2008 primary was not one of Hillarys best moments, i'm sure we can all agree on that.
And personally, i don't think 2016 Bernie has always been the best Bernie we've seen, or likely to see in the future.
Let's be frank, if we're going to see much bernie in the future at this point.
I'm not sure where he'd disappear.
Is he in danger of loosing his senate seat due to primary or something?
2008 primary was not one of Hillarys best moments, i'm sure we can all agree on that.
And personally, i don't think 2016 Bernie has always been the best Bernie we've seen, or likely to see in the future.
Let's be frank, if we're going to see much bernie in the future at this point.
Hey, if I managed to achieve enlightenment by repeatedly beating my head against a brick wall, you can, too.
Check your masonry privilege
----
So the polling consensus seems to be ~+20 Clinton in NC and FL, high single digits in OH, a possible tossup in IL and a probable tossup in MO. So net Clinton +70 delegates give or take 20?
Sanders' profile is going to be higher than ever after this primary. Well, higher than before the primary, maybe not as high as right now.
I don't think he's going anywhere as a voice for progressive causes within the party. If anything, he's going to be harder to ignore now.
Only question is if he has the political skills to fully capitalize on this (if he looses the primary).
I'm not sure he has, but i doubt he'd just disappear.
Sanders' profile is going to be higher than ever after this primary. Well, higher than before the primary, maybe not as high as right now.
I don't think he's going anywhere as a voice for progressive causes within the party. If anything, he's going to be harder to ignore now.
I don't feel like Edwards was actually much more prominent after 04. Dean was head of DNC but other than that faded. The 08 and 12 also rans mostly have immediately faded on the GOP side and the 08 also rans on the Dem side mostly went away if they didn't get an Obama Administration job.
Similarly, McCain and Romney faded after they lost and Kerry lost luster after 04. Gore did for a number of years before becoming such a prominent climate change advocate.
I think the progressive wing will be lead by others more than Sanders such as Elizabeth Warren, the returning Russ Feingold, etc
Sanders' profile is going to be higher than ever after this primary. Well, higher than before the primary, maybe not as high as right now.
I don't think he's going anywhere as a voice for progressive causes within the party. If anything, he's going to be harder to ignore now.
Yeah, for the next three-ish years, at least, we can expect him to be a a leader among Senate Democrats, officially or unofficially. He's nearing typical retirement age, he might decide to exit in 2018, but he's still young enough he's got another term (or two!) left if he wants.
I don't know how much of a hit Warren has actually taken for her lack of endorsement, but I could see Sanders easily taking her place as the voice of the left wing of the party.
I think the fact the Bernie does so well, while never having been one of the big names in Democratic Party, does give him some level of pull he could use to be more visible part of the political power structure.
But doing so requires political and interpersonal skills he may not possess.
Sanders' profile is going to be higher than ever after this primary. Well, higher than before the primary, maybe not as high as right now.
I don't think he's going anywhere as a voice for progressive causes within the party. If anything, he's going to be harder to ignore now.
I don't feel like Edwards was actually much more prominent after 04. Dean was head of DNC but other than that faded. The 08 and 12 also rans mostly have immediately faded on the GOP side and the 08 also rans on the Dem side mostly went away if they didn't get an Obama Administration job.
Similarly, McCain and Romney faded after they lost and Kerry lost luster after 04. Gore did for a number of years before becoming such a prominent climate change advocate.
I think the progressive wing will be lead by others more than Sanders such as Elizabeth Warren, the returning Russ Feingold, etc
Edwards is a really, really bad analog. Getting caught with a second family isn't something you survive in Democratic politics.
Dean as head of the DNC was foundational to what should have been the party's rebirth. He had an ambitious vision that he articulated in the primary and got people excited about. That's a much better analog, I think. Though I doubt Sanders ends up as DNC head, Clinton has already been positioning him as an "ally" in the Senate. If he transitions into a leadership role there on some level, he could wield a lot of power.
The others were general election losers, not candidates that got a ton of people excited in the primary without winning. There really isn't a meaningful comparison to be made there. Very few people in modern history have lost a general election presidential bid and remained relevant.
As a reminder, the last person to lose a Democratic primary was Hillary Goddamn Clinton. She doesn't seem to have suffered, overmuch.
