So let's see...since Reagan, our Presidents have been:
Bush I
Clinton I
Bush II
Obama.
So this time around the NYTimes essentially wants to boil this choice to be either Clinton II or Bush III.
Seriously?
Bush I
Clinton I
Bush II
Obama.
So this time around the NYTimes essentially wants to boil this choice to be either Clinton II or Bush III.
Seriously?
53
What if the millions of citizens who feel so disenfranchised by the shenanigans of the ruling elite that they no longer vote woke up, heard an honest man speak their language, and went to the polls? President Sanders. It does have a nice ring to it, don't you think?
76
Thank you Nate Cohn. Considered next to the nonsense put forth under Jonathan Martin's tag this morning, showcasing his opinion lightly disguised as a political article that was preciously but confusingly broken into big block sections that contradicted one another, this article looks like Nobel-level physics. Pass it along that opinions without data presented in any format is just no longer acceptable anymore, though we all know that we will still get "Father Knows Best" opinions from David Brooks, Ross Dothan, and the sixteen or so middle-aged white male clones parked in the Opinion section. Don't let them run off another Nate.
11
Why does every pundit in the nation consider it their job to tell voters that in the end we only get to vote for Hillary Clinton? If so, why bother with any of this expensive electoral process.
47
1. Senator Sanders: Not "self described socialist". A Socialist.
2. Ms. Clinton: Democrat in name only, a Rockefeller Republican in reality.
3. No, Senator Sanders cannot win either the nomination or the presidency, but he will make the "season" far more interesting and, I hope, meaningful.
4. He got my money this morning...
Good on ya, Bernie. Give 'em hell.
2. Ms. Clinton: Democrat in name only, a Rockefeller Republican in reality.
3. No, Senator Sanders cannot win either the nomination or the presidency, but he will make the "season" far more interesting and, I hope, meaningful.
4. He got my money this morning...
Good on ya, Bernie. Give 'em hell.
65
The NYT and Mr. Cohn take positions without foundation, relying on labels rather than the facts disclosed in their own reporting. The Times has done a swell job on disclosing Ms Clinton's dishonesty....she is a clever crook who overtly lies to the public. She voted for the war in Iraq. She supports Wall Street both in bail outs and in opposing significant financial regulation. She has taken no real position with regard to climate change, supporting the Keystone pipeline, muffling any response to fracking, and acceptiing funds from Big Oil and Gas. If we are to look at labels, how did this Republican get called the Great Democratic Hope? So what does this "liberal" label mean, Mr. Cohn? We seek to win at all costs by accepting the lesser evil, real evil?
Mr. Sanders stands for something. He is forthright, honest, and is prepared to address the emperor's naked state: we have become a country that supports the one percent ignorantly, allowing ourselves to be starved out of existence, a country that repeatedly becomes bellicose without a real examination of the facts.This newspaper and its columnists need to stop their overt support of
the criminal they have exposed by dint of labeling an honest candidate "grumpy" and "old" and "socialist." Take an honest look at his principles and their application to almost all of us.
Mr. Sanders stands for something. He is forthright, honest, and is prepared to address the emperor's naked state: we have become a country that supports the one percent ignorantly, allowing ourselves to be starved out of existence, a country that repeatedly becomes bellicose without a real examination of the facts.This newspaper and its columnists need to stop their overt support of
the criminal they have exposed by dint of labeling an honest candidate "grumpy" and "old" and "socialist." Take an honest look at his principles and their application to almost all of us.
57
For me, Hillary passes the voting test, meaning that if the Dems nominate her, I will vote for her. Holding my nose, yes, but I will do it for the sake of the Supreme Court and the survival of Obamacare.
But Hillary flunks the bumper sticker test. Not on my car. She got the bucks. She's gonna hafta find another shill.
And she flunks the contribution test. She's got the bucks. She doesn't need my lousy donation. She's got all the advantages you could possibly want. Let's see her put them to good use (like she failed to do in 08).
On the other hand ...
Bernie passes the voting test!
Bernie passes the bumper sticker test! He may even get two!
Bernie passes the contribution test! I work in a regulated industry and I will gladly put up with the bureaucrac annoyance of having to register my contribution with my employer.
Bernie passes the trust test! The Clintons never have.
And finally, Bernie passes the Ben and Jerry's test! It's time for a Vermonter!
But Hillary flunks the bumper sticker test. Not on my car. She got the bucks. She's gonna hafta find another shill.
And she flunks the contribution test. She's got the bucks. She doesn't need my lousy donation. She's got all the advantages you could possibly want. Let's see her put them to good use (like she failed to do in 08).
On the other hand ...
Bernie passes the voting test!
Bernie passes the bumper sticker test! He may even get two!
Bernie passes the contribution test! I work in a regulated industry and I will gladly put up with the bureaucrac annoyance of having to register my contribution with my employer.
Bernie passes the trust test! The Clintons never have.
And finally, Bernie passes the Ben and Jerry's test! It's time for a Vermonter!
59
More importantly, even if Bernie Sanders could win the nomination, could win the election. Let's not lose sight of that particular issue. I am / was a consistent Republican voter until a few years ago - the 'republican' party of today is not something I can support uniformly. I can see a reasoned argument for voting for Clinton - I can't make that same statement about Sanders. The democrats nominating Sanders will lose many centrist Republicans who are comfortable on the center-left....Sanders would be like running McGovern....or Dukakis
6
The NYT and Mr. Cohn take positions without foundation, relying on labels rather than the facts disclosed in their own reporting. The Times has done a swell job on disclosing Ms Clinton's dishonesty....she is a clever crook who overtly lies to the public. She voted for the war in Iraq. She supports Wall Street both in bail outs and in opposing significant financial regulation. She has taken no real position with regard to climate change, supporting the Keystone pipeline, muffling any response to fracking, and acceptiing funds from Big Oil and Gas. If we are to look at labels, how did this Republican get called the Great Democratic Hope? So what does this "liberal" label mean, Mr. Cohn? We seek to win at all costs by accepting the lesser evil, real evil?
Mr. Sanders stands for something. He is forthright, honest, and is prepared to address the emperor's naked state: we have become a country that supports the one percent ignorantly, allowing ourselves to be starved out of existence, a country that repeatedly becomes bellicose without a real examination of the facts.This newspaper and its columnists need to stop their overt support of
the criminal they have exposed by dint of labeling an honest candidate "grumpy" and "old" and "socialist." Take an honest look at his principles and their application to almost all of us.
Mr. Sanders stands for something. He is forthright, honest, and is prepared to address the emperor's naked state: we have become a country that supports the one percent ignorantly, allowing ourselves to be starved out of existence, a country that repeatedly becomes bellicose without a real examination of the facts.This newspaper and its columnists need to stop their overt support of
the criminal they have exposed by dint of labeling an honest candidate "grumpy" and "old" and "socialist." Take an honest look at his principles and their application to almost all of us.
8
"That might seem somewhat surprising if you’re an affluent, secular, well-educated person living along the coasts, in places like Bethesda, Md., Berkeley, Calif., or Montclair, N.J., where the party really is dominated by the uniformly liberal voters who love Elizabeth Warren "
Mr Cohn is talking about you, typical snooty public sector bureaucratic leftist NY Times progressive commenters....
Mr Cohn is talking about you, typical snooty public sector bureaucratic leftist NY Times progressive commenters....
6
Voting for the Iraq War is "liberal" ?
13
We may indeed see a President Sanders. Then when some red-faced Republic says, "The President is a Socialist!" we can say, "Yes, he is..."
27
The results of this survey are easily explained. The GOP, through Fox News and other outlets, has done such a great job of discrediting the word "liberal," that even most democrats shrink from it, even though they support "liberal" policies. Want another example? "Obamacare." Most folks are opposed to it even though they support the policies that make up "Obamacare."
16
Please define "liberal?" Is the person who remembers the 50s tax rules -- (95% top bracket, luxury tax of 10%) liberal? Is the person who believes that maybe we need to conserve water in California and the western states liberal? Not all liberals believe more unions or a raise in the minimum wage will solve anything.
Mrs. Clinton is hardly a liberal. She may support social welfare -- but hubby supported legislation benefitting Wall Street and the banks big time. Most Dems today are less liberal or left than "I like Ike" and I wish the NYTimes would stop labeling. (Supporting the War in Iraq was hardly liberal.)
What is a moderate?
Many people will or won't vote for Hillary on the basis of "you can't trust a woman who looks like that." BTW which polls. (Footnotes please.) Can we start to categorize voters by gender, geographic location, city of country or suburban, economic status, attitude toward religion, half-full/half empty glass thinkers. The old labels no longer are useful.. Time for some new ones.
Mrs. Clinton is hardly a liberal. She may support social welfare -- but hubby supported legislation benefitting Wall Street and the banks big time. Most Dems today are less liberal or left than "I like Ike" and I wish the NYTimes would stop labeling. (Supporting the War in Iraq was hardly liberal.)
What is a moderate?
Many people will or won't vote for Hillary on the basis of "you can't trust a woman who looks like that." BTW which polls. (Footnotes please.) Can we start to categorize voters by gender, geographic location, city of country or suburban, economic status, attitude toward religion, half-full/half empty glass thinkers. The old labels no longer are useful.. Time for some new ones.
13
I am a Democrat because of the social issues and most Democrats are not to the far left. The Republican candidate is not going to be one of the far right kooks but a person more in the center like John Kasich. If Bernie Sanders was chosen as the Presidential candidate the Republicans would be having a field day.
3
Actually I think it’s Ms. Clinton (not Senator Ms. Warren) who is the anointed candidate of the liberal professional class.
Sanders big issue is giving working people a fair shake.
Although he does not have billionaire backing from right wing business oligarchs or the liberal elites, the support his economic issues get from white working class voters and minority voters might surprise people.
In any case, it’s a shame New York Times seems determined to hand the nomination to Hilary more than nine months before the first primary.
Sanders big issue is giving working people a fair shake.
Although he does not have billionaire backing from right wing business oligarchs or the liberal elites, the support his economic issues get from white working class voters and minority voters might surprise people.
In any case, it’s a shame New York Times seems determined to hand the nomination to Hilary more than nine months before the first primary.
30
for all the people saying "liberal does not mean left," well, that's the case in Europe and perhaps your comparative politics textbook, but in common American usage it actually does mean left and overlaps with progressive.
7
Nate Cohen's analysis is a pragmatic, dispassionate look at Sanders chances with Arlo Guthrie's "8 x 10 color photographs with circles and arrows, and a paragraph on the back of each one." What Cohen misses is the desperate need for Sander's voice in this Presidential debate.
15
That's absurd. There is a 7 lane highway to the left of Ms. Clinton. We haven't had a true liberal candidate for so long most people don't even remember what one looks like.
38
Actually, the "problem for Bernie Sanders" is columns like this one.
32
Thank you, Mr. Sanders. You have my vote in the primary and, should you win, my vote in the general election. My check is on its way.
26
I think the one part of the equation that is being omitted in Nate Cohn's article is that the more the Republicans run really far right nut jobs that deny climate change and even evolution, the larger that "lane" to Clinton's left gets. If you have a self-described Democratic or Independent moderate and their choice comes down to one of the Rebublicans and someone like Bernie Sanders, the better Bernie Sanders' chances look.
15
I might vote for Bernie in a primary but I will also hope that he loses because he can't win a general election.
I will vote for Hillary in the general - she's not my favorite candidate and I'm disturbed that there is no other credible candidate available. Is the Democrat bench so shallow or has Hillary's 'inevitability' scared them all away.
Bottom line, the Sipreme Court and the Justices nominated by Reoublican Presidents makes me work for any Democrat. Period!
I will vote for Hillary in the general - she's not my favorite candidate and I'm disturbed that there is no other credible candidate available. Is the Democrat bench so shallow or has Hillary's 'inevitability' scared them all away.
