Presidential Election 2016

[Nathan]

No its reliant on creating an energized electorate, especially in the younger demographics. Which Hilary isn't doing. If she was doing it, there wouldn't be room for sanders, she'd be a shew in.

[LakeCharles]

Interesting article on why the center-left establishment is wary of Sanders (and probably why endorsements are so slow to come):

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/upsho ... nders.html

The wonkosphere vs. Bernie clash is not just a story of center-left versus left-left. It is also a clash between those who have been in the trenches of trying to make public policy for the last seven years versus those who can exist in a kind of theoretical world of imagining what public policy ought to be.

Now comes a man who has had to answer only to voters in the most liberal state in the nation, who has never had the responsibility to actually pull together the disparate center-left coalition that is the Democratic Party to enact concrete legislation.

Mr. Sanders “presents himself as not only free of responsibility for anything that happened during his tenure, but vigorous in his insistence that nothing that was done while he was there had any value in addressing the problems that he discusses,” Mr. [Barney] Frank wrote.

“Many congressional Democrats, myself included, feel deep resentment at this wholly negative portrayal of our efforts,” he added.

[VAStationDude]

Winning a presidential race by engaging young people and minorities (though black voters prefer Clinton) isn't the same as winning back the house. Young/minority voters who would tip the presidency to democrats live in places (Miami, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Boulder, Milwaukee and Madison) that already have democrats representing them in congress. Democrats need seats in wealthy suburban (Minnesota's 3rd, for example) and rural areas to win back the house. Clinton does better with those voters and is helping them raise money.

[Nathan]

Well here's an anecdotal quip for you all. I'm dating a 21 year old, and I hang out with his friends a lot. To then Hillary and the DNC are conservative and nearly republicans. And Republicans are insane. And this is in WI where they've had to live under Scott walker for however long. If the DNC and establishment isn't taken over this election, it'll be the next. They have absolutely no time for establishment politics or corporations. None whatsoever.

[Sacrelicio]

Ok, but really... The DNC hasn't really helped him either... He's been Independent. The DNC has done A LOT for Hillary so far in her past two runs... you might think she owes it to them. They certainly haven't been helping Bernie out for years. And to imply that Sanders wouldn't become a fundraiser for the party once he has become president or the presidential candidate is silly.

So what? If Bernie Sanders is ever elected president, his entire agenda will be dependent on his party's success in the Congressional elections. If he's serious about that, he should be doing it now, not in three months when the nomination is set.

People forget that not only would he need a Dem majority in the Senate, but he also needs Dems who actually support him. If he goes too far to the left or alienates them with his lack of support in getting them elected, he might not have much support from his own party when push comes to shove.

[Nathan]

And then the party will lose its future voters. Which came first?

[amiller92]

Well here's an anecdotal quip for you all. I'm dating a 21 year old, and I hang out with his friends a lot. To then Hillary and the DNC are conservative and nearly republicans. And Republicans are insane. And this is in WI where they've had to live under Scott walker for however long. If the DNC and establishment isn't taken over this election, it'll be the next. They have absolutely no time for establishment politics or corporations. None whatsoever.

If they don't by the next time around, it will be the one after

[Nathan]

It's a major difference in opinions. Is money going to win future elections or is catering to future voters going to win more elections in the long run. If Sanders wins we have a better chance of getting young people to vote in midterms because he has their message, even Obama had hard time getting people to do that. Hillary won't stand a chance because she isn't radical enough for them she'll be more of the status quo.

[Sacrelicio]

And then the party will lose its future voters. Which came first?

Future when? 2018? 2020? They could lose their current voters to a moderate Republican.

[amiller92]

It's a major difference in opinions.

I don't think it really is. I think it's young people being young. I remember being like that.

I also remember how annoying it was to hear older people say that, so ya know. Sorry.

[LakeCharles]

It's a major difference in opinions. Is money going to win future elections or is catering to future voters going to win more elections in the long run. If Sanders wins we have a better chance of getting young people to vote in midterms because he has their message, even Obama had hard time getting people to do that. Hillary won't stand a chance because she isn't radical enough for them she'll be more of the status quo.

So the premise is that there is a large subset of youth who will not vote unless the candidate is sufficiently radical. I don't know that I agree, but for arguments sake lets say there is. It will be a lot harder for President Sanders to harness this vote in the midterms for a few reasons.
1) The 2017-8 house and Senate will be significantly to the right of him. Either he will have accomplished very little, or he will have moderated himself somewhat. This was one of Obama's problems. People were excited, then they saw what he actually accomplished and thought he wasn't liberal enough.
2) They are going to need to field sufficiently radical candidates in many states and many Congressional districts, who wouldn't have run if Hillary was President (otherwise Bernie isn't really adding anything here). I don't think this is a trivial task.