Edwards didn't get any delegates. Howard Dean won two states total, with less than 6% of the total primary vote (though to be fair it's because he dropped out early on).
Sanders has won Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, and Michigan. I don't feel like it's fair to compare him to Dean or Edwards. Bernie Sanders is proof positive that there are people who will vote for liberal causes. Imagine somebody more politically savvy than Sanders, but with his same basic positions. Imagine that person is not an older white male. It makes me excited, and I'm not the only one.
I fully expect Sanders to go back to the Senate and keep doing the same job he's always been doing. There is no reason to think otherwise unless his health is in question.
Also Sanders is infinitely more exciting than Kerry ever was, even if he's losing (which is more a function of Clinton's name recognition and political connections/savvy than a value judgment on Bernie). Kerry was like a boring singularity, from which no enthusiasm could ever escape.
Sanders' profile is going to be higher than ever after this primary. Well, higher than before the primary, maybe not as high as right now.
I don't think he's going anywhere as a voice for progressive causes within the party. If anything, he's going to be harder to ignore now.
Yeah, for the next three-ish years, at least, we can expect him to be a a leader among Senate Democrats, officially or unofficially. He's nearing typical retirement age, he might decide to exit in 2018, but he's still young enough he's got another term (or two!) left if he wants.
I don't know how much of a hit Warren has actually taken for her lack of endorsement, but I could see Sanders easily taking her place as the voice of the left wing of the party.
Warren is still super popular among her crowd. Most of those directly involved in this see her lack of endorsement as a means of keeping a strong progressive voice near the corridors of power rather than having the centrist wing slam that door after the nomination. By not officially picking a side she made it very hard to push her out when this is over.
Edwards didn't get any delegates. Howard Dean won two states total, with less than 6% of the total primary vote (though to be fair it's because he dropped out early on).
Sanders has won Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, and Michigan. I don't feel like it's fair to compare him to Dean or Edwards. Bernie Sanders is proof positive that there are people who will vote for liberal causes. Imagine somebody more politically savvy than Sanders, but with his same basic positions. Imagine that person is not an older white male. It makes me excited, and I'm not the only one.
And he's going to clean up out west. Even this next batch tomorrow is looking much closer than it was forecasted to be even a couple weeks ago.
When you consider the fact that Clinton was running as the defacto incumbent in this primary, Sanders' performance so far is absolutely amazing.
This is probably the point at which Bernie's presence is costing Hillary votes rather than simply pulling her into a more favorable leftward stance. Which is a thing that would happen at some point, but it's disappointing that it's over false attacks.
Like I said weeks ago the dems are getting goosey as shit. They are going to tear themselves apart in the next couple of months, and we're going to be left with president Trump because of it. If it weren't for the fact that they are getting torn up for some genuinely arguable reasons I'd be more pissed, but I'm still pretty pissed because it is going to end up with a Trump presidency after a bunch of chucklefucks declare #NeverHillary. I just hope to be proven wrong there. That there's actually enough sensible folks left that can understand that given an inevitable choice where in the end Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is the next president that Hillary is, at the very least, identifiably the lesser of two evils (though I guess since I don't see Hillary as evil, and don't really even understand how people really do, that I'm not the best judge of that).
Please stop doing this man. You're just going to kill yourself with needless stress.
The contest is still markedly more civil than 08, even including Hillary being The Enemy at new Sanders rallies and this recent attack on the BP oil spill.
When Clinton calls Sanders a deadbeat welfare queen or Sanders actually calls Clinton corrupt to her face and implies she's a traitor, we can talk about tearing ourselves apart.
Like I said I've at least found some level of hope for this not being where it's headed. Oddly enough with how crazy the Trump shit has gotten, I've actually become more hopeful because my naivety just won't allow my brain to think a plurality would vote for this fuck head given what is quite visible here. That he simply cannot win with the amount of crazy shit he causes everywhere he goes.
However at that same time my feed from Massachusetts is a bunch of never Hillary type shit, with the fringe folks stating that outright and the more mainstream folks leaning harder and harder into it every day, and a bunch of pro Trump support.
I think the problem might just be the geese in my state, and their propensity for honking loudly.
Who would attempt to push Warren out if she endorsed Sanders? Man that's just crazy talk.
The Clintons have a history of clearing the decks of people who didn't fall in line. It's a widespread concern among Progressives that a Clinton nomination is going to result in them being wished to the cornfield if they don't keep the pressure up.