Bottom line, the Sipreme Court and the Justices nominated by Reoublican Presidents makes me work for any Democrat. Period!
8
America is not Sweden and the politics is not "socialist" versus "moderate" it's far-right versus center, with a sprinking of us way over to the left. Clinton isn't perfect. Neither was Al Gore in 2000 but he'd have won if not for Nader.
8
I don't see Bernie Sanders as "left of Hillary". I see him as a singular politician who wants to do what is best for the good of America, not the good of a few wealthy donors. And who will follow the rules-- not decide he is above them, whilst consulting attorneys to see if his own rules can be defended when questioned.
11
Some of Sanders's values may be more in sync with popular sentiment than Cohn or the NYT or anyone else would have us believe. From what I understand about Hillary through reading her book "Hard Choices," she still envisions the USA as the world's economic/military/political/cultural/social police officer. I don't think that's where a majority of the American people are any more, and I don't think that's where Bernie Sanders is, either.
11
I'm an expat whose lived on the other side of the pond for a long time now. I like Hillary -- she's ok, better than the Republicans -- but the world needs an American President to be better than OK. We thought Obama was the answer but he was disappointing. In these troubled times the world needs an America with a strong moral compass. This Senator .. maybe. Elizabeth Warren .. definitely. Hillary? If she's going to be the one .. hopefully?
4
I'll give Bernie my vote and my time although I know he's got little to no chance of getting the nomination.
6
The problem with Mr. Cohn's analysis: It fails to account for the fact that many people on the growing populist left in this country do not actually consider themselves "liberals", particularly if the benchmark for that metric is measured against the very "moderate" (many would say conservative) current Democratic party platform. Many (if not most) of us on the left consider ourselves progressives, radicals, or even democratic socialists.
The latter, not coincidentally, is what Bernie Sanders considers himself to be, and his candidacy is thus stirring considerable excitement among those of us clamoring for greater social justice, a eye towards the robust democratic socialist economies of Northern Europe, and a return to the core economic principles of the New Deal era. If the current NEOliberal Democratic Party's stated platform is considered the baseline for liberalism, the likes of Sanders and Warren are hardcore radicals, and I think their positions have more support than the Wall Street-enamored NYTimes would like to acknowledge.
The latter, not coincidentally, is what Bernie Sanders considers himself to be, and his candidacy is thus stirring considerable excitement among those of us clamoring for greater social justice, a eye towards the robust democratic socialist economies of Northern Europe, and a return to the core economic principles of the New Deal era. If the current NEOliberal Democratic Party's stated platform is considered the baseline for liberalism, the likes of Sanders and Warren are hardcore radicals, and I think their positions have more support than the Wall Street-enamored NYTimes would like to acknowledge.
11
In New York State, only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary race. To all the Independants who support Senator Sanders and the causes he champions, please register as a Democrat and vote for Senator Sanders!
7
Hilary Clinton isn't even a Centrist, she is a conservative.
Voted for the Iraq War. Where was her voice during the many financial meltdowns of GWB., the torture program,.
Where was her voice when her hubby repealed the Glass astragal act, or when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Where is her voice now with American law enforcements war on black men?
Where is her voice on the Clinton Foundations ties to Russian oligarchs buying
Influence.
She is one of the 0.1%. HRC is a conservative.
Voted for the Iraq War. Where was her voice during the many financial meltdowns of GWB., the torture program,.
Where was her voice when her hubby repealed the Glass astragal act, or when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Where is her voice now with American law enforcements war on black men?
Where is her voice on the Clinton Foundations ties to Russian oligarchs buying
Influence.
She is one of the 0.1%. HRC is a conservative.
11
You're missing the point here. The point is that Bernie is an economic populist, of the kind we haven't seen in decades. White, working-class folks can vote for economic populists in large numbers; see FDR, Debs & the long history of socialism in this country. That's what makes him dangerous to Hillary- he'll actually improve the lives of the working class in America. Hillary just talks about it & would tinker around the edges; she's been bought & paid for (like much of the rest of the party).
15
This is an enjoyable column as always. I like "The Upshot" for helping to make sense of trends in the news. But the illustration of the Pew study is not helpful in explaining in a meaningful way how the Democratic electorate really looks and behaves. There are too many intangibles (stereotypes about women in elected office vs. the chance to break a ceiling once and for all, etc.) at play here that deviate from something like a "Political Typology and Polarization Dataset."
I would love to have the time to delve into the raw data numbers from which Pew derived its analysis. In any event, good luck to Hillary and to Mr. Sanders. If he can achieve first-name recognition status with the electorate a la Ralph Nader, for example, he will have accomplished something rather significant with this campaign, even if Hillary is the presumptive nominee.
I would love to have the time to delve into the raw data numbers from which Pew derived its analysis. In any event, good luck to Hillary and to Mr. Sanders. If he can achieve first-name recognition status with the electorate a la Ralph Nader, for example, he will have accomplished something rather significant with this campaign, even if Hillary is the presumptive nominee.
Sanders isn't a Democrat, even though he's running for the democratic nomination. It's harder to map Socialist positions on to a clean left/right electorate. He may well stand a good chance of winning over blue collar midwestern democratic voters with an anti-corporate message that Clinton won't carry. In the final analysis, his is an unlikely candidacy, but if his message does connect with the middle class he could have a strong influence on how Clinton runs.
5
This is really exciting! The only thing to date Hillary Clinton had going for her is being the lesser of 2 evils compared to the current the GOP candidates. I think you underestimate Mr. Sanders viability as a candidate. I was excited by the Obama candidacy, yet he disappoints with his moderation of a wide range of important to working people. And for what it's worth, I don't respond to polls. I want a candidate to run on what's good for the country, not what some pollster or wealthy benefactor tells them to focus on.
16
Bernie Sanders is another Ralph Nader or John Anderson or Ross Perot or Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton or any of a hundred other fringe candidate who can't win. No one can believe that a Sanders can win. It will be a way of measuring people's ability to accurately perceive reality throughout the next 12 - 18 months: the more they swear Bernie can do it, the less contact they have with reality or history or common sense!
And yet for now, his entering into the primaries gives us primaries and a conversation and an interesting character. His age is good for Hillary, and him being to the left of Hillary is good too. All of it makes her look like a credible winner, younger, more reasonable, more ready.
I lived in Vermont and Vermont is not the real world. Sanders is awesome in his way but will make a great footnote at best.
I will love every minute of it: he will tee up the ball perfectly for Hillary every time.
And yet for now, his entering into the primaries gives us primaries and a conversation and an interesting character. His age is good for Hillary, and him being to the left of Hillary is good too. All of it makes her look like a credible winner, younger, more reasonable, more ready.
I lived in Vermont and Vermont is not the real world. Sanders is awesome in his way but will make a great footnote at best.
I will love every minute of it: he will tee up the ball perfectly for Hillary every time.
4
Unlike the candidates you named, Bernie Sanders is a United States Senator.
It is true (as Ted Cruz has aptly demonstrated), that the position is not a guarantee of sanity. But Bernie is no Sharpton. He has substance.
It is true (as Ted Cruz has aptly demonstrated), that the position is not a guarantee of sanity. But Bernie is no Sharpton. He has substance.
4
In every liberal cause, most of the country is on that side, sometimes it is upwards of 90% of the country are in agreement with the cause like human rights, gay marriage, health care, raising minimum wage or making pot legal.
The republican's propaganda machine has spent the last 50 years turning the word liberal into a dirty word so even though in reality this country is overwhelmingly liberal, people keep voting for the very people who would dismantle everything the majority of us stand for.
A snake doesn't care if you save its life and nurse it back to health, its gonna bite you because that's what snakes do. When liberals learn that the snakes are the ones writing the script and that they are going to keep poisoning everything in their wake because it is just what they do...then maybe the democrats can flip the script and start winning.
How about starting some LOVE radio to counteract all the HATE radio that the right puts out? How about correcting all the lies the right tells, there are people who still think that there were never any terrorist attacks in this country when Bush was president...9/11...Hello! But Fox news has had a dozen or more right wing pundits get on the air and say exactly that and for some reason millions of Fox viewers can't remember that Bush collapsed the economy either...they still swear that Obama was president in 2007!
How about having a channel that only tells the truth for awhile and never gives liars a platform?
The republican's propaganda machine has spent the last 50 years turning the word liberal into a dirty word so even though in reality this country is overwhelmingly liberal, people keep voting for the very people who would dismantle everything the majority of us stand for.
A snake doesn't care if you save its life and nurse it back to health, its gonna bite you because that's what snakes do. When liberals learn that the snakes are the ones writing the script and that they are going to keep poisoning everything in their wake because it is just what they do...then maybe the democrats can flip the script and start winning.
How about starting some LOVE radio to counteract all the HATE radio that the right puts out? How about correcting all the lies the right tells, there are people who still think that there were never any terrorist attacks in this country when Bush was president...9/11...Hello! But Fox news has had a dozen or more right wing pundits get on the air and say exactly that and for some reason millions of Fox viewers can't remember that Bush collapsed the economy either...they still swear that Obama was president in 2007!
How about having a channel that only tells the truth for awhile and never gives liars a platform?
13
Thanks for your point of view Mr. Cohn. This article has made me start to consider Sanders as a serious challenger to Clinton precisely because he is far left, I really had not until now taken the time to learn about him because he has always been an independent. I am now strongly considering contributing to his campaign, I have never done that for any other political candidate.
20
Bernie has a better chance than Hilary, because Bernie is not lugging all that baggage. She has shown herself to be cynical, duplicitous and untrustworthy……he never has.
14
We are in for a surprise. Bernie will win the nomination. He speaks the truth. He doesn't recite talking points prepared by staffers reading polls. He will connect with the disenfranchised majority in our society and get them to the polls.
11
No one thought Senator Obama could beat Hillary in 2008 either.
Look, I'm okay with Hillary. If it comes down to her and a GOP candidate, I will vote for her. But I do not live on the coasts and do not live in purely liberal enclaves. And I am excited about Sanders. The liberals around me are excited. Even my hard-right, Fox-News loving father has significantly less to say about Sanders than Hillary. It's worth a shot, and regardless of articles like this, I am not seeing an easy race in Hillary's future.
Look, I'm okay with Hillary. If it comes down to her and a GOP candidate, I will vote for her. But I do not live on the coasts and do not live in purely liberal enclaves. And I am excited about Sanders. The liberals around me are excited. Even my hard-right, Fox-News loving father has significantly less to say about Sanders than Hillary. It's worth a shot, and regardless of articles like this, I am not seeing an easy race in Hillary's future.
14
The front-page headline is disingenuous. In terms of policy, there is a great deal of room to Clinton's left. She is clearly running on a centrist, pro-corporate platform.
19
The entry of others into the Democratic primaries will benefit Clinton since the various news organizations, including the NYT, will then have a reason to offer routine political coverage in 2016. Otherwise she might be suffer from the lack of steady publicity.
The author's tendency to conflate the terms "liberal" with "socialist" reflects the extreme compression of the communist-socialist-progressive-liberal political spectrum in the United States compared to many developed countries in the world. Many people with progressive views of social and economic justice cringe at being labeled "liberals" - particularly if, as done by the author - it lumps their views together with those of Hillary Clinton.
12
New York Times readers are apparently in for a huge shock when the realize how unappealing their liberal agenda is to the vast majority of Democrats, not to mention Americans, especially as voiced by Bernie Sanders. This Senator might have a better chance of at least not embarrassing himself if he combed his hair and didn't look like a raving lunatic when speaking.
1
Sounding like a raving lunatic only seems to help Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.
1
Really? When Sanders' positions are actually polled they do well. Only when people know they came from a "socialist," do they fair less well. By the way sir what is a "liberal agenda" beyond effective governing and maintaining the social progress of the 20th century?
