Bernie did worse to Hillary than what Nader did to Al Gore (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 31, 2024, 06:59:28 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Bernie did worse to Hillary than what Nader did to Al Gore (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Bernie did worse to Hillary than what Nader did to Al Gore  (Read 3386 times)
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,674
United States


« on: September 24, 2016, 11:48:41 AM »

The fact that grassroosts left-wing political activist and outsider to the Democratic Party Bernie Sanders got as far as he did against Hillary Clinton - who had the full force of the Democratic Establishment, major donors, and universal name recognition behind her - is a troubling sign for thse of us who who want Donald Trump to go down in flames in November.

On the positive side, Sanders's campaign has demonstrated that there is strong popular demand for bottom-up, left-wing politics (or at the very least, left of the Democratic Party's view of politics) and that is a kind of victory in and of itself. Let's hope that that same energy is channeled into downballot races and aggressive organizing at the local level more broadly (which I believe Sanders and hs allies are trying to do already, which is a good sign).
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,674
United States


« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2016, 02:11:49 PM »

people who go bler bler bler 74 YEAR OLD SOCIALIST are missing the point. Bernie's campaign was incredibly effective at getting out a solid message. He was a strong challenger that would've gained traction regardless of who he ran against.

Sure, but it's still not a good sign that in a year in which a very large (and growing) number of Americans absolutely despise the Beltway Establishment of both parties, it's worrying for the liberal/Democratic side that not only is the Democratic nominee in many ways the epitome of Beltway status quo politics (and is widely perceived as that, in addition to the many other things that - justifiably or not - contribute to a negative public perception of her) but also, that the anti-Establishment Republican nominee - as disgusting  and deranged as he is - has a frighteningly large and enthusiastic following. And while voter enthusiasm isn't the be all end all of elections, it certainly plays a significant role in elections. While Trump does have a lower ceiling than Clinton, the cold reality is that many liberal/left-leaning voters - particularly Millennials, who already have notoriously unreliable turnout rates - don't like Clinton of trust her; and if that's true of many voters on the Left, it's even more true of more "centrist" and center-right voters. And I'm not at all confident that most anti-Trump Republicans don't hate both Clintons, Obama, and basically anyone else associated with the Democratic Party more than they hate Trump (remember, most of these types despise Trump because they see him - correctly - as not being a Reaganite conservative, and thus, not "authentically" conservative).

I say all this, of course, as someone who desperately wants Clinton to annihilate that a**hole come November and to see his white supremacist supporters driven back into fringe irrelevancy where they belong.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 12 queries.