Sanders' profile is going to be higher than ever after this primary. Well, higher than before the primary, maybe not as high as right now.
I don't think he's going anywhere as a voice for progressive causes within the party. If anything, he's going to be harder to ignore now.
Yeah, for the next three-ish years, at least, we can expect him to be a a leader among Senate Democrats, officially or unofficially. He's nearing typical retirement age, he might decide to exit in 2018, but he's still young enough he's got another term (or two!) left if he wants.
I don't know how much of a hit Warren has actually taken for her lack of endorsement, but I could see Sanders easily taking her place as the voice of the left wing of the party.
Warren is still super popular among her crowd. Most of those directly involved in this see her lack of endorsement as a means of keeping a strong progressive voice near the corridors of power rather than having the centrist wing slam that door after the nomination. By not officially picking a side she made it very hard to push her out when this is over.
Yeah I've actually been pretty proud of this play by her for the length of the primary. I really hope she doesn't endorse anyone, or speak up in favor of anyone, until the general.
Edwards is a really, really bad analog. Getting caught with a second family isn't something you survive in Democratic politics.
Dean as head of the DNC was foundational to what should have been the party's rebirth. He had an ambitious vision that he articulated in the primary and got people excited about. That's a much better analog, I think. Though I doubt Sanders ends up as DNC head, Clinton has already been positioning him as an "ally" in the Senate. If he transitions into a leadership role there on some level, he could wield a lot of power.
The others were general election losers, not candidates that got a ton of people excited in the primary without winning. There really isn't a meaningful comparison to be made there. Very few people in modern history have lost a general election presidential bid and remained relevant.
As a reminder, the last person to lose a Democratic primary was Hillary Goddamn Clinton. She doesn't seem to have suffered, overmuch.
Edwards was a Presidential candidate in 04, and then Senator for 4 years before running again during which the second family came out. He came in second in 2004. Dean got the DNC job and through that was influential. He didn't become a legislative leader, he became part of the party machinery. I think Sanders is unlikely to remain in the party (his 2018 Senate campaign committee is still designated Independent) if/when he loses the primary so I think that's pretty openly not the best analogy.
Clinton and Biden joined the Obama Administration. If Sanders became a Cabinet official, it'd be comparable but I think O'Malley is far more likely to have that occur.
Or Bill Bradley in 2000 didn't do anything politically afterwards. Tsongas was unable to achieve relevance after 1992. Jerry Brown became a pariah for almost a decade after 1992.
Sanders isn't likely to get a promotion out of this race. I just don't see any reason to believe he'll suddenly get a bunch of influence in the Senate by losing a primary by less than expected, especially considering he hasn't received any Senate endorsements.
It's possible he won't get some prominent, powerful placement in the political party proper, but I don't think it's possible to posit his profile won't be puffed up.
I'm also impressed with how people just keep giving him money. Just last month his campaign took in over $40 million from contributions averaging $30 bucks each.
He even outearned Clinton in January raising $20 million to her $15.
Edwards is a really, really bad analog. Getting caught with a second family isn't something you survive in Democratic politics.
Dean as head of the DNC was foundational to what should have been the party's rebirth. He had an ambitious vision that he articulated in the primary and got people excited about. That's a much better analog, I think. Though I doubt Sanders ends up as DNC head, Clinton has already been positioning him as an "ally" in the Senate. If he transitions into a leadership role there on some level, he could wield a lot of power.
The others were general election losers, not candidates that got a ton of people excited in the primary without winning. There really isn't a meaningful comparison to be made there. Very few people in modern history have lost a general election presidential bid and remained relevant.
As a reminder, the last person to lose a Democratic primary was Hillary Goddamn Clinton. She doesn't seem to have suffered, overmuch.
Edwards was a Presidential candidate in 04, and then Senator for 4 years before running again during which the second family came out. He came in second in 2004. Dean got the DNC job and through that was influential. He didn't become a legislative leader, he became part of the party machinery. I think Sanders is unlikely to remain in the party (his 2018 Senate campaign committee is still designated Independent) if/when he loses the primary so I think that's pretty openly not the best analogy.
Clinton and Biden joined the Obama Administration. If Sanders became a Cabinet official, it'd be comparable but I think O'Malley is far more likely to have that occur.