2
I am continually amazed (and somewhat disappointed) that self-proclaimed liberals from those rarefied progressive enclaves mimic the "RINO"-bashing conservatives by insisting that their views of the party and liberalism are the only valid ones.
I, too, welcome Sen. Sanders' voice in the campaign. But to use this as an excuse to bash Hillary Clinton for not being liberal enough for their tastes demonstrates arrogance and a self-defeating wish to lose the election in 2016.
I, too, welcome Sen. Sanders' voice in the campaign. But to use this as an excuse to bash Hillary Clinton for not being liberal enough for their tastes demonstrates arrogance and a self-defeating wish to lose the election in 2016.
1
I guess it depends on how one defines one's terms. To me, a liberal is someone who believes, among other things, in universal public health care, sting social welfare programs, living wages and benefits (paid vacation, family and sick leave, pension, unemployment insurance, etc.) for all workers, strong business regulation in the public interest, meaningful environmental laws, an inviolate right to privacy in family and personal affairs, significant reduction in military and security spending, corporate welfare and rent seeking, an end to the influence of religion in the public sphere, massive spending on infrastructure, education and other public investment, and significant tax increases (especially on upper income individuals) to pay for the foregoing. By this standard, I would guess I am describing maybe 5% of those eligible to vote.
2
Betcha the Clinton campaign is more afraid than you are Mr. Cohn. Sanders has the capacity to show her for the hollow shell she is - and without acrimony. It might be possible for Hillary to shape-shift into Elizabeth Warren but, with all her powers, she cannot become Bernie Sanders.
12
I suspect Bernie held back until he saw the continuing rise of HRC's poll negatives. And this is before Koch Bros' money has gone to work on her.
4
In my humble view, the problem is not the opposition to Hillary Clinton from the liberal or conservative side, but two of her own characteristics that are frightening in a potential President: (1) a lack of fighting spirit of her Democratic predecessor Madeleine Alright and (2) a lack of backbone as shown by her reaction to her spouse's sexual shenanigans while both were still occupying the White House.
These "add-up-to-100%" bar graphs are unnecessarily confusing, and there is no reason to prove graphically 20 times that the sub-bars add to 100% — that could just be stated once.
The unconfusing way to do this is to present each category (Consistent Liberal, Mostly Liberal, etc.) without abutting the adjacent categories, but rather left-aligned, so that a reader can visually compare that category for the various items on the left side (Postgraduates, Income > $150K, etc.)
But creating tilted, offset towers for the horizontal bars of any given political category — as in this infographic — makes it almost impossible for anyone to actually make use of its information.
The unconfusing way to do this is to present each category (Consistent Liberal, Mostly Liberal, etc.) without abutting the adjacent categories, but rather left-aligned, so that a reader can visually compare that category for the various items on the left side (Postgraduates, Income > $150K, etc.)
But creating tilted, offset towers for the horizontal bars of any given political category — as in this infographic — makes it almost impossible for anyone to actually make use of its information.
5
Don't agree-- I've seen some bad graphic in the Times, but this seems perfectly clear, especially with the numbers.
If anything, Hillary and the First Gentleman are Faux Liberals. Not liberal other than in speech. Hawk (Hillary), in the clutches of Wall Street, secret money from Russia and the authoritarian states of the Middle East and pro NAFTA which cost Americans jobs. Liberal? Not by a long shot. At best, in the center. At worst, just another lying politician.
7
Bernie Sanders has my vote! His filibuster sealed the deal for me.
7
This is an editorial opinion with a few statistics thrown in to clothe it in the appearance of being fact-based. It is not.
Some people think Mrs. Clinton is rather right of center. Just saying this, or saying its opposite, has no bearing on where she actually sits among voters. And the statistical chart in this article provide no support whatsoever for either viewpoint; they are simply irrelevant.
Why? Because they give no information whatsoever about how these voters' stand with respect to candidates Sanders and Clinton.
Some people think Mrs. Clinton is rather right of center. Just saying this, or saying its opposite, has no bearing on where she actually sits among voters. And the statistical chart in this article provide no support whatsoever for either viewpoint; they are simply irrelevant.
Why? Because they give no information whatsoever about how these voters' stand with respect to candidates Sanders and Clinton.
8
Why does the Times simply dismiss Sanders and continue to report Clinton as liberal or slightly to the left of center? If the Times really cared about the average American citizen they would not be talking like Hillary will only have to move a bit to the left. Why would anyone ever believe this woman--she can not raise her voice against TPP, her e-mail mess, votes for ever war, friend to Wall Street and the list goes on. Is the NYT a friend to the middle class? Plus, you know Hillary will say anything to get elected and then is the same old same old. If you care about the average citizen and want fairness in our governmental system you need to complain to the NYT about their coverage and clearly not vote for HC just because she is a woman or you mistakenly think she gives a hoot about the average American.
10
"Is the NYT a friend to the middle class?"
Well, NO. Of course not. Have you missed the silly real-estate stories, "What can you get for ..." and then an obscenely high number of dollars? Have you missed the silly fashion articles describing clothing and accessories that cost more than many people's monthly paychecks? Aside from the veneer of populism and middle-class concern expressed by a few of its more prominent columnists, the NYT exudes elitism. The Times is the voice of the status quo, which is decidedly unfriendly to the middle class.
(Why do I read it? Because though it isn't what I thought it was when I started reading it 30 years ago, it's still a better source of information than most of what's out there, sadly enough.)
The NYT always wants to be where the "smart money" is, and that (along with much of the rest of the money) is with HRC. The NYT is the home of what I believe Prof. Krugman called Very Serious People -- the same people who often miss what's going on outside the beltway and NYC. I hope the VSP and the NYT prove very much wrong about Sen. Sanders' chances.
Well, NO. Of course not. Have you missed the silly real-estate stories, "What can you get for ..." and then an obscenely high number of dollars? Have you missed the silly fashion articles describing clothing and accessories that cost more than many people's monthly paychecks? Aside from the veneer of populism and middle-class concern expressed by a few of its more prominent columnists, the NYT exudes elitism. The Times is the voice of the status quo, which is decidedly unfriendly to the middle class.
(Why do I read it? Because though it isn't what I thought it was when I started reading it 30 years ago, it's still a better source of information than most of what's out there, sadly enough.)
The NYT always wants to be where the "smart money" is, and that (along with much of the rest of the money) is with HRC. The NYT is the home of what I believe Prof. Krugman called Very Serious People -- the same people who often miss what's going on outside the beltway and NYC. I hope the VSP and the NYT prove very much wrong about Sen. Sanders' chances.
2
If memory serves, Hillary was poised to win in 2008. Did she?
7
The obvious move is to vote for Bernie in the primaries. He will probably not win many, so assuming Hillary is still the strongest candidate to forestall another disastrous republican white house we'd still have her for that purpose. Meanwhile she will be forced to at least answer to her many past missteps such as support of the Bush Iraq invasion that Bernie is sure to call her on in debates.
3
My problem with this column is not the assessment of Bernie Sanders’ chances for the Democratic nomination. His chances are slim for a variety of reasons – lack of money, a dismissive attitude on the part of major media outlets, the lack of a made-for-television aspect and personality, political positions to the left of most Democratic office holders, party functionaries, donors and bundlers, and on and on. He stands little chance. Agreed.
My problem is with the dopey construction of the left-right political spectrum and the misuse of the term “liberal.” Young Mr. Cohn is hardly alone in this, but I would expect anyone working for the sainted New York Times to be in possession of a good dictionary. It is hard to imagine an ideological game of Twister in which one places hands at once on both socialism and liberalism. They are opposite notions of the role of the state in relation to the economic activities of the people, whether acting as individuals, in groups or under the aegis of a juridical construct such as the limited liability corporation. So to conflate Sen. Sanders’ socialism with the notion of liberalism is odd, to say the least.
My problem is with the dopey construction of the left-right political spectrum and the misuse of the term “liberal.” Young Mr. Cohn is hardly alone in this, but I would expect anyone working for the sainted New York Times to be in possession of a good dictionary. It is hard to imagine an ideological game of Twister in which one places hands at once on both socialism and liberalism. They are opposite notions of the role of the state in relation to the economic activities of the people, whether acting as individuals, in groups or under the aegis of a juridical construct such as the limited liability corporation. So to conflate Sen. Sanders’ socialism with the notion of liberalism is odd, to say the least.
5
"Mainstream liberal Democrat"? Hillsry? Is this a joke? Shes virtually indistinguishable from JeB Bush!
Dear Upshot: thanks for declaring Bernie Sanders candidacy useless and dead less than 24 hours after he announced. With media like this Hillary doesnt even have to spend PR dollars, you voluntarily do her spin for Her.
The Democratic primary is already a painful farce, and media like the Upshot is just making it worse.
Dear Upshot: thanks for declaring Bernie Sanders candidacy useless and dead less than 24 hours after he announced. With media like this Hillary doesnt even have to spend PR dollars, you voluntarily do her spin for Her.
The Democratic primary is already a painful farce, and media like the Upshot is just making it worse.
18
Would you please stop misusing the word "liberal"?
What you are talking about is progressivism and a little bit of populism.
Liberalism does not mean Democrat as in the party, nor does it describe concerns for working people or the poor.
REPUBLICANS are mostly liberals, believing in the unfettered rights of individuals to do what they want (get rich, gain power, and exercise it) at the expense of others.
At best, you can call Sanders and other Democrats "social liberals." But please stop papering over the fact that classical liberalism IS the motivating ideology behind the Republicanism of TR, Eisenhower, Nixon, and many of the "cloth-coat" Republicans down to the Bushes.
What you are talking about is progressivism and a little bit of populism.
Liberalism does not mean Democrat as in the party, nor does it describe concerns for working people or the poor.
REPUBLICANS are mostly liberals, believing in the unfettered rights of individuals to do what they want (get rich, gain power, and exercise it) at the expense of others.
At best, you can call Sanders and other Democrats "social liberals." But please stop papering over the fact that classical liberalism IS the motivating ideology behind the Republicanism of TR, Eisenhower, Nixon, and many of the "cloth-coat" Republicans down to the Bushes.
2
Nate:
Your columns routinely disappoint me, often seeming as if you decided on the conclusion you wanted to reach and then carefully cherry-picked a few facts to support your conclusion.
This is the latest in a long line of such columns.
Nearly the entire spectrum of Democratic philosophy lies to the left of the 2008 Hillary Clinton, whether we're discussing opposition to foolish land wars in Asia, welfare reform, equal rights for all, or economic policies that benefit 98% of Americans versus the corporations. This may not be quite as true for the 2016 Hillary Clinton, but only because she's modified her stances in the hopes of actually winning the Democratic crown this time.
By comparison, Senator Sanders has held these views throughout his career and has never been ashamed of holding Democratic (or democratic) views. Even when he wasn't a member of our party, he was the best example of our party's values.
And as a New Hampshire Presidential Primary voter, he'll certainly receive my vote as thanks.
Your columns routinely disappoint me, often seeming as if you decided on the conclusion you wanted to reach and then carefully cherry-picked a few facts to support your conclusion.
This is the latest in a long line of such columns.
Nearly the entire spectrum of Democratic philosophy lies to the left of the 2008 Hillary Clinton, whether we're discussing opposition to foolish land wars in Asia, welfare reform, equal rights for all, or economic policies that benefit 98% of Americans versus the corporations. This may not be quite as true for the 2016 Hillary Clinton, but only because she's modified her stances in the hopes of actually winning the Democratic crown this time.
By comparison, Senator Sanders has held these views throughout his career and has never been ashamed of holding Democratic (or democratic) views. Even when he wasn't a member of our party, he was the best example of our party's values.
And as a New Hampshire Presidential Primary voter, he'll certainly receive my vote as thanks.