I'm not trying to argue that Clinton would be any better in any respect, but I don't see how Bernie really changes up the midterm elections that much I guess is all I'm saying.

[Nathan]

Well you currently have a lot of young people willing to participate in the nitty gritty of politics to make change happen. If you completely disenchant them you potentially lose another whole generation of active voters in my mind. I.e. voting in Caucauses and midterms doesn't make a difference because the establishment takes the voice from the people. Yes. I believe that is possible.

[kirby96]

I don't think it really is. I think it's young people being young. I remember being like that.

I also remember how annoying it was to hear older people say that, so ya know. Sorry.

Annoying, perhaps, but generally accurate. I mean after all, even the flower children of the 60's grew up to be the Wolfs of Wall Street in the 80's.

[Sacrelicio]

Well you currently have a lot of young people willing to participate in the nitty gritty of politics to make change happen. If you completely disenchant them you potentially lose another whole generation of active voters in my mind. I.e. voting in Caucauses and midterms doesn't make a difference because the establishment takes the voice from the people. Yes. I believe that is possible.

How are they being "completely disenchanted?" Their voice is being heard. They're getting involved. Their preferred candidate is making a real run at this.

[Nathan]

I think you missed the if.

[Sacrelicio]

Great article, from another left-wing New England representative:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ers-213591

Choice cut:

In many ways his candidacy is deeply ironic. A senior United States senator who has held national office far longer than any other candidate in the race—25 years in Congress, including influential committee positions—has been the most successful in presenting himself as the quintessential outsider. He presents himself as not only free of responsibility for anything that happened during his tenure, but vigorous in his insistence that nothing that was done while he was there had any value in addressing the problems that he discusses. And his condemnation falls equally on Democrats and Republicans alike. When he leads his audience in the chant that Wall Street regulates Congress, he draws no distinction between Democrats who enacted crucial financial regulations like the Volcker rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the regulation of derivatives and the Republicans who fought all three and are now working to undermine them.

Nor does President Barack Obama escape. While he does not explicitly attack the president, nowhere in Sanders’ campaign rhetoric is there any positive assessment of his record. His listeners do not hear that the Affordable Care Act was a great advance and must be protected as he and others try to go beyond it. They don’t hear that getting the top tax rate back up to where it was before Bush lowered it meant a real increase in tax fairness.

Many congressional Democrats, myself included, feel deep resentment at this wholly negative portrayal of our efforts. First, it is a prime example of how inattention has helped Sanders until now. Commentators have made a point of noting the lack of congressional support for Cruz, legitimately drawing negative inferences from the fact that his closest colleagues are essentially rejecting him. But little notice has been taken of the fact that Sanders does scarcely better: Cruz has one House supporter as I write; Sanders has two.

[Nathan]

Maybe it's not a popular idea, but the United States is way behind a lot of other western countries and what's been done in the last 8 years are extremely baby steps forward in providing for our citizens the way many other modern western countries are. You cant fault someone for not being complacent and not thinking we've done everything we can, especially when we need to do so much more.

[Sacrelicio]

Maybe it's not a popular idea, but the United States is way behind a lot of other western countries and what's been done in the last 8 years are extremely baby steps forward in providing for our citizens the way many other modern western countries are. You cant fault someone for not being complacent and not thinking we've done everything we can, especially when we need to do so much more.

So build upon what is there. Most "Acts" like that start out small and are built upon.

[Nathan]

And Sanders is, instead of being completely reliant on what's been done. Hillary says it's impossible... she's riding the current establishment and status quo in terms of health care (and other issues). There's a lot of complacency in her campaign. And she's continually had to be dragged forward in terms of contemporary progressive ideas. She'll always say what's popular at any given time, and doesn't "evolve" until after popular opinion has embraced more liberal ideas.

[LakeCharles]

And she's continually had to be dragged forward in terms of contemporary progressive ideas. She'll always say what's popular at any given time, and doesn't "evolve" until after popular opinion has embraced more liberal ideas.

Agreed. And this is why I'd think liberal Hillary supporters would be excited about Sanders campaign. His presence and actions so far have pulled Hillary left. She might just move back center if she wins the nomination, but at least she'll move back from a further left starting position.