Or Bill Bradley in 2000 didn't do anything politically afterwards. Tsongas was unable to achieve relevance after 1992. Jerry Brown became a pariah for almost a decade after 1992.
Sanders isn't likely to get a promotion out of this race. I just don't see any reason to believe he'll suddenly get a bunch of influence in the Senate by losing a primary by less than expected, especially considering he hasn't received any Senate endorsements.
Edwards won two states in 2004. None in 2008.
Dean won 1 state and DC.
Bradly won bupkus.
Tsongas won 7 states in a very crowded field. Before the internet, or anyone really knowing who he was. Hell, I'm a huge politics nerd and I had to google him.
Sanders is outperforming every losing Democratic Primary candidate since the reformation except one. It's a name you might recognize, she's fairly well known right now. There's no reason for him to fade into obscurity after this, or to expect he will be allowed to.
I'm also impressed with how people just keep giving him money. Just last month his campaign took in over $40 million from contributions averaging $30 bucks each.
He even outearned Clinton in January raising $20 million to her $15.
I'd heard he outraised her in February, too. Did that not turn out to be the case?
Who would attempt to push Warren out if she endorsed Sanders? Man that's just crazy talk.
The Clintons have a history of clearing the decks of people who didn't fall in line. It's a widespread concern among Progressives that a Clinton nomination is going to result in them being wished to the cornfield if they don't keep the pressure up.
The Clinton literally came into Washington with the mandate to sweep out the leftists who drove the party into a ditch before Reagan. The Third Wave for which the Clintons are known was all about replacing the old Democratic coalition (labor, activists, minorities) with an alliance with donors and big business.
Of course, the very narrative that they were pushing was a D.C. insider invention. What really happened to destroy the Democrats was that the media monstered Jimmy Carter because he tried to build his Administration out of D.C. outsiders, and the townie clique spent the next four years burying him. Then, they spent the 80s lionizing Reagan until the stink of scandals, failures, and Alzheimer's got to much to hide.
There's a lot of great insight into how the media used to work when you realize that the "Malaise" speech that Carter was lambasted for actually polled extremely well. It only became damaging when the media went into full attack mode, to the point that the old-timers still refer to it today as a shorthand for why Carter lost.
I'm also impressed with how people just keep giving him money. Just last month his campaign took in over $40 million from contributions averaging $30 bucks each.
He even outearned Clinton in January raising $20 million to her $15.
I'd heard he outraised her in February, too. Did that not turn out to be the case?
The internet money spigot is pretty powerful
Yeah he did. He also had a higher burn rate; at this point burning the candle from both ends is an effective description.
I'm also impressed with how people just keep giving him money. Just last month his campaign took in over $40 million from contributions averaging $30 bucks each.
He even outearned Clinton in January raising $20 million to her $15.
I'd heard he outraised her in February, too. Did that not turn out to be the case?
The internet money spigot is pretty powerful
Clinton actually out raised him in January 27 million to 20 million, but some of it went to the DNC and state parties. Still, she increased her cash on hand lead.
Feb numbers haven't fully been released but he likely out raised her outright in that month.
edit
Correction: In January she raised 20 million to his 21 million
Imagine somebody more politically savvy than Sanders, but with his same basic positions. Imagine that person is not an older white male. It makes me excited, and I'm not the only one.
...Obama?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Imagine somebody more politically savvy than Sanders, but with his same basic positions. Imagine that person is not an older white male. It makes me excited, and I'm not the only one.
...Obama?
Well, everything except for Sanders' positions. Just off the top of my head, Sanders is more dovish and Obama is friendlier to Wall Street.
But then, pretty much everybody is friendlier to Wall Street than Sanders is.
By the way, it's not a knock on Obama to say that he's more center-left than Sanders is. It's just the way it is. But I get excited at the prospect of somebody who is basically Obama but further left, yeah.
Edwards didn't get any delegates. Howard Dean won two states total, with less than 6% of the total primary vote (though to be fair it's because he dropped out early on).
Sanders has won Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, and Michigan. I don't feel like it's fair to compare him to Dean or Edwards. Bernie Sanders is proof positive that there are people who will vote for liberal causes. Imagine somebody more politically savvy than Sanders, but with his same basic positions. Imagine that person is not an older white male. It makes me excited, and I'm not the only one.