24
Mr. Cohn, you are right that a candidate who shows up in IA or SC claiming "I'm way more liberal then Hillary!" is not likely to succeed with that message, but I fear you are trapped in a late-20th century definition of "liberal". I teach political science at a Liberal (!) Arts school in upstate NY, and I would submit that when Pew (or anybody) asks Democratic voters if they are liberal or conservative, they think about abortion, gay-marriage, "family values," affirmative action, etc, much more than they think about whether Corporations should be able to avoid taxes, should government spend more money on infrastructure and health care, or should capital gains taxes be held below the rate of regular income taxes.
If Bernie Sanders can win the Democratic nomination, it will be because he will talk about the latter issues more, and mixed or conservative voters will discover that they are actually _liberal_ on these issues that have been relegated to the back burner in this country for several decades. It's true there's not much room to Hillary's left for Bernie on "social issues," but his campaign is about re-framing debate on a different dimension of liberal-conservative, that hardly anybody since FDR has chosen take head-on. If he can win, it will be because he can succeed at shifting the liberal-conservative spectrum to a different dimension, ironically the one on which most southern & midwestern white voters joined the New Deal Coalition almost a hundred years ago.
If Bernie Sanders can win the Democratic nomination, it will be because he will talk about the latter issues more, and mixed or conservative voters will discover that they are actually _liberal_ on these issues that have been relegated to the back burner in this country for several decades. It's true there's not much room to Hillary's left for Bernie on "social issues," but his campaign is about re-framing debate on a different dimension of liberal-conservative, that hardly anybody since FDR has chosen take head-on. If he can win, it will be because he can succeed at shifting the liberal-conservative spectrum to a different dimension, ironically the one on which most southern & midwestern white voters joined the New Deal Coalition almost a hundred years ago.
63
Bravo! Well put!
1
"The left wing of the Democratic Party isn’t big enough to support a challenge to the left of a mainstream liberal Democrat like Mrs. Clinton"
A "mainstream liberal Democrat" like Clinton? You've gotta be kidding.
The Hillary Brand® is anything BUT a liberal democrat. She may be mouthing the words these days to bamboozle her constituents, but her actions belie any liberalism - unless the definition has changed or morphed into something that more resembles a war-mongering elitist neoconservative in a Prada sheep's cloth coat.
This pseudo attempt to inject an alternative candidate to the Brand® is nothing more than a feeble charade to maintain the illusion of a two party system that offers up "choice" to the voter. First there was the threat of Warren (bought off by her own party), and now there's Sanders, who has neither the bankroll nor the support of The Establishment, who have thrown their lot in with Hillary, and have quid-pro-quo'ed her to make sure the status-quo isn't altered in any way, shape, or form.
And don't even think that there there will be a third party candidate - the Oilgarchy does not permit such foolishness. The best we'll get is Bernie (not a chance) Sanders to face-off with the Brand®, before dissolving into a media blackout of left-wing inconsequence. And the Brand®'s republican challengers? Pure cannon fodder. They give Hillary the chance to pretend she's a liberal and concerned about the direction the country is heading. The fix is in.
A "mainstream liberal Democrat" like Clinton? You've gotta be kidding.
The Hillary Brand® is anything BUT a liberal democrat. She may be mouthing the words these days to bamboozle her constituents, but her actions belie any liberalism - unless the definition has changed or morphed into something that more resembles a war-mongering elitist neoconservative in a Prada sheep's cloth coat.
This pseudo attempt to inject an alternative candidate to the Brand® is nothing more than a feeble charade to maintain the illusion of a two party system that offers up "choice" to the voter. First there was the threat of Warren (bought off by her own party), and now there's Sanders, who has neither the bankroll nor the support of The Establishment, who have thrown their lot in with Hillary, and have quid-pro-quo'ed her to make sure the status-quo isn't altered in any way, shape, or form.
And don't even think that there there will be a third party candidate - the Oilgarchy does not permit such foolishness. The best we'll get is Bernie (not a chance) Sanders to face-off with the Brand®, before dissolving into a media blackout of left-wing inconsequence. And the Brand®'s republican challengers? Pure cannon fodder. They give Hillary the chance to pretend she's a liberal and concerned about the direction the country is heading. The fix is in.
4
The upshot is supposed to be quantitative analysis
So, this column is esp sad, cause it quantitates the wrong stuff
Yes, if you ask the avg american, are you liberal or do you support obamacare, the answer is no
However, if you ask the avg american, do you want an inc in social security funded by taxes on the rich, do you support community rating, the answer is yes
so, this is the elite media confirming a nonfact: that americans are not liberal
they are in a lot of important ways
So, this column is esp sad, cause it quantitates the wrong stuff
Yes, if you ask the avg american, are you liberal or do you support obamacare, the answer is no
However, if you ask the avg american, do you want an inc in social security funded by taxes on the rich, do you support community rating, the answer is yes
so, this is the elite media confirming a nonfact: that americans are not liberal
they are in a lot of important ways
6
Sanders won't get the nomination. But he will open a conversation, and break the aura of inevitability.
The conversation needs to be opened. Does the country need a President (or the Democratic Party a candidate) who must report on her joint tax return a $500,000 "speaking fee" (bribe) from the Russian government? Who expects to inherit the office like a monarch? Whose husband left office "dead broke" and then peddled influence all the way to a fortune reported as in the hundreds of millions? When was she last in a car not driven by a chauffeur, or entered a supermarket to buy groceries?
Recall what happened to Lyndon Johnson in 1968.
The conversation needs to be opened. Does the country need a President (or the Democratic Party a candidate) who must report on her joint tax return a $500,000 "speaking fee" (bribe) from the Russian government? Who expects to inherit the office like a monarch? Whose husband left office "dead broke" and then peddled influence all the way to a fortune reported as in the hundreds of millions? When was she last in a car not driven by a chauffeur, or entered a supermarket to buy groceries?
Recall what happened to Lyndon Johnson in 1968.
8
Good try, but you see, we are educated, this isn't Fox news, and what is the NY Times up to? There's mostly room to Hillary's left, plenty of it, especially now that centrist Democrats are to the right of the old liberal Republicans.
And there are plenty of people across the spectrum who, if exposed to the positions of Bernie Sanders, would vote for his common sense positions.
NY Times, shame on you.
And there are plenty of people across the spectrum who, if exposed to the positions of Bernie Sanders, would vote for his common sense positions.
NY Times, shame on you.
18
"Narrow lane to Hilary's left"?
It's more like a 6 lane thruway.
It's more like a 6 lane thruway.
17
Hillary Clinton is about as Liberal as Wall Street.
I'm a lifelong Liberal Democrat, and I will never vote for her Royal Incompetence.
I ask her supporters to name one thing in her political life that she's accomplished.
I'm a lifelong Liberal Democrat, and I will never vote for her Royal Incompetence.
I ask her supporters to name one thing in her political life that she's accomplished.
8
As to Ms Clinton's credentials as a "liberal": the vilified Richard Nixon, where he to run today, would be substantively to Ms Clinton's left. Indeed, Ms Clinton makes me nostalgic for the Nixon years. Imagine that.
12
Liberal does not mean left. I think that many more people have had it with the two party dynasty that has ruled this country for one group's interest and one group only..the corporate and wealthy elite. Clinton and liberals (unwittingly if one is to be kind) clearly fall in support for policies that benefit the corporate and wealthy one percent because the 'center' is a move to the right. Everyone wants a living wage, everyone wants clean water and clean air, everyone wants halthcare for all. Thanks to 8 years of Obama, there are many more eyes wide open.
8
The author (Nate Cohn), of this column has opted to skew the poll numbers from Pew's 2008 Democratic to claim that Senator Sanders has only limited support.
First, I could interpret those same numbers and opine that Senator Sanders could capture a vast majority of the liberal and significant majority of the mostly liberal voters leaving Secretary Clinton with a small minority of liberal, mostly liberal and a majority of the moderate and conservative.
Second, has Mr. Cohn read the article about Senator Sanders' positions in today's NYT today? His positions are not liberal. I suggest he read them.
Third, isn't the poll dated? Since 2008 a lot has happened. We are still in Afghanistan, involved in Iraq, Yemen and Syria has become a civil war, and the US at the suggestion of Secretary Clinton invaded Libya with no post invasion plan. Our nation's infrastructure has remained the same, which is a grade D per the Civil Engineer Society; student debt and overall debt for the working and middle classes has gotten worst; the uber rich have continued to succeed in Washington and Wall Street. I could go on but the reader gets the jest of where we are today. Given the mood of the electorate, Senator Sanders IMO has a better chance than what Mr. Cohn states.
First, I could interpret those same numbers and opine that Senator Sanders could capture a vast majority of the liberal and significant majority of the mostly liberal voters leaving Secretary Clinton with a small minority of liberal, mostly liberal and a majority of the moderate and conservative.
Second, has Mr. Cohn read the article about Senator Sanders' positions in today's NYT today? His positions are not liberal. I suggest he read them.
Third, isn't the poll dated? Since 2008 a lot has happened. We are still in Afghanistan, involved in Iraq, Yemen and Syria has become a civil war, and the US at the suggestion of Secretary Clinton invaded Libya with no post invasion plan. Our nation's infrastructure has remained the same, which is a grade D per the Civil Engineer Society; student debt and overall debt for the working and middle classes has gotten worst; the uber rich have continued to succeed in Washington and Wall Street. I could go on but the reader gets the jest of where we are today. Given the mood of the electorate, Senator Sanders IMO has a better chance than what Mr. Cohn states.
13
Sorry Nate - a very conventional analysis. If Sanders is able to hit the right chord and resonate with lower income, less educated voters on economic issues, then he has the ability to do better than you predict. The problem is that he will be drowned out by tens of millions of dollars in campaign ads financed by corporate fat cats enabled by Citizens United. Mainstream media like the NYT will play into this by treating him as a minor candidate. Your analysis already validates this.
15
Thank God the people writing comments here know a lot more than the guy who wrote this "political calculus." The article appears like he lifted his ideas from cliff notes on "The Agenda: Defining Horse Races in the Media." Clearly, people are a lot smarter than the pundits trying to enlighten them. The power structure in this country -- politics, military, judiciary and the bombed-out 4th Estate -- ignore the will of the people at their own peril.
15
What's really sad about that graph is the correlation between income level and progressive leanings. It's ironic that the most affluent Democrats are the most progressive. (Or, as I used to say to my ex-wife every April, apparently we are the robber-baron capitalists that we want the tax system to soak.)
Why are so many people their own worst enemies? And what can we do to change that?
Why are so many people their own worst enemies? And what can we do to change that?
3
There is a phrase that describes the disenfranchised who fight for the 1%.
Turkeys who vote for Thanksgiving.
Turkeys who vote for Thanksgiving.
1
The Congressional Progressive is the largest caucus in the Democratic Party. It's about time that a candidate representing this majority entered the race. If Saunders gets the chance to voice his policies (articles like this notwithstanding), the voting population will see that Saunders represents them and their needs, not those of the oligarchies on both sides of the aisle. He speaks and answers to humans, not money. I'd vote for him in a split-second over Clinton, given the opportunity to do so.
9
Hillary will not vote for what's best for our environment. She won't be the brick wall that Obama is to preventing the Keystone XL pipeline from being passed. Also, Hillary is indebted to the corporate world and will allow privatization of many services we depend upon the government to protect.
Bernie Sanders entering the race is wonderful. It will stir the pot and just may bring out all those voters who are disenfranchised. If nothing else, at least Hillary will have a wakeup call to the pushback of the status quo.
Bernie Sanders entering the race is wonderful. It will stir the pot and just may bring out all those voters who are disenfranchised. If nothing else, at least Hillary will have a wakeup call to the pushback of the status quo.
