I'd probably be a little more enthusiastic about Senator Sanders if he was actually a Democrat instead of an independent. Still, I'm willing to reserve judgment until the evidence shows (a) that Sanders has a clear path to 300 plus votes in the Electoral College, or (b) he doesn't have a goddamned prayer.
Sanders could possibly win if the under 30s who are supposed to be his passionate supporters back up their talk with their votes, but right now that looks like too much to expect. The people who are apparently most enthusiastic about Sanders are also some of the least reliable when it comes to getting off their asses and voting.
Bottom line: If each party nominates an 'unelectable' candidate, one of them becomes 'electable' by default. Risky business.
Updated 6:52 PM ~
From Robert Reich [Facebook, 23 January 2016]~~
"New York Times columnist Paul Krugman yesterday warned Bernie supporters that change doesn’t happen with 'transformative rhetoric' but with 'political pragmatism' -- 'accepting half loaves as being better than none.' He writes that it's dangerous to prefer 'happy dreams (by which he means Bernie) to hard thinking about means and ends (meaning Hillary).'
Krugman doesn't get it. I’ve been in and around Washington for almost fifty years, including a stint in the cabinet, and I’ve learned that real change happens only when a substantial share of the American public is mobilized, organized, energized, and determined to make it happen."
Personally, I define a substantial share of the American public as roughly 54 percent of the popular vote in a presidential election, and at least 300 votes in the Electoral College, although 400 would be better. If Bernie Sanders can round up that level of voter support in November, then he can change anything he damned well pleases.
It worries me that the two groups who are pulling hardest for Bernie Sanders are liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. I think the GOP sees Sanders as its GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card in this particular Monopoly game.
Sanders could possibly win if the under 30s who are supposed to be his passionate supporters back up their talk with their votes, but right now that looks like too much to expect. The people who are apparently most enthusiastic about Sanders are also some of the least reliable when it comes to getting off their asses and voting.
Bottom line: If each party nominates an 'unelectable' candidate, one of them becomes 'electable' by default. Risky business.
Updated 6:52 PM ~
From Robert Reich [Facebook, 23 January 2016]~~
"New York Times columnist Paul Krugman yesterday warned Bernie supporters that change doesn’t happen with 'transformative rhetoric' but with 'political pragmatism' -- 'accepting half loaves as being better than none.' He writes that it's dangerous to prefer 'happy dreams (by which he means Bernie) to hard thinking about means and ends (meaning Hillary).'
Krugman doesn't get it. I’ve been in and around Washington for almost fifty years, including a stint in the cabinet, and I’ve learned that real change happens only when a substantial share of the American public is mobilized, organized, energized, and determined to make it happen."
Personally, I define a substantial share of the American public as roughly 54 percent of the popular vote in a presidential election, and at least 300 votes in the Electoral College, although 400 would be better. If Bernie Sanders can round up that level of voter support in November, then he can change anything he damned well pleases.
It worries me that the two groups who are pulling hardest for Bernie Sanders are liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. I think the GOP sees Sanders as its GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card in this particular Monopoly game.
No comments:
Post a Comment