Aye. One of the nice things about this race is you can look at Sanders and think someone alot like him but with some changes here and there (better minority outreach, less old white guy from tiny new england state who looks a bit like an adorable crazy grandpa, etc, etc) and he would have a much better chance of winning the primary. Which is nice to see and makes the future look brighter as long as said candidate starts appearing in the next 4-8 years.
+6
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
By the way, it's not a knock on Obama to say that he's more center-left than Sanders is. It's just the way it is. But I get excited at the prospect of somebody who is basically Obama but further left, yeah.
I would LOVE a Democratic tea party. It's only been horrible for the GOP since far right policy positions are repugnant. I think the mechanism behind it should be something we leverage.
Most self-identified Dems want to go left. The controversy between Hillary and Bernie is just about who gets us there faster - Bernie with an arguably more sincere desire, Hillary with the political capital and connections to do it. I'd love to see moderate Dems getting primaried for going back on liberalism.
The Tea Party begat Trump for the GOP, and abhorrent far-right policy coming out of the party as it needed to become more and more extreme.
A hypothetical Dem Coffee Party gets us, what - a candidate calling for an Aitiyspakkus for all expectant parents? Calls for basic income?
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
This is probably the point at which Bernie's presence is costing Hillary votes rather than simply pulling her into a more favorable leftward stance. Which is a thing that would happen at some point, but it's disappointing that it's over false attacks.
Like I said weeks ago the dems are getting goosey as shit. They are going to tear themselves apart in the next couple of months, and we're going to be left with president Trump because of it. If it weren't for the fact that they are getting torn up for some genuinely arguable reasons I'd be more pissed, but I'm still pretty pissed because it is going to end up with a Trump presidency after a bunch of chucklefucks declare #NeverHillary. I just hope to be proven wrong there. That there's actually enough sensible folks left that can understand that given an inevitable choice where in the end Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is the next president that Hillary is, at the very least, identifiably the lesser of two evils (though I guess since I don't see Hillary as evil, and don't really even understand how people really do, that I'm not the best judge of that).
dude, 2008 was way more brutal than this, both in interactions between actual campaigns and their supporters, and in the end everyone* got their priorities straight
it's going to be fine
*certain Clinton supporters notwithstanding
Clinton has very high favorable with Sanders supporters and vice versa. The ONLY way the democrats could screw it up in terms of Democrats defecting is if Bernie loses, but just barely so, to the point where super delegates can be said to be the only cause and then for some reason he goes utterly insane and gives a speech telling his supporters to vote Republican and then goes and campaigns for Trump.
We are far more likely to see Republicans actually schism into two parties, or George Bush out on the campaign trail for Hilary than we are to see Bernie advocating his supporters to stay home as a protest against Hilary.
If your looking for a nightmare scenario to be worried about...
Hilary Clinton 400 EV 60% national vote
Donald Trump 138 EV 40% national vote
"And now we go to Donald Trump who has scheduled his concession speech..."
Trump - "This campaign has been robbed! I will never give up, and nor should you. I urge you to take to the streets and tear down the false icons who have opposed me. We are the true majority. America stands with you! Rebellion is the only answer to this level of obvious oppression!"
A debate over what a Democratic Tea Party would look like is probably outside the scope of this thread, but I think it's kind of a flawed concept before you even get into those weeds. The Tea Party exists because of racism, xenophobia, and a desire for absolute purity from their representatives (which is apparently completely unattainable, given how often insane right-wingers are primaried for the smallest offense), and the goal is to shut government down and keep anything from happening. Additionally, the movement itself was astroturfed to hell. A left-wing populist movement would almost certainly be a grassroots one, and the motivating factors would be entirely different, not just ideologically opposite.
This is why I get frustrated when Sanders is compared to Trump, or true liberals are called the "Tea Party fringe of the left". The ideas are incomparable, and there is often an agenda in making the comparison (not in your post, SummaryJudgment, just in general).
The Democrats won't "Coffee Party" themselves because we're on the whole too busy fighting a holding action against regressive GOP policy and legislative obstructionism. Or, more simply, we all know we're too busy holding the dam together to start any infighting.
DNC Liberal/Progressive shift will be a side effect of newer generations of D politicians as time inevitably marches forward.
This is probably the point at which Bernie's presence is costing Hillary votes rather than simply pulling her into a more favorable leftward stance. Which is a thing that would happen at some point, but it's disappointing that it's over false attacks.