3
Because I write on alternative health I have a number of very conservative, tea party Facebook followers who have passed Bernie Sanders memes to me. Even more share my own critiques of corporate domination of politics, although we disagree on means to an end. They might associate Obama and Clinton with Monsanto but do not associate Sanders with Monsanto. His influence goes beyond a narrow left wing.
That said, the Pew poll shown shows a majority of voters as consistent or mostly liberal and I bet a chunk of the mixed oppose the corporate capitalism if the current regime.
That said, the Pew poll shown shows a majority of voters as consistent or mostly liberal and I bet a chunk of the mixed oppose the corporate capitalism if the current regime.
5
There are a great many Democrats, a substantial subset of whom are liberals, who reject the very notion of Clinton's inevitably. Bernie's entry can only be positive. No. He has no shot of winning owing to his ideology - it requires little imagination to project how the right-wing interests would crucify a socialist - and to inadequate resources. But his candidacy could be kindling for the greater change that will be required to change the status quo. Why is Hillary the best candidate? Is it fund raising capacity, her towering intellect or just her positioning in a time perceived to be right for a gender change? There are reasons that voters like me could never vote for Hillary aside from Clinton fatigue. She voted to authorize war by the mad men who eventually did the irreparable harm that was foreseeable at the time, at least by Robert Byrd and like-minded thinkers. This was a calculation of how it would be perceived by voters. She is cold and vindictive and demonstrates an entrenched attitude of entitlement. Although such attributes are rare in government in the Citizens United age, there are many superior intellects who are brilliant strategists and also embody compassion and will. This is the type of leader that will emerge if the US is to regain its' former greatness. It won't take a village. It will take time for voters to be educated and motivated to say "enough." We will vote for any left-leaning candidate that makes it onto the ballot who is NOT Hillary Clinton.
13
If Clinton is a liberal. Then liberal means nothing. She was born of privilege, campaigned for Goldwater, and has consistently supported intervention and war. War is not a liberal value. If it is then there is indeed no meaningful distinction between liberal and conservative. It is a word that prevents us from thinking. This whole article does not even deal in issues at all.
27
Hey, she tried to subvert the Watergate hearings on behalf of Ted Kennedy! She's got principles!
If my mental math is correct, HRC wasn't even old enough to vote when Goldwater was running -- in fact I think she was 17. How many of us want to be held to what we thought when we were 17?
That being said, I didn't support HRC in 2008 because I viewed her as a closet hawk. So we got Obama instead and how many years did the war drag on. It reminds me of a Goldwater related joke that my late father in law used to tell. He said that people told him in '64 that if he voted for Goldwater there would be an escalation of the war in Vietnam, and he did and there was.
That being said, I didn't support HRC in 2008 because I viewed her as a closet hawk. So we got Obama instead and how many years did the war drag on. It reminds me of a Goldwater related joke that my late father in law used to tell. He said that people told him in '64 that if he voted for Goldwater there would be an escalation of the war in Vietnam, and he did and there was.
The Clintons (like Andrew Cuomo) do not have an ideological bent. They do not believe in anything, except what can help them at a particular moment. That said, every issue is peripheral to this defining issue: taxes. I'm not saying this country needs to re-establish the rates of the 1950's (by that standard Ike and most Republicans were liberal than 90% of Washington politicians), but the chief cause of income equality (read: greed by the super wealthy) is how much they get to keep after taxes because of low rates and loopholes. There is no incentive for the super wealthy to let that money trickle down or for them to invest. We all the know the story of Warren Buffet's secretary paying a higher rate than he, and Romney paying less than 14% on some 200 Million per annum, but what was done to correct this? where was the outrage? There was none because our attention is always diverted by the "wedge issues". And we the people fall for it every time (let's remember that both parties are beholden to their rich donors).
When Hillary Clinton favors more higher brackets to the progressive income tax, when she favors taxing non-wage income at or higher than earned income, when she favors high tax rates on luxury goods, inheritances, estates, and trusts (and changing the rules on the latter), then we might consider her a liberal. Until then Hillary is NOT a liberal.
When Hillary Clinton favors more higher brackets to the progressive income tax, when she favors taxing non-wage income at or higher than earned income, when she favors high tax rates on luxury goods, inheritances, estates, and trusts (and changing the rules on the latter), then we might consider her a liberal. Until then Hillary is NOT a liberal.
24
100 percent correct. I came to comment in order to say what you already have. She plays the politics of liberal ideas but she like Bill before her is a professional politician, not a liberal civil servant. She'll do and say what it takes to get elected and stay in office. As you say here until she tackles the tax issues that contribute to the income disparity that those at the top--among them political donors--work to perpetuate, then she's not liberal, she's a talking head who means nothing.
Pretty sure that Bernie Sanders does not actually believe that he can or will win the Democratic Nomination. He is, however, assuring that a very important conversation will take place through the primary season, or for as long as his campaign can afford to stay in the race. Perhaps he will finally force the Democratic Party to stop trying to win elections by being "Republican lite." I, for one am looking forward to both the light and heat that may be generated by the discussion Senator Sanders is forcing on my party.
42
He is NOT a democrat...he is the longest serving Independent in congress.
He can't challenge her, they are not even in the same party!
He can't challenge her, they are not even in the same party!
Self identification as Liberal or Conservative or in the middle is notoriously unreliable and misleading.
People mostly tell the truth as they see it, that isn't the problerm. They have no uniform idea just what the terms mean. What label a person applies to himself has little correlation to his actual opinions on issues.
Deomcrats are uniformly against the neocon wars. Whatever they call themselves, they won't vote for Hillary if they think she'll do more of that as President.
Other issues are heavily weighted on one side among Democrats, among all Democrats no matter what they call themselves. On those issues, Hillary is on the wrong side. She is very much a minority Democrat on those specific issues.
Our author could do a breakdown on issue positions of Democrats, and would find there is a much wider path to the left of Hillary.
People mostly tell the truth as they see it, that isn't the problerm. They have no uniform idea just what the terms mean. What label a person applies to himself has little correlation to his actual opinions on issues.
Deomcrats are uniformly against the neocon wars. Whatever they call themselves, they won't vote for Hillary if they think she'll do more of that as President.
Other issues are heavily weighted on one side among Democrats, among all Democrats no matter what they call themselves. On those issues, Hillary is on the wrong side. She is very much a minority Democrat on those specific issues.
Our author could do a breakdown on issue positions of Democrats, and would find there is a much wider path to the left of Hillary.
15
I agree, absolutely misleading. I recently met someone who identified himself as "very liberal." When we actually spoke about polities, he mentioned that he supported Obama. I noted that Obama is not "very liberal" and even the label of "liberal" is further to the right than many of Obama's actual positions. He responded "but Obama voted against the Iraq war," and was surprised when I told him that Obama couldn't have voted against the war as he was not a U.S. Senator when the war vote was cast. How can anyone identify himself as "very liberal" and not have a clue about something as important as the Iraq war? For the record, to all those who still insist Obama was against the Iraq war, he made a speech with no personal consequences. After he became a U.S. senator when he had a vote, he either voted to support aspects of the war or conveniently disappeared from the Senate (the U.S. Senate does not have a "present" vote--sarcasm intended) when votes supporting the war were taken. His enthusiastic adoption of drones, which kill many innocent civilians every week, is hardly the stance of a "liberal." I often wonder how the committee that gave Obama the Nobel Prize for Peace puts up with the jeers of its follow Swedes.
I no longer identify with any of the following terms: liberal, very liberal, progressive, which when used in the U.S. are meaningless. Like Bernie Sanders, I'm a socialist of the European variety.
I no longer identify with any of the following terms: liberal, very liberal, progressive, which when used in the U.S. are meaningless. Like Bernie Sanders, I'm a socialist of the European variety.
4
On the contrary, I know of MANY Democrats who will vote for Clinton even though they were staunchly opposed to the Iraq war.
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by Norwegians, not Swedes.
As a long time moderate/independent who is not in sync with either party I don't find the self-identification in the Pew study very relevant based on what I observe about a difference between the parties. Many people I know who are seen as liberal by both conservatives and moderates/independents do not self-identify as liberals. Anecdotally, it seems to offend them that they could be labeled as such, even if they have only criticism, even hatred, for conservatives. On the other hand, almost every person I know who is considered to be a conservative by liberals and moderates/independents, does self-identify as a conservative and are offended to be thought of as liberal (whether they are a fiscal or cultural conservative or both). I don't know why conservatives seem much more comfortable with this than liberals, but I noticed it even when I was a young man and very liberal myself. In fact, back then I was bothered that many other liberals (in my view) ran from the label instead of embracing it. Admittedly I do not have statistics or a survey to back me up. It is just my opinion based on my observations.
7
There is no reason to question this analysis of Democratic-leaning voters derived from the Pew Research Political Typology and Polarization Dataset, except that these same Democratic-leaning voters and independent "centrists" very much like them nominated, elected and re-elected Barack Obama. The dataset on its face suggests that would have been impossible. It takes a Clinton to believe one can triangulate through the vague ideological mush of the American electorate without clearly enunciating any policy positions. And that is the point of the Sanders' candidacy. What voters actually respond to is not "neutrally" worded pollster temperature taking, but policies and political sentiments as framed, passionately articulated and embodied by specific candidates. Sanders will force the Clinton campaign and its candidate to do the respectable, essential political task in a democracy not of miming voters' vague, divided predispositions but of persuading and unifying voters around the necessity of some ideologically coherent path forward for the nation as a whole. Bernie will force Hillary to work at something more than "I am woman. Hear me grandmother."
15
This is so unbelievably out of touch I had to pinch myself when reading it. Mr. Cohn -- Sanders is from rural Appalachian America, hardly an upper middle class suburban enclave. The space to the left of Hillary is not to be found in Bethesda or even Shaker Heights. It's to be found in places where people need an economic solution that isn't on offer in Beltway Washington.
My great grandfather had portraits on his office wall of FDR and Jesus Christ. The majority of his great-grandkids are Republicans. Because government is ignoring their William Jennings Bryan economic values, they're voting their William Jennings Bryan cultural values. Creationist ones. Religious ones. The moment economic values come to the fore again, that will start to change.
And that's what the Sanders candidacy is about. He realigned Vermont politics. While he's unlikely to get the nomination, he could well be the start of a realignment of American politics. And because he's doing this in the Democratic primary, his candidacy is far more consequential and influential than it ever would be as an independent.
My great grandfather had portraits on his office wall of FDR and Jesus Christ. The majority of his great-grandkids are Republicans. Because government is ignoring their William Jennings Bryan economic values, they're voting their William Jennings Bryan cultural values. Creationist ones. Religious ones. The moment economic values come to the fore again, that will start to change.
And that's what the Sanders candidacy is about. He realigned Vermont politics. While he's unlikely to get the nomination, he could well be the start of a realignment of American politics. And because he's doing this in the Democratic primary, his candidacy is far more consequential and influential than it ever would be as an independent.
34
Sanders is a transplanted Jewish hippie from Brooklyn, of which there are many in moonbatty Vermont, hardly from "rural Appalachia" ....
If Hillary Clinton is a leftist, then so was Nixon. The American Public has not seen a credible left-wing candidate since they were all assassinated in the 60s and 70s. I applaud Bernie's courage in running. I doubt that he will win because people have been trained to tune out his message by the corporate media. This article is more of the same discouragement to even try to understand us people on the left. If Bernie can get his message out, the vast majority of citizens in the country will agree with him, but the corporate media will do all it can to dilute and confuse his message for their corporate overlords. With the unrest in the populace, the lefts time may be coming. Or we could continue down the road to corporate fascism, our choice. I'm glad Bernie is trying to show people we have a choice.
57
McGovern was a leftist in 1972, and he got more votes than moonbats Sanders or Liz Warren would get.
