Michael Maiello's picture

    Bernie Sanders Is Getting Old

    You know how sometimes grandpa seems so cute and well-meaning but then somebody gives him a bourbon and asks him about how the neighborhood has changed over the years and he starts in on the really uncomfortable talk about how everything was fine before the Koreans moved in?

    That's where Bernie is now.

    He's now arguing that the primary process is biased against him and so the super delegates who he had once claimed were all unfairly in the tank for Hillary Clinton should give him the nomination at the convention.

    This makes no sense.  By the time of the convention, Clinton will have one more states and more votes in total. How can he argue that the super delegates voting for him is anything but a subversion of the democracy that he claims has been thwarted by his loss?

    It's almost as if he believes that democracy means "voting for Bernie."  That is not the kind of socialism we're looking for.  That's a little Castro.

    Besides, the least democratic aspects of the Democratic primary (caucuses) have generally given Bernie his wins. Were the system reformed to be more democratic, with easy access to voting booths and quick voting rather than caucus role-playing, Sanders might not have had such a good showing in the first place.

    Over at TPM, Josh Marshall really highlights the death throes logic of the Sanders campaign:

    Consider a few points: Sanders has in the last three days essentially declared war on the institutional Democratic party, giving it an ultimatum to open up its doors to people who want 'real change'. Fair enough. But his entire stated strategy is to do well enough in the final run of primaries that super-delegates, the embodiment of the institutional party, decide to drop Clinton and switch their allegiance to Sanders.

    That makes no sense.

    I know some people are worried that Sanders' continued attempts to thwart Clinton will somehow hurt her against The Donald, but I doubt it.  I think he's hurting himself, though, and undermining the good will he's won throughout a good campaign in the process.

    I hesitate to say he should drop out.  There are a lot of people (especially in upcoming California) looking forward to voting for him and they should have the right and pleasure. But it's time for him to stop embarrassing himself. He should only stay in if he can campaign with dignity.

    The truth is that he tried hard, he played hard and he lost.

    I think the Democratic establishment was, in fact, aligned against him.  But that shouldn't be a controversial or surprising point. When you're running as the outsider, you have to kind of expect that, right?  The Republican establishment was also aligned against Trump.  He used that very effectively. But that's because active, grass roots Republicans are angrier at their establishment.

    I don't expect Sanders to endorse his opponent while he's still in the race and if he doesn't want to work on her behalf in the aftermath, so be it. But he is embarrassing himself, he's being nonsensical about why he should be the nominee after having objectively lost and he's undermining his core economic and political case.

    Sometimes you just want to call grandpa a cab, you know?





    Hey, watch who you're calling "old".

    But I agree his campaign is showing signs of age.

    At this point I don't see how the movement helps Progressives defeat Trump---but who are any of us to say he should step back.

    Doesn't TPM get all its good stuff from Dagblog?

    I'd say we have a mutually beneficial relationship with TPM.

    But Josh is right on about the Sanders campaign and how it's behaving.

    It really doesn't seem to be about progressivism anymore.  It's about banging on the locked door to the clubhouse.  Which is fine, for what it is.  But the door hasn't been locked the whole time.

    Isnt this like 1 month old, including his switch on superdelegates? And as I noted recently, she's certain to win over half the pledged delegates, so the only thing he can claim is she didnt win half the total pledged and super delegates without using any superdelegates, and of course he didnt even come close to that either.

    The crazier part is that Sanders is on a roll in smaller states but loses hige states like New York, Pennsylvania and Arizona not terribly long ago. Hillary spent a little money and (barely) won Kentucky this week, while he won Oregon (a primary!), but delegates were roughly equal, when he needs a breakthrough. So we're supposed to reward him for not knowing math? Or declare that our number system is biased against change? Yeah, he won most districts in New York, but not the 5 where most people live. Some he won by large margins, others were squeakers. It's enough to win an attaboy, make people ay attention, but not warrant the nomination. At least not back here on planet earth.

    Sanders outspent Hillary, so perhaps he made the point that money doesn't influence Democratic Primaries?

    Hillary basically wrapped up the nomination by winning New York so, yes, this has been going on for awhile. Like I said, I don't mind him sticking around.  He has supporters in late primary states who have invested in them and want to cast their votes. But pretending for him to pretend that Clinton hasn't won in a fair manner is really beneath him and he needs to think about how he's acting in public.