Like I said weeks ago the dems are getting goosey as shit. They are going to tear themselves apart in the next couple of months, and we're going to be left with president Trump because of it. If it weren't for the fact that they are getting torn up for some genuinely arguable reasons I'd be more pissed, but I'm still pretty pissed because it is going to end up with a Trump presidency after a bunch of chucklefucks declare #NeverHillary. I just hope to be proven wrong there. That there's actually enough sensible folks left that can understand that given an inevitable choice where in the end Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is the next president that Hillary is, at the very least, identifiably the lesser of two evils (though I guess since I don't see Hillary as evil, and don't really even understand how people really do, that I'm not the best judge of that).
dude, 2008 was way more brutal than this, both in interactions between actual campaigns and their supporters, and in the end everyone* got their priorities straight
it's going to be fine
*certain Clinton supporters notwithstanding
Clinton has very high favorable with Sanders supporters and vice versa. The ONLY way the democrats could screw it up in terms of Democrats defecting is if Bernie loses, but just barely so, to the point where super delegates can be said to be the only cause and then for some reason he goes utterly insane and gives a speech telling his supporters to vote Republican and then goes and campaigns for Trump.
We are far more likely to see Republicans actually schism into two parties, or George Bush out on the campaign trail for Hilary than we are to see Bernie advocating his supporters to stay home as a protest against Hilary.
If your looking for a nightmare scenario to be worried about...
Hilary Clinton 400 EV 60% national vote
Donald Trump 138 EV 40% national vote
"And now we go to Donald Trump who has scheduled his concession speech..."
Trump - "This campaign has been robbed! I will never give up, and nor should you. I urge you to take to the streets and tear down the false icons who have opposed me. We are the true majority. America stands with you! Rebellion is the only answer to this level of obvious oppression!"
Well that's one way to chip away at the racial disparities in incarceration rates
I think that the specific comparison of tea party purity testing v. Sanders purity testing had merit when he was explicitly doing that, but he's shifted away from that tactic now so I don't think it's fair anymore.
This is probably the point at which Bernie's presence is costing Hillary votes rather than simply pulling her into a more favorable leftward stance. Which is a thing that would happen at some point, but it's disappointing that it's over false attacks.
Like I said weeks ago the dems are getting goosey as shit. They are going to tear themselves apart in the next couple of months, and we're going to be left with president Trump because of it. If it weren't for the fact that they are getting torn up for some genuinely arguable reasons I'd be more pissed, but I'm still pretty pissed because it is going to end up with a Trump presidency after a bunch of chucklefucks declare #NeverHillary. I just hope to be proven wrong there. That there's actually enough sensible folks left that can understand that given an inevitable choice where in the end Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is the next president that Hillary is, at the very least, identifiably the lesser of two evils (though I guess since I don't see Hillary as evil, and don't really even understand how people really do, that I'm not the best judge of that).
dude, 2008 was way more brutal than this, both in interactions between actual campaigns and their supporters, and in the end everyone* got their priorities straight
it's going to be fine
*certain Clinton supporters notwithstanding
Clinton has very high favorable with Sanders supporters and vice versa. The ONLY way the democrats could screw it up in terms of Democrats defecting is if Bernie loses, but just barely so, to the point where super delegates can be said to be the only cause and then for some reason he goes utterly insane and gives a speech telling his supporters to vote Republican and then goes and campaigns for Trump.
We are far more likely to see Republicans actually schism into two parties, or George Bush out on the campaign trail for Hilary than we are to see Bernie advocating his supporters to stay home as a protest against Hilary.
If your looking for a nightmare scenario to be worried about...
Hilary Clinton 400 EV 60% national vote
Donald Trump 138 EV 40% national vote
"And now we go to Donald Trump who has scheduled his concession speech..."
Trump - "This campaign has been robbed! I will never give up, and nor should you. I urge you to take to the streets and tear down the false icons who have opposed me. We are the true majority. America stands with you! Rebellion is the only answer to this level of obvious oppression!"
Well that's one way to chip away at the racial disparities in incarceration rates
I guess what I mean is that I view a disaster caused by Trump refusing to concede as far more likely than the Democrats imploding.
Posts
Is he in danger of loosing his senate seat due to primary or something?