Bernie Sanders was probably enticed in some way by the Clinton campaign to run against Hillary, make her look more middle-of-the-road (if not honest), and, especially, to give her another candidate to beat out for the Democratic nomination.
5
"...Mrs. Clinton is a liberal..."
I wonder what universe Mr. Cohn inhabits?
My family was Democratic since before FDR was elected. His portrait was up there on L.R. wall with Jesus, and the Polish Pope. My mother worked for Dems her whole life. I tried to run on a Dem ticket once--but party hacks kicked me off, this was Brooklyn, NY, USA--no surprise there.
After 9/11, when the Dems voted to support GW Bush's radical agenda whole hog, I became a Green, and have never looked back.
Oh for a parlimentary system, where minority voices are not crushed, but courted, as they are needed to form a government!
I wonder what universe Mr. Cohn inhabits?
My family was Democratic since before FDR was elected. His portrait was up there on L.R. wall with Jesus, and the Polish Pope. My mother worked for Dems her whole life. I tried to run on a Dem ticket once--but party hacks kicked me off, this was Brooklyn, NY, USA--no surprise there.
After 9/11, when the Dems voted to support GW Bush's radical agenda whole hog, I became a Green, and have never looked back.
Oh for a parlimentary system, where minority voices are not crushed, but courted, as they are needed to form a government!
33
Here, Here!!!!
Maybe Bernie's position "far left" position will make Hillary look better to voters afraid of those crazy liberals.
1
I guess you forgot 2008? I know you're young, but....
6
I have been a long-time supporter of HRC. But when Senator Sanders entered the race, he will get my vote. Hearing what he has to say for quite some time reveals that he is the only one of all the candidates, of either party, which understands the problems our country faces. And has firm ideas of how those problems can be solved. Unfortunately he does not have the "vote-getting" charm or experience of being on the national stage, and his candidacy could divide the Democrats and, woefully, give us another Republican just like George W. Bush.
5
I bet they've made similar analyses of him for the past 30 years as he's consistently run with the 'socialist' title, and beaten pre-ordained Democrat/Repuiblican candidates in election after election. The reason he's been able to do that is he's very good at appealing to people he's not supposed to appeal to by doing somethign most national politicans don't know how to do - present his positions with passion, honesty, and common sense.
15
Bernie Sanders is one of the few people in politics that I trust.
A large number of politicans are beholding to the lobbyists and corporate interests funding their campaign. They have little interest in representing the common people, as they need the large donations that lobbyists and corporate interests can funnel to Super Pacs thanks to Citizens United.
Bernie won't go that route. And hopefully he can get the support he needs 10-20 dollars at a time from the people he would represent and advocate for.
A large number of politicans are beholding to the lobbyists and corporate interests funding their campaign. They have little interest in representing the common people, as they need the large donations that lobbyists and corporate interests can funnel to Super Pacs thanks to Citizens United.
Bernie won't go that route. And hopefully he can get the support he needs 10-20 dollars at a time from the people he would represent and advocate for.
21
The argument made in this article by Nate Cohn may be entirely accurate, but one remembers the odd case of 1968 in which Robert Kennedy, who had the support of much of the Democratic left, was also oddly appealing to many working class voters who had supported George Wallace and who were looking for a "truth teller." This may not be simply a question of left-right.
8
Bang on! I voted 'liberal' when I was younger, until the progressives came along and killed liberalism off. I bet lot's of 'conservatives' would vote for Bernie as they are deep down really Liberals. Heck, I think conservatives would vote for Bernie just to keep that demented, evil cackling Clinton out of the White House. I sure would.
Mr. Cohn's analysis is a fair assessment of the Democratic electorate as far as it goes, but it misses a key point. People's reason for voting for a candidate is not a mirror reflection of their own ideology, even when averaged over large numbers. Moderate people in Ohio vote for Sherrod Brown. Moderate people in Minnesota vote for Al Franken. And Massachusetts is not as liberal as it is often made out to be. Moderates there support Elizabeth Warren.
A candidate that offers voters a clear vision that addresses their needs and concerns will get a serious look from the wide swath of voters, regardless of the labels foisted on them by the media.
Bernie Sanders biggest problem will be to raise enough money to communicate his ideas. Here in Florida, with a decently early March 15, 2016 presidential primary, it'll take on the order of $20 million to run a competitive campaign. Sanders can't hope to score a surprise in New Hampshire and then raise the money - there isn't enough time.
So if the good readers of the Times like Sanders' ideas and want him to make it a competitive race for the nomination, they need to contribute in 2015. Because as the senator says, he doesn't have any billionaire friends.
A candidate that offers voters a clear vision that addresses their needs and concerns will get a serious look from the wide swath of voters, regardless of the labels foisted on them by the media.
Bernie Sanders biggest problem will be to raise enough money to communicate his ideas. Here in Florida, with a decently early March 15, 2016 presidential primary, it'll take on the order of $20 million to run a competitive campaign. Sanders can't hope to score a surprise in New Hampshire and then raise the money - there isn't enough time.
So if the good readers of the Times like Sanders' ideas and want him to make it a competitive race for the nomination, they need to contribute in 2015. Because as the senator says, he doesn't have any billionaire friends.
22
Yep, I think you pretty well nailed it in that Sanders could never raise enough money on his own to endure the process of trying to get elected, PLUS the fact, he makes too much sense and is not beholden to any of the corporate masters and their lobbyists. He is actually concerned about his constituents, not worrying about just saying or doing the things that will get him re-elected. He actually has policies that have never wavered in commitment. I can just see it now, the Republican hatchet job in the media about him and the "dangers" of his election and of socialism to the U.S. The fear mongering would be "off the charts".
Americans always talk about turning the country in a totally different direction and getting the money out of politics and an agenda being set by the countries oligarchs. Well, the election of Bernie Sanders might be a good start and, for a change, just stop talking about it and do it!
Americans always talk about turning the country in a totally different direction and getting the money out of politics and an agenda being set by the countries oligarchs. Well, the election of Bernie Sanders might be a good start and, for a change, just stop talking about it and do it!
The issue is not Senator Sanders as a viable candidate as much as generating healthy debate in the Democratic party. Incidentally, there is no validation whatsoever of what consistently liberal, mostly liberal, and mixed conservative means--I suspect that some instrument to assess overlap in the self-generated descriptions would should considerable overlap.
9
She's still gonna have to address the issues about which Bernie is concerned. And, she still need votes like mine. I hope that's enough to get off her Republican-Lite dime. I do not like that. There has to be something that distinguishes the differences between the parties. This is the reason there are so many ex-Democrats, and ex-Republicans (more of the latter.)
10
I am sure Hillary will get off her 'Republican-Lite dime' for the primaries - then return to it in the general election. With most politicians we must pay no mind to what they say- but take serious what they do. Bernie Sanders is a different sort - his words and actions have always been in sync.
I think Senator Sanders is to reasonable to actually want to be the President. He would, however, like to have an impact on the country and can help pull Hillary a bit towards the left. It also prevents her from looking like she is ordained by the (name your own conspiracy). I want no part of the Leftwing Luddites of the Democratic party and distrust everything from the not-rich-enough-yet Republicans. I have already made my contribution to the Senator from the state of 50 Shades of Green.
3
While I would agree that Sanders isn't likely to become President, his entry into the race will undoubtedly galvanize a sector of the democratic party and, even more important, push Hillary Clinton to the left on some important issues. The most significant baggage Ms. Clinton carries is her ties to the so-called "1%," ties which she shares with the various republican candidates. Sanders has no such ties and has, in fact, been a tireless advocate for the middle class. His positions on economic equality, climate change, foreign policy, the drug war, and immigration will resonate with many voters. His entry into the race will help to sharpen the differences between democrats and republicans and this will, I think, help to brighten the democrats' chances for victory in 2016. After all, when political affiliations are removed from the debate, most Americans share Bernie Sanders' opinions.
20
As a feminist it is sad that in the great US of A in 2015 there is going to be only "one" woman candidate for the Presidential race! It is appalling and worrying. This, in some ways, might indicate that "the Ultra Conservatives to muddled Moderates to Pretentious Liberals to Feminist-Haters to Manipulative Media to Confused or Weary Voters" have won. It is scary already.
2
I am a feminist, have 5 daughters, have 3 granddaughters,
and two great granddaughters. Nevertheless, whether we have a woman as president or more women as candidates
is certainly not at the top of the vital issues our country or the world face today. Those who hoped for an African
American president found it when the perfect black man
came on the scene. Let us wait for the right woman.
and two great granddaughters. Nevertheless, whether we have a woman as president or more women as candidates
is certainly not at the top of the vital issues our country or the world face today. Those who hoped for an African
American president found it when the perfect black man
came on the scene. Let us wait for the right woman.
1
Do not despair - it looks like failed CEO and then failed republican candidate for United States Senate from California Carly Fiorina is going to be in the race.
Then you will have two Corporatists women in the race for President - one Republican- lite and one just plain Republican.
Didn't the ascendency of Margaret Thatcher teach bourgeois feminists anything? Gender is not enough when your class politics just mimic those of all the men who ran in the past.
Then you will have two Corporatists women in the race for President - one Republican- lite and one just plain Republican.
Didn't the ascendency of Margaret Thatcher teach bourgeois feminists anything? Gender is not enough when your class politics just mimic those of all the men who ran in the past.
Hey, I'm from Kansas. (Not known as one of those liberal enclaves) I like Bernie. I just made a contribution this morning. I know a lot of people on either side of the state line that runs down the middle of the Kansas City Metro who like him too.The exciting thing about Sanders is his appeal to rural voters, seniors and blue collar workers. Sanders also has a track record as winning against "inevitables" both Democrat and Republican. From my vantage point right in the center of the flyover zone I think Bernie is going to surprise a lot of people.
42
Oh, I beg to differ. There actually is a great deal of room to the Left of Hillary Clinton. She is a centrist. Do you hear her arguing for major defense spending cuts, free college education, massive tax hikes on the rich, a $15 minimum wage, a breakup of the banks, and campaign finance reform?
The media has lost its perspective because the modern Republican Party has gone so far to the Right (privatization of the major New Deal elements, for example) that the Democrats have moved to the Center, leaving the Left basically unoccupied.
The media has lost its perspective because the modern Republican Party has gone so far to the Right (privatization of the major New Deal elements, for example) that the Democrats have moved to the Center, leaving the Left basically unoccupied.
123
Agreed. I would add that Clinton (as SOS) and her prior campaign staff had some questionable ties and not so subtle support for the KXL pipeline and natural gas fracking expansion. These connections question Clinton's commitment on addressing climate change.
4
The media have lost their perspective because right-wing plutocrats now control the major media and congressional and presidential candidates. When the major media were independently owned, we got less pro-1% propaganda.
I do agree that the Democrats have left a gaping hole on the left with their move to the right. It'll be a breath of fresh air to have Bernie Sanders present his views that speak to most of us in the center and on the left.
I do agree that the Democrats have left a gaping hole on the left with their move to the right. It'll be a breath of fresh air to have Bernie Sanders present his views that speak to most of us in the center and on the left.
5
Excellent points all, David.
Mr. Cohen does a disservice to democracy and the country by dousing the day-old candidacy of Sen. Sanders with his negativity. Sanders offers all of us a real alternative to the pablum vanilla Democrats our party routinely hosts. He proposes precisely what our country needs, more equity for all, serious concern for the poor as well as the too-often plumped-for Middle Class, a less in-your-face foreign policy. Senator Sanders may not win the nomination, but he pulls the discussion to the left, critically so, while making Hillary appear more legitimate a "fighter" for the nomination and our back pocket Democrat in the race against the Republican cryptos!
67
Sanders will pull Hillary to the Left, leaving the Center wide open for the Republicans to take the general election. Thanks, Bernie!
Bernie Sanders populist positions are not left or right. They are a question of the 1% versus the 99% and supported by a majority of both left and right.
As Ralph Nader said a few years ago there is a convergence of both right and left populists versus the Corporate dominated establishment politicians.
This can be seen in the successful campaign for Net Neutrality, the criticisms of the NSA spying on all Americans, the offshoring of US jobs overseas which will only get worse with Obama/Republican/Clinton supported TransPacificPartnership, the destruction of communities water and health by fracking.
We are in a period of cataclysmic political shifts akin to those of the 1850's which saw the birth of the Republican party fueled by the Abolitionist movement. Now we have the question of sharing the planet sustainably in the reality of Peak Oil, Limits to growth and Climate Change. The plutocrats and their minions are determined to continue to ravage the Earth while they commandeer 90% of the material growth and gut vital shared resources like public transit, public schools, public parks, the public postal service, publ;ic health for their own pathological greed. This issue is not about traditional politics but the rich versus the rest of us. We can see the new political landscape when minimum wage law increases passed in Red States in the last election. People are waiting for a leader like Bernie who tells the truth and does not dissimulate about "wanting 1 phone"
As Ralph Nader said a few years ago there is a convergence of both right and left populists versus the Corporate dominated establishment politicians.
This can be seen in the successful campaign for Net Neutrality, the criticisms of the NSA spying on all Americans, the offshoring of US jobs overseas which will only get worse with Obama/Republican/Clinton supported TransPacificPartnership, the destruction of communities water and health by fracking.
We are in a period of cataclysmic political shifts akin to those of the 1850's which saw the birth of the Republican party fueled by the Abolitionist movement. Now we have the question of sharing the planet sustainably in the reality of Peak Oil, Limits to growth and Climate Change. The plutocrats and their minions are determined to continue to ravage the Earth while they commandeer 90% of the material growth and gut vital shared resources like public transit, public schools, public parks, the public postal service, publ;ic health for their own pathological greed. This issue is not about traditional politics but the rich versus the rest of us. We can see the new political landscape when minimum wage law increases passed in Red States in the last election. People are waiting for a leader like Bernie who tells the truth and does not dissimulate about "wanting 1 phone"
57
Orbit7er is the first person, other than myself, who addresses the present political situation in terms of the 1850s. Sadly, few Americans know enough of their national history to see the parallels.
In 1854, a "third party" - actually the fourth party in terms of its initial support - was launched. This "anti-Nebraska" party combined the energy of a great moral issue (opposition to the extension of slavery) with a profoundly practical, economic issue (the creation of large numbers of small family farms, tied to the growing rail network, to feed the booming industrial cities.
Within six years, the new party, under the name "Republicans" had elected Abraham Lincoln president and gained an effective majority in Congress.
This is the answer to those who say that third parties never succeed in America.
We are now at a moment when such a third-party movement might once again be created, linking the profound moral issue of Climate Destruction with the prqacical need for a new, more level, more sustainable economic model.
The best way to begin this movement, in this moment, is to support Bernie Sanders - actively. He might win, but even if he doesn't, we can meet each other and begin the conversation which could lead to a third party dedicated to what the Founders called "The Commonwealth".
In 1854, a "third party" - actually the fourth party in terms of its initial support - was launched. This "anti-Nebraska" party combined the energy of a great moral issue (opposition to the extension of slavery) with a profoundly practical, economic issue (the creation of large numbers of small family farms, tied to the growing rail network, to feed the booming industrial cities.
Within six years, the new party, under the name "Republicans" had elected Abraham Lincoln president and gained an effective majority in Congress.
This is the answer to those who say that third parties never succeed in America.
We are now at a moment when such a third-party movement might once again be created, linking the profound moral issue of Climate Destruction with the prqacical need for a new, more level, more sustainable economic model.
The best way to begin this movement, in this moment, is to support Bernie Sanders - actively. He might win, but even if he doesn't, we can meet each other and begin the conversation which could lead to a third party dedicated to what the Founders called "The Commonwealth".
Dear Upshot: Of course Sen. Sanders has no chance at the Democratic nomination. But I want to hear another voice. I want Hillary Rodham Clinton to take note...and take nothing for granted. I want the sharpest possible divide between the parties in November, 2016. Mrs. Clinton, in a debate with Sen. Sanders, cannot tell him one thing in the primaries and her Republican opponent in the general election something else. For the first time since I began voting in general elections (1968), I'm willing for my 2016 vote to go uncounted if all I hear from Mrs. Clinton is filler.
20
If Governor O'Malley runs, he will have to be factored into this equation also. He clearly seems to be aiming his pitch towards the Democratic center, while reminding everyone of his liberal credentials. He could eclipse Senator Sanders on the left as a more serious candidate, cause problems for Senator Clinton in the center as a centrist without the baggage, and bring the traditional strengths of a former Governor to the general campaign (even if it was Maryland). It remain to be seen, of course, whether the events of the last two weeks in his home state will have an effect on any chances he may have.
5
Nate completely misses the point: for those of us who feel we almost NEVER have a meaningful choice in national elections, we now finally have Bernie. Bernie puts our ideas on the national stage in a credible, practical, non-threatening way. In this day and age, that alone is a victory: many voters likely will hear ideas that they have never heard before, and this creates opportunity to nudge, however incrementally, the electorate to the left.
The only times I felt I had a meaningful vote for president was with McGovern in '72 and Commoner in '80. Thirty-five years is a long time to wait.
The only times I felt I had a meaningful vote for president was with McGovern in '72 and Commoner in '80. Thirty-five years is a long time to wait.
59
In this digital age, Bernie will be less dependent on the corporate media controlled by plutocrats who favor the status quo. The 99% can hear a message that will resonate with our economic situation and bring together more of us regardless of race, geography, religion or class.
guess the question here is whether you let the ideal be the enemy of the better or whether you're comfortable in a political environment where the least worst choice is often the best we can do. You voted for outliers everyone knew would not be elected in 72 and 80. Both times Republicans -- and Nixon and Reagan are not exactly Democratic icons -- were elected. Yet you look forward to repeating that behavior. what's the payoff?
McGovern was not the "outlier": he was the Democratic candidate! The third party candidate in the 1972 election was conservative Republican Representative John G. Schmitz, who ran on the American Party ticket (the party on whose ballot George Wallace ran in 1968). Please do your homework before you open your mouth?
As for Commoner, in NY, I can afford to vote my conscience, knowing that the state was going in the Democratic column no matter what.
As for Commoner, in NY, I can afford to vote my conscience, knowing that the state was going in the Democratic column no matter what.
1
Why does the Times continue clearing the path for Clinton's nomination? Why doesn't a candidate with very healthy views on income inequality and a real message for real people - why can't the Times get behind a candidate who is not the 'My Time!' Clinton? Biased coverage like this that writes off a candidate like this is another reason why there are no real choices in the country in federal elections, only a choice between one of two predetermined ideologies which are very close to begin with.
164
If it weren't for labels and a 7 year old study, this "op Ed" would be blank. Is it fair to say that it would have been more interesting to put Hillary and Bernie's positions side by side, to give your readers a reason to wonder who might prevail in 2016, based upon people's connection to a candidate's positions, rather than your labels...which of course you never define.
This is worthy of CNN, not the NYTimes.
This is worthy of CNN, not the NYTimes.
137
And Nate Cohn's labels are mis-labels. Hillary's past foreign and domestic positions have been solidly Republican: hawkish, pro-multinationals, pro military-industrial-complex, pro Chamber of Commerce. She's anti-liberal; the corporate media mis-labels any centrist as "liberal."
1
Bravo, Bernie! Can't call Hillary a cheap crook since her misdeeds cost the taxpayers money.
10
I think this article represents another disservice from the journalistic community. By reading this, one would think that 'leftist', 'liberal' have some meaning and reflect certain policies. But, unfortunately, the extreme right wing has so captured the narrative of what is 'right' or 'left,' that journalists have bought into it. Is income equality and fairness, one of Sanders' main issues really 'ultra left' or whatever. Frankly, many of his positions strike me as rather mainstream. Why don't journalists delve a little deeper instead of falling into the kind of easy Fox News empty generalizations?
153
People follow political leaders. Since the Clintons have suppressed the left wing of the party, we havn't heard these voices in a longtime. It is time for a true left to emerge and to hold these center-right Dems accountable.
64
Our political "leaders" more often need to be forced to follow the lead of the people. Otherwise they seem to follow the lead of their donors, the 1%.
I'm glad my views will be expressed on the campaign trail.
45
Mr. Cohn maintains that most Democrats support Mrs. Clinton's position on the issues of the day. Unfortunately, he does not provide the data to support this claim (for instance, no link to the poll data he cites). At least one potential weakness in his narrative is adding the term "Southern" in describing large numbers of Democratic voters. Am I wrong, or don't most Southern states go Republican?
In a more substantive vein, does polling data show that a majority of Democrats support uncontrolled snooping by the government, endless interventions in the Muslim world, drone attacks, suppression of whistleblowers, the Trans Pacific Partnership? Put another way, Mrs. Clinton may be slightly left of today's 'center' on economic and social issues, but when it comes to national security and foreign policy, she (like Obama) is not different from Republicans. Perhaps these are the policies that the majority of Democrats support, but I'd like to see the numbers.
In a more substantive vein, does polling data show that a majority of Democrats support uncontrolled snooping by the government, endless interventions in the Muslim world, drone attacks, suppression of whistleblowers, the Trans Pacific Partnership? Put another way, Mrs. Clinton may be slightly left of today's 'center' on economic and social issues, but when it comes to national security and foreign policy, she (like Obama) is not different from Republicans. Perhaps these are the policies that the majority of Democrats support, but I'd like to see the numbers.
21
It was not too long ago that people were saying Ms. Clinton was unbeatable in 2008, and look what happened. This is indeed welcoming news and I am looking forward to some lively debates!
29
Ms. Clinton is not liberal. The NYT should stop misrepresenting her as liberal. Have we forgotten what liberal means? Ms. Clinton is definitley not liberal. She is moderate at best. If the press would stop misrepresenting her, Bernie might have a chance. Much of his chances are in the hands of the NYT. Don't be afraid.
80
This is so very true!
Calling her "moderate" is too generous. She usually talks and acts like a right-wing Democrat, like too many of the Democrat Congress members.
I disagree with a lot of Bernie Sanders positions but they are deeply held by him and authentic versus the calculated, faux positions of Hillary. Bernie is someone to be respected. Hillary is not.
27
I am of the same mind exactly. I lean conservative most of the time, but hearing yesterday a.m. that Sen. Sanders was planning to formally announce his candidacy made my day. I expect I would disagree with him on many issues, but at this point I am ready to get behind anybody on either side who actually has principles. And I'm a fervent believer in a single-payer/Medicare-for-all health insurance system (and vehemently opposed to the travesty we got). So I might even contribute to his campaign.
15
"The left wing of the Democratic Party just isn’t big enough to support a challenge to the left of a mainstream liberal Democrat like Mrs. Clinton."
Seven years ago, this country, led by the Democratic Party, elected a radical black man to the office of Presidency. Turns out the radical black man was a fake, but don't blame the electorate who soundly rejected the idea of "a mainstream liberal like Hillary Clinton." She has zero standing and credibility outside of her base of financial heavyweights and the adoring media. A Bush vs. Clinton general election would result in the lowest voter turnout in the history of this country and mark the end of democracy in America. The only positive would be that the farce of who really runs this country would be on full display.
Seven years ago, this country, led by the Democratic Party, elected a radical black man to the office of Presidency. Turns out the radical black man was a fake, but don't blame the electorate who soundly rejected the idea of "a mainstream liberal like Hillary Clinton." She has zero standing and credibility outside of her base of financial heavyweights and the adoring media. A Bush vs. Clinton general election would result in the lowest voter turnout in the history of this country and mark the end of democracy in America. The only positive would be that the farce of who really runs this country would be on full display.
