received a royal mandate from the little people.

[Big RR]

rubato--that's one interpretation, the other is that Bernie was an independent because the dems marginalized him and those who shared his views in the quest for the center. Now some dems come screaming that he could be giving the election to Trump because he doesn't two what the leadership decrees is the party line.

IMHO, this is the more true story; the democratic party has been taking those in the moderate and further left for granted for many years. I want to see Bernie hang in there until the end, if only to get some input to the platform and campaign, not that I imagine wit will accomplish that much, but even a slight shift on some party positions would be a breath of fresh air.

And FWIW, I have nothing against Hillary; as I have said many times, se has surprised me with how well she did as both SOS and senator, and she could well be a good president. But her stated positions are a bit too plain vanilla centrist for me, and I have serous concerns about her ever changing them. 4 or 8 more years triangulation doesn't excite me.

[Guinevere]

Bernie has never been a Democrat, he only "joined" the party in 2015 to run for President on a major party ticket. He has always been a socialist and at some point in his early VT political career ran under the auspices of a minor third party. As mayor of Burlington, Congressman, and Senator, he ran as a socialist/independent.

[Big RR]

True Guin, he is a self defined socialist, but he has repeatedly stated that socialism is a system of economics and not a party. And, FWIW, there was a time when socialists were welcomed into the democratic party and helped shape its agenda. Bernie was not a member of the democratic party, but he did caucus with the democrats in the senate and campaigned for Walter Mondale in 1984. But the democratic party establishment has repeatedly turned its back on socialists and others on the left to court the middle, at least since Reagan, taking the support of those left leaning voters for granted. And the support for Bernie is part of the backlash for that policy.

[Guinevere]

His caucusing choice was made to give him a voice, not simply to aid the Democrats. He has repeatedly and consistently rejected that party, and only utilizes its organization and infrastructure (and money and people) to get out his message, to make his voice heard, to legitimize his campaign, because he cannot do it on his own (which, IMO, speaks to a larger issue than just the Democratic party).

Bernie isn't some spurned brother of the Democratic party, nor is he the voice of an unheard minority (although he is trying to wrap both mantles around his shoulders). To say otherwise is to completely ignore his history and cling to the fiction his campaign is so good at writing.

[Big RR]

Whatever Bernie is or is not, many who support him are disaffected democrats who are tired of being marginalized and taken for granted by the party leadership. Even if he has been marginalized (partly or wholly) by choice, there are many who are tired of being ignored and taken for granted. And he has given voice to that part of the democratic party.

[rubato]

The Democratic party never 'turned their backs' on Bernie. Because they never had the opportunity. He also never tried to support them, nor educate them, nor shift the party's platform by persuasion.

There is a large group at the left of the party who want to see more labor-friendly laws enacted and a more redistributive tax system but this is no thinks to Bernie who refused to work with the party to organize and mobilize this group over the last 35 years in the many times when they might have made a difference.

I don't fault him for doing this, Hillary is using the party for her own ends as well, but unlike her he has no right to complain how the party works because he was too much of a Prima Donna to engage with it and do the hard work of party development.


yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

Not entirely and not as dramatically as you and others seem to think. Whats happening is being given some voice via Bernie, but it's far bigger than he is, and has really not that much to do with the Democratic Party.

[Big RR]

Whats happening is being given some voice via Bernie, but it's far bigger than he is, and has really not that much to do with the Democratic Party.

I agree it is bigger than Bernie, but I disagree it is not about the democratic party. Since the 20s the dems always had room for those on the political left, electing a president who was pretty much a socialist (FDR) and embracing a big tent. This was backed away from in the 50s, but the 60s and 70s showed a major shift back to embracing the left, and the democratic party had a vibrant liberal wing, which spanned the spectrum from moderate liberals to full blown socialists.

But then the party began to back away from these factions, courting the middle and new voters at their expense. And what's worse, they even allowed the republicans to control the definition of liberal, so that clear moderates like Bill Clinton and Obama were called liberal, and anyone to the left of them were hopeless radicals. And along the way the faction rubato writes about were marginalized more and more to the point of being ignored.

And IMHO, this contributed to the popularity of Bernie; this is a group that is tired of being marginalized and wants to have a seat at the table, yet they are dismissed by the leadership again and again. So yes, the situation is bigger than Bernie, but he has given it some voice. He is a person doesn't have all the answers, but who asks the right questions and refuses to be marginalized.

Face it, the republicans gave up their liberal wing in the 70s, and there was a chance to have the dems embrace the left, but we have gotten less and less of that. Sure, there were some left of center policies pursued, but for the most part both parties pursued tax cuts with big deficits, ill-advised welfare reform, and a whittling away of the advances that came out of decades past. Some might call that pragmatism, but others, myself included, think this is what has led to voters becoming discouraged and not even bothering to vote.

And so, yes, it is a bigger "problem" than Bernie, but it is something that should not be ignored.