I don't think he's going anywhere as a voice for progressive causes within the party. If anything, he's going to be harder to ignore now.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
he's got at least one more Senate term in him
Check your masonry privilege
----
So the polling consensus seems to be ~+20 Clinton in NC and FL, high single digits in OH, a possible tossup in IL and a probable tossup in MO. So net Clinton +70 delegates give or take 20?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'm not sure he has, but i doubt he'd just disappear.
I don't feel like Edwards was actually much more prominent after 04. Dean was head of DNC but other than that faded. The 08 and 12 also rans mostly have immediately faded on the GOP side and the 08 also rans on the Dem side mostly went away if they didn't get an Obama Administration job.
Similarly, McCain and Romney faded after they lost and Kerry lost luster after 04. Gore did for a number of years before becoming such a prominent climate change advocate.
I think the progressive wing will be lead by others more than Sanders such as Elizabeth Warren, the returning Russ Feingold, etc
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yeah, for the next three-ish years, at least, we can expect him to be a a leader among Senate Democrats, officially or unofficially. He's nearing typical retirement age, he might decide to exit in 2018, but he's still young enough he's got another term (or two!) left if he wants.
I don't know how much of a hit Warren has actually taken for her lack of endorsement, but I could see Sanders easily taking her place as the voice of the left wing of the party.
But doing so requires political and interpersonal skills he may not possess.
Dean as head of the DNC was foundational to what should have been the party's rebirth. He had an ambitious vision that he articulated in the primary and got people excited about. That's a much better analog, I think. Though I doubt Sanders ends up as DNC head, Clinton has already been positioning him as an "ally" in the Senate. If he transitions into a leadership role there on some level, he could wield a lot of power.
The others were general election losers, not candidates that got a ton of people excited in the primary without winning. There really isn't a meaningful comparison to be made there. Very few people in modern history have lost a general election presidential bid and remained relevant.
As a reminder, the last person to lose a Democratic primary was Hillary Goddamn Clinton. She doesn't seem to have suffered, overmuch.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
pleasepaypreacher.net
He's a healthy guy. We've got plenty of time before we need to worry about his imminent death.
Sanders has won Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, and Michigan. I don't feel like it's fair to compare him to Dean or Edwards. Bernie Sanders is proof positive that there are people who will vote for liberal causes. Imagine somebody more politically savvy than Sanders, but with his same basic positions. Imagine that person is not an older white male. It makes me excited, and I'm not the only one.
Warren is still super popular among her crowd. Most of those directly involved in this see her lack of endorsement as a means of keeping a strong progressive voice near the corridors of power rather than having the centrist wing slam that door after the nomination. By not officially picking a side she made it very hard to push her out when this is over.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And he's going to clean up out west. Even this next batch tomorrow is looking much closer than it was forecasted to be even a couple weeks ago.
When you consider the fact that Clinton was running as the defacto incumbent in this primary, Sanders' performance so far is absolutely amazing.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Like I said I've at least found some level of hope for this not being where it's headed. Oddly enough with how crazy the Trump shit has gotten, I've actually become more hopeful because my naivety just won't allow my brain to think a plurality would vote for this fuck head given what is quite visible here. That he simply cannot win with the amount of crazy shit he causes everywhere he goes.
However at that same time my feed from Massachusetts is a bunch of never Hillary type shit, with the fringe folks stating that outright and the more mainstream folks leaning harder and harder into it every day, and a bunch of pro Trump support.
I think the problem might just be the geese in my state, and their propensity for honking loudly.
The Clintons have a history of clearing the decks of people who didn't fall in line. It's a widespread concern among Progressives that a Clinton nomination is going to result in them being wished to the cornfield if they don't keep the pressure up.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yeah I've actually been pretty proud of this play by her for the length of the primary. I really hope she doesn't endorse anyone, or speak up in favor of anyone, until the general.
Edwards was a Presidential candidate in 04, and then Senator for 4 years before running again during which the second family came out. He came in second in 2004. Dean got the DNC job and through that was influential. He didn't become a legislative leader, he became part of the party machinery. I think Sanders is unlikely to remain in the party (his 2018 Senate campaign committee is still designated Independent) if/when he loses the primary so I think that's pretty openly not the best analogy.
Clinton and Biden joined the Obama Administration. If Sanders became a Cabinet official, it'd be comparable but I think O'Malley is far more likely to have that occur.