    I believe that Sanders is completely justified and in some respects obligated to stay in until the end. On the superdelegate issue, wrong political actions, even by a favored candidate, should not be seen as acceptable political process  just because the weight of the wrong actions cannot, in the end, be shown to be what decided the outcome.  In my opinion, and in that of many others, Hillary’s successful campaign to round up the majority of the super delegates as early as she did was wrong of her as a campaign strategy and it was wrong of the delegates to sign on to. Her methods of doing so are also just reason for criticism regardless when in the timeline they were used, IMO, but that whole process is an example of the power of a political “establishment” or maybe what could better be called a political machine. It is not a case where “no harm, no foul” should be invoked. So, making an issue of that is plenty fair so as to possibly change what is allowable in the future.

    As I recall, Carter got a lot of well deserved criticism from Democrats for conceding his defeat before California had voted even though his defeat was obvious at the time he did it.

     I think that Sanders has a very good chance of winning California. I choose to not see his failure to win the nomination as a failure of his movement but to see his very strong campaign as the possible beginning of a  movement. Regardless, the fat lady aint sung yet.  

    The goal is to win the presidency, not California. She doesnt need a Phyrric victory in California when she'll already have half the delegates no prob via 109 needed over 5 or 6 states, including New Jersey. And she of course has 4/5 the superdelegates, so forget about that. The only question is how much money she has to spend to avoid a Bernie spoiler victory in one state. Theyre certainly not giving the nomination the the guy that got 3 million fewer votes.

    And then what's the bargaining over? $12 vs $15? No Keystone vs no Keystone? No TPP vs maybe a revised TPP? Expand medicare vs single payer? (BTW, uninsured now in single digits). It's all pretty incremental - the "revolution" is just nibbling around the edges.


    And then what's the bargaining over? $12 vs $15? No Keystone vs no Keystone? No TPP vs maybe a revised TPP? Expand medicare vs single payer? (BTW, uninsured now in single digits). It's all pretty incremental - the "revolution" is just nibbling around the edges.

    What's funny is, Bernie already got what he wanted on those issues.

    $15?  She's fine with that.

    Against TPP?  She is.

    Single payer?  Okay, she's not there, but since neither of them can actually provide it, who cares?

    Bernie's biggest mistake is that he decided to go it alone and not build a coalition among the Democrats.  His attacks on the party enraged many Super Delegates who will not feel ANY allegiance to him.  His insistence, bordering on bullying, that they HAVE to vote for him, along with his supporters' threats to keep many of them from winning their own races if they don't vote for Bernie, does not endear him to them.  What the hell did he expect?

    I guess another aspect to this is don't make threats you can't make good on.

    I don't think we should have super delegates, so I have no sympathy for the people in those positions.  If a group of people want to tell their Congressman, the super delegate, that their actions at the convention might cost them their house seat, then I am fine with that.  But don't bother saying it if you can't pull it off.

    By the way, I'd like to see more election consequences for party actions.  The party is clearly not controlled by its members and that is a problem. A bigger problem for the Bernie supporters, though, is that a Democratic party actually controlled by its members will not act the way they'd like it to.

    I don't like much of the election process either, but this most crucial election year is not the year to suddenly decide it all has to change, or else. That's suicide. Or murder.

    Fortunately, I don't think the Sanders movement has murder capabilities, even if some of its members have the intent.

    Clinton has been a smart co-opter of some Sanders ideas and though Bernie and many of his supporters do not seem to accept that as victory for a campaign that's been waged to win, it really is a victory and I think that the best Sanders can hope to accomplish at this point is that his better than expected performance really has brought some of his ideas into the mainstream.  But it will ultimately be Clinton who will be their most effective champion.  Hopefully, Sanders realizes this and preserves his spot in the conversation.  He still has useful work to do, for himself and the country, but not like this.

    I spoke about age earlier.



    But I hope my old pick wins out in the end.

    Just, make sure that my old hope appoints guys or gals in their forties for judicial ships chrissakes! hahahhaha

    Next time, let us find someone in their early fifties for chrissakes.That is to run for Prez.

    the end

    Except we need to take away the old folks' badges.



    We need to reaLLY TAKE THE BADGES off these damn old farts.


    Tulsi Gabbard 2020 - she should be almost 40 by then:)

    And she can run for both parties.

    This is spot on. Some of the tension between the camps is childish at best. 

    Latest Comments