24
> Seven years ago, this country, led by the Democratic Party, elected a radical black man to the office of Presidency."
Puh-leeze! We on the left knew exactly what Barrack Obama represented and there's a reason why he was seventh and Hillary was eighth on my list of the eight Democratic primary contenders. Still, he was and remains head-and-shoulders above anyone running on the Republican side of the ticket and he will leave office with a legacy far better than any recent Republican President.
Puh-leeze! We on the left knew exactly what Barrack Obama represented and there's a reason why he was seventh and Hillary was eighth on my list of the eight Democratic primary contenders. Still, he was and remains head-and-shoulders above anyone running on the Republican side of the ticket and he will leave office with a legacy far better than any recent Republican President.
> Seven years ago, this country, led by the Democratic Party, elected a radical black man to the office of Presidency."
Puh-leeze! We on the left knew exactly what Barrack Obama represented and there's a reason why he was seventh and Hillary was eighth on my list of the eight Democratic primary contenders. Still, he was and remains head-and-shoulders above anyone running on the Republican side of the ticket and he will leave office with a legacy far better than any recent Republican President.
Puh-leeze! We on the left knew exactly what Barrack Obama represented and there's a reason why he was seventh and Hillary was eighth on my list of the eight Democratic primary contenders. Still, he was and remains head-and-shoulders above anyone running on the Republican side of the ticket and he will leave office with a legacy far better than any recent Republican President.
There's not much of a lane to Clinton's right either, certainly not within the democratic party in spite of what positions she might claim to have based on her poll testing.
16
With over 40% of America registered as neither major party, Bernie Sanders is a viable voice to the anointed Democrats and Republicans. As an independent, his perspective is refreshing - even if the pundits have bifurcated brains.
21
Hillary Clinton a leftist? Only in the so-called liberal media. She's a centrist at best, and that's as far to the "left" as we're allowed in America today. Meanwhile, the Republican clown show gears up, with slick science-deniers competing for the crazy crown and that is perfectly OK with the media. The whole spectacle is pathetic. Bernie Sanders won't last because what he says makes sense.
44
What the nominating members of the Democratic party will have to wake up to is that if it is Clinton against anyone but one of the Republican party's real nut cases, Hillary will lose. Why? Because those on the left side of the party will not vote for her, the black population that voted for Obama will not be there, the Bush/Cheney disaster is fading, and the Obama legacy has turned away many once-solid, Democrat voters in the last 7 years.
I've never imagined voting for a Republican, but if it is Hillary vs someone reasonable, I will or I'll abstain.
The machine of the Democrats is not filled with people like me, but that machinery will break down in tears when they are defeated with the wasting of the first woman candidacy - now that we have elected the first black President and the choice was a disaster!
Now if Warren and Sanders were able to make a team they would not only win, but they would change the face of America.
I've never imagined voting for a Republican, but if it is Hillary vs someone reasonable, I will or I'll abstain.
The machine of the Democrats is not filled with people like me, but that machinery will break down in tears when they are defeated with the wasting of the first woman candidacy - now that we have elected the first black President and the choice was a disaster!
Now if Warren and Sanders were able to make a team they would not only win, but they would change the face of America.
9
Another problem for Bernie Sanders is most of those who would naturally support him don't vote unless there is a presidential election, and when they do that, they ignore the rest of the ticket. It is as if— and it probably is— they have no idea that a president cannot do what he/she wants to do without the support of the legislature. That is why, for example, Pennsylvania, which is a majority Democratic state, has an overwhelmingly Republican legislature and Congressional delegation. (It only has a Democratic governor because the last Republican one was universally loathed, and of Democratic statewide office holders one just pled guilty to major felonies and another is about to be indicted.)
Until liberal Democrats get the religion of their Tea Party counterparts and develop and vote into every office young candidates of their "religion," the likes of Bernie Sanders have no chance to influence anything.
Until liberal Democrats get the religion of their Tea Party counterparts and develop and vote into every office young candidates of their "religion," the likes of Bernie Sanders have no chance to influence anything.
2
Give consideration to the fact that the president nominates justices to the Supreme Court. Never forget that past Republican presidents have given us Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, and unless you missed it they have given us Citizens United. It may not matter in general because of legislative gridlock but the "democracy" is being redefined. So to say Bernie could not influence anything please give that another thought.
Wow, I really appreciated the article on Sander's policy positions because it was refreshing to see some journalism with actual meaningful information about a candidate. I then turn to this article which basically says "ignore this horse, he hasn't got a chance". I understand where you're coming from but I think there should be a bit a daylight between a candidate announcing a run and declaring them dead in the water. Sander's positions are important and he lacks the kind of 'highly compromised career politician' taint that Clinton has, where she taken taken and changed so many positions that it's a bit hard to see what she really believes. Clinton also has some major flaws as a campaigner, she is a very poor public speaker who comes off as either highly scripted or highly uncomfortable.
I really find it hard to believe that anyone can claim to know what's going to happen in the next year -almost no one thought Hillary's husband had a chance in 1991, and that was a pretty crowded field.
I really find it hard to believe that anyone can claim to know what's going to happen in the next year -almost no one thought Hillary's husband had a chance in 1991, and that was a pretty crowded field.
36
At this writing (1:05 EDT Thursday), Sanders formally announced his candidacy less than one hour ago!
narrow lane? speaks volumes about what we think the left is these days. hillary is a centrist with big bank sponsors by any reasonable calculation. bernie is an authentic lefty. now people will hear the full spectrum now - not just the lunatics on the left. go bernie. it's about time we had a presidential candidate named bernie - don't you think?
52
Hillary with "big bank sponsors" is a centrist? Someone with that kind of sponsor sounds like a Republican or a conservative Democrat.
2
It's strange to only consider Democrats in determining if there is support for Sanders from the left. What about all the independents who are further left than the Democrats? They may not come out for Clinton, but they might come out for Sanders.
85
It really doesn't matter if Sanders represents a "minority" of Democrats. He can help pull Clinton to the left. Since he is running as a Democrat, he isn't fracturing the party; he is hopefully creating a movement within the Democratic Party to listen to the "lefties". Would that the Democrats merely listened to the lefties as much as the Republicans jumped to the Tea Party tune. Democrats would be in power right now if they did,
10
Maybe the left wing of the Democratic Party needs a _name_. (The Ginger Ale Party?)
And thus it starts. The media already saying Sanders can't win. This is one very powerful way elections are won and lost.
98
That is very true -- the media (unelected!) has enormous power and most media (except for Fox News) is very liberal. Look at how they dominated the gay marriage debate, by A. not permitting any traditional marriage spokespersons equal time, and B. mistating this as "marriage equality" vs. the destruction of traditional marriage law. Then countless editorials and articles and opinion pieces stating "it's a tsunami" or "the arc of history" and "it's inevitable".
Several years of this, plus name-calling any opposition "haters" or homophobes" and you get a population where people are AFRAID to say they don't agree with gay marriage.
They do the same thing with elections. Look at how the GOP candidates are treated here -- as if they were feeble-minded, when most of them have advanced degrees. It's all part of slanting the coverage, so that media can influence outcomes.
Several years of this, plus name-calling any opposition "haters" or homophobes" and you get a population where people are AFRAID to say they don't agree with gay marriage.
They do the same thing with elections. Look at how the GOP candidates are treated here -- as if they were feeble-minded, when most of them have advanced degrees. It's all part of slanting the coverage, so that media can influence outcomes.
1
CC: You wish. Sorry you're so opposed to gay marriage that you think most other people are afraid to agree with you.
As for those GOP candidates: an advanced degree (like Scott Walker's? Rick Perry's?) is no guarantee of active intelligence, understanding, or principle.
As for those GOP candidates: an advanced degree (like Scott Walker's? Rick Perry's?) is no guarantee of active intelligence, understanding, or principle.
3
I am completely behind Bernie Sanders for president. I know he's a long shot, but he has a chance to get his ideas out there now. He is our chance to get out of our downward slide brought on by corporate shills in government. I'm afraid Ms. Clinton is one of those shills and only gives the appearance of liberalism. I will write in Bernie's name no matter who else is running.
32
The main issue for the left and what Nate Cohn does not say, at least not directly, is not so much that a strong liberal/leftist cannot get the Democratic nomination--witness George McGovern, Walter Mondale, John Kerry--but that a liberal/leftist candidate cannot win the presidency, the overall election, because this country's electorate is basically moderate/conservative. I would be shocked--happily so--if a true leftist won the presidency. In fact, Clinton is liberal enough that she will have a difficult time winning the general election if she wins the Democratic nomination. Plus, she still has to cross the gender barrier and become the first female President.
1
Oh come on -Obama ran with positions almost identical to Sanders and he won the nomination and two elections. The tired statement that "America is basically a center-right nation" comes from pundits on the right and started after Reagan won two landslides. It should have been retired when Republicans lost 4 of the past 5 popular votes for the presidency...
51
This article is built on data gathered in a 2008 Democratic primary. Using that data, it claims that a vast segment of Democrats are self-identified conservatives or moderates who would support Clinton over Sanders.
I'm wondering if any momentous event happened between mid-2008 and now that may have shifted peoples' political consciousness a little to the left? Maybe something happened to the economy? I'm sure it was probably so small that it meant nothing to voters!
I'm wondering if any momentous event happened between mid-2008 and now that may have shifted peoples' political consciousness a little to the left? Maybe something happened to the economy? I'm sure it was probably so small that it meant nothing to voters!
15
True...but those kinds of surveys are misleading. They are actually asking, "How much do you like the word 'liberal'"? In much of the country that word is now toxic.
If instead you ask Democratic primary voters actual policy questions like, "Do you think we should hold prisoners indefinitely without Judicial oversight", you find that most of them hold positions much closer to Mr. Sanders than Ms. Clinton.
If instead you ask Democratic primary voters actual policy questions like, "Do you think we should hold prisoners indefinitely without Judicial oversight", you find that most of them hold positions much closer to Mr. Sanders than Ms. Clinton.
20
In gauging Bernie Sanders potential do not overlook an untapped resource: the youth vote. Sanders' message has particular appeal to the disenfranchised Millenials who are either deeply in debt for college and/or underemployed in an economy that underpays those lacking any college. IF he can get those voters to listen to his message AND turn out for the primary he has a chance. His biggest challenge is having the mainstream media focus on issues instead of "electability" and fundraising.
8
Sorry but Bernie is about as relevant as Ben Carson. Wish there were better choices in the middle.
What is this "middle" of which you speak? Some imaginary position staked out midway between Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders? What are the policy positions of this "middle?" What is it moral core, its values?
7
Anything is possible.
5
I'm not far left but I welcome Mr. Sanders. I am not a fan of Hillary & have hoped for an alternative choice.
6
They said the exact same about Obama in 2008, when he tried to sell universal healthcare on the campaign trail (a political no-go at the time). And yet he won, twice.
This piece fails to capture the anger that many Democrats (and Republicans!) feel for the banking system, which, when poorly regulated, led to a near-collapse of the US economy.
Also, income inequality is the new domestic hot topic these days.
Clinton would still probably win, but this piece miserably fails at appreciating the challenges she would face from the left wing of her own party.
This piece fails to capture the anger that many Democrats (and Republicans!) feel for the banking system, which, when poorly regulated, led to a near-collapse of the US economy.
Also, income inequality is the new domestic hot topic these days.
Clinton would still probably win, but this piece miserably fails at appreciating the challenges she would face from the left wing of her own party.
7
Yes, Bernie's chances are slim. But this fight is well worth waging. He has the enthusiasm and the honesty to bring forth issues that matter to average working people, not the megalomaniacal super wealthy