Or Bill Bradley in 2000 didn't do anything politically afterwards. Tsongas was unable to achieve relevance after 1992. Jerry Brown became a pariah for almost a decade after 1992.
Sanders isn't likely to get a promotion out of this race. I just don't see any reason to believe he'll suddenly get a bunch of influence in the Senate by losing a primary by less than expected, especially considering he hasn't received any Senate endorsements.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
He even outearned Clinton in January raising $20 million to her $15.
Edwards won two states in 2004. None in 2008.
Dean won 1 state and DC.
Bradly won bupkus.
Tsongas won 7 states in a very crowded field. Before the internet, or anyone really knowing who he was. Hell, I'm a huge politics nerd and I had to google him.
Sanders is outperforming every losing Democratic Primary candidate since the reformation except one. It's a name you might recognize, she's fairly well known right now. There's no reason for him to fade into obscurity after this, or to expect he will be allowed to.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I'd heard he outraised her in February, too. Did that not turn out to be the case?
The internet money spigot is pretty powerful
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The Clinton literally came into Washington with the mandate to sweep out the leftists who drove the party into a ditch before Reagan. The Third Wave for which the Clintons are known was all about replacing the old Democratic coalition (labor, activists, minorities) with an alliance with donors and big business.
Of course, the very narrative that they were pushing was a D.C. insider invention. What really happened to destroy the Democrats was that the media monstered Jimmy Carter because he tried to build his Administration out of D.C. outsiders, and the townie clique spent the next four years burying him. Then, they spent the 80s lionizing Reagan until the stink of scandals, failures, and Alzheimer's got to much to hide.
There's a lot of great insight into how the media used to work when you realize that the "Malaise" speech that Carter was lambasted for actually polled extremely well. It only became damaging when the media went into full attack mode, to the point that the old-timers still refer to it today as a shorthand for why Carter lost.
Yeah he did. He also had a higher burn rate; at this point burning the candle from both ends is an effective description.
Clinton actually out raised him in January 27 million to 20 million, but some of it went to the DNC and state parties. Still, she increased her cash on hand lead.
Feb numbers haven't fully been released but he likely out raised her outright in that month.
edit
Correction: In January she raised 20 million to his 21 million
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
...Obama?
Well, everything except for Sanders' positions. Just off the top of my head, Sanders is more dovish and Obama is friendlier to Wall Street.
But then, pretty much everybody is friendlier to Wall Street than Sanders is.
Everybody in the federal government is to the right of Sanders at present.
Aye. One of the nice things about this race is you can look at Sanders and think someone alot like him but with some changes here and there (better minority outreach, less old white guy from tiny new england state who looks a bit like an adorable crazy grandpa, etc, etc) and he would have a much better chance of winning the primary. Which is nice to see and makes the future look brighter as long as said candidate starts appearing in the next 4-8 years.
I got BOTP'ed, so:
Clinton has very high favorable with Sanders supporters and vice versa. The ONLY way the democrats could screw it up in terms of Democrats defecting is if Bernie loses, but just barely so, to the point where super delegates can be said to be the only cause and then for some reason he goes utterly insane and gives a speech telling his supporters to vote Republican and then goes and campaigns for Trump.
We are far more likely to see Republicans actually schism into two parties, or George Bush out on the campaign trail for Hilary than we are to see Bernie advocating his supporters to stay home as a protest against Hilary.
If your looking for a nightmare scenario to be worried about...
Hilary Clinton 400 EV 60% national vote
Donald Trump 138 EV 40% national vote
"And now we go to Donald Trump who has scheduled his concession speech..."
Trump - "This campaign has been robbed! I will never give up, and nor should you. I urge you to take to the streets and tear down the false icons who have opposed me. We are the true majority. America stands with you! Rebellion is the only answer to this level of obvious oppression!"
This is why I get frustrated when Sanders is compared to Trump, or true liberals are called the "Tea Party fringe of the left". The ideas are incomparable, and there is often an agenda in making the comparison (not in your post, SummaryJudgment, just in general).
DNC Liberal/Progressive shift will be a side effect of newer generations of D politicians as time inevitably marches forward.
Well that's one way to chip away at the racial disparities in incarceration rates
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I guess what I mean is that I view a disaster caused by Trump refusing to concede as far more likely than the Democrats imploding.