If this is true, then my Bernie Sanders sticker goes down today:
While Sanders frequently mentions the importance of electing Democrats, he focuses instead on his own “political revolution,” which he contends will sweep other party members into office.
. . Top aides believe the sheer breadth of energy from Sanders backers should be more than enough to elect fellow Democrats on his coattails come November 2016.
The article makes Sanders sound like a self-important jerk with zero understanding of the political process. I hope this is all a calumny because I don’t want to believe Sanders is as bad as the article paints him.
Clarissa's Blog 
Yeah, Sanders is a lousy politician, but there’s no love lost between him and the Democratic party, anyway. The DNC is obviously in the bag for Hillary, and as for individual Democratic legislators:
(Figures may not be up to date):
38 senators have endorsed Hillary; not a single senator has endorsed Sanders.
119 members of congress (including every congresswoman) have endorsed Hillary; two congressmen have endorsed Sanders.
Sanders will almost certainly drop the “Democratic” label and return to calling himself an “independent” after this election is over.
In other words, Sanders is about as much a real Democrat as Trump is a real Republican. 😦
LikeLike
“Yeah, Sanders is a lousy politician, but there’s no love lost between him and the Democratic party, anyway.”
“In other words, Sanders is about as much a real Democrat as Trump is a real Republican.”
LikeLike
He is a self-important jerk. He’s an old red from NY City who is living in the never-never land of wealthy “Ben & Jerry’s” “radical leftism”. Not only is bear the mark of trying to SEEM to be well read. Admission requires a Volvo at least one lesbian relative.
In reality, these pockets of delusional isolation are incredibly lacking in diversity of every sort. They are politically, ethnically, an socially monolithic. Their chances of even KNOWING a black person are quite slim.
They know nothing of actual Socialism, or the conformity and coercion required to make that kind of society work, and yet they pretend to be representatives of the “free spirits”.
LikeLike
“They are politically, ethnically, an socially monolithic. Their chances of even KNOWING a black person are quite slim. They know nothing of actual Socialism, or the conformity and coercion required to make that kind of society work.”
LikeLike
The “Politico” report cited in the post is NOT NEWS. Bernie Sanders has always maintained that his first loyalty is to a socialist movement, from his early unsuccessful forays into electoral politics in Vermont to present. In nearly every campaign speech since announcing for president, Sanders has reiterated that he’s all about leading a POLITICAL REVOLUTION.
Lets set aside for a moment the question of whether America is ready to elect a socialist or vote for a political revolution.
It should be clear that all along, voters’ primary motivation to support Sanders is precisely that he is NOT a traditional politician, like Hillary Clinton, and he’s NOT a 20th-century style POLITICAL PARTY figurehead or mouthpiece.
Old-style politics and old-style political parties are HATED by a large portion of the American electorate. And BTW, old politics and old party alignments are also held in disrespect by voters nearly everywhere in the world where democracy is practiced.
Rightly or wrongly, voters are making this a season of “outsider” politics. Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (and also Ted Cruz and Ben Carson) are popular because of what they are NOT. They are not political party insiders.
AND, Bernie Sanders stands far apart from Trump, Cruz and Carson because Sanders is perceived as the most AUTHENTIC and HONEST of all the politicians in the field. He refuses to budge from positions he has held for decades.
I grant that there is a grain of truth in the criticisms contained in the comments above of New York and Vermont-styled “socialists.” More than a grain of truth! (But the comments of No Pasaran reek of bigotry against socialists, not reasoned disagreement.)
As I say, there’s more than a grain of truth in the comments about socialists and socialism. However. However. However.
The POLITICAL CENTER in the U.S. is a moving target. The problem in Congress is extreme partisanship at both ends of the spectrum. The political center is not static, and the definition of “socialism” is not locked in the early 20th century.
I suggest that socialism as advocated by Bernie Sanders, and as understood by many Americans today, might even be — on balance — just slightly left of the political center in the U.S. today.
Sanders’ opposition to free trade that takes away American jobs is on the right side of the political center. Most leftists support free trade. His tirades against student debt is straight-on center, and his proposal for free college tuition is only slightly left of center. Single-payer health care? Increased Social Security benefits? Not very far left of center, in my book. The loud and vindictive opposition to health care obscures the fact that most Americans realize they need help in paying their medical bills.
Now.
If Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, he will run as a Democrat. (BTW any arch-partisan knows that the true test of political position is the party you caucus with in Congress or the Statehouse, not what you call yourself.)
If Trump wins the nomination, he will run as a Republican.
Either Sanders or Trump (or Cruz) as nominee would certainly hasten the evolution of the political party system in the U.S., which would probably be a good thing. How do you like the U.S. two-party system as it’s operated in recent years? The effects of further evolution of the party system on Congress and statehouses is impossible to predict. But continued political evolution is certain.
No one who is “a self-important jerk with zero understanding of the political process” could possibly have achieved the record Sanders has achieved in Vermont politics, in Congress, and in this presidential campaign to date. Where the election goes from here is anybody’s guess.
LikeLike
The rigid two-party system works very well for the U.S. The fact that loony third-parties can play NO significant role in American politics, and that our President can’t be brought down from power at any time during his fixed four-year term by an opposition “vote of no confidence,” are part of the reasons that America has one of the most stable democracies in the world.
If the Republicans are currently too far right (they are) and the Democrats are too far left (definitely), at least the two-party system keeps the crazies like George Wallace and Pat Buchanan and the latest Green Party candidate safely away from the halls of power.
Okay, essentially dysfunctional, except that there’s no danger of a palace coup or a military take-over. There’ll be a legal, orderly Presidential election next year, and another one every four years after that.
I still don’t think either party will be crazy enough to nominate Trump or Sanders, but if one of them does get the nomination, SO WHAT? The Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater and the Democrats actually chose George McGovern, and you remember how far each of them got in the general election.
The promised revolution didn’t come in the 1960s, and it’s not coming now. “Evolution” is like the glacial process of ape-like hominids turning into human beings over an eon — moves too slowly to chart in real time as it moves along.
What some people call “traditional American values and culture” have steadily changed every single generation since the first colonists landed on this continent in the 1600s. I don’t see that reality as a particularly big deal.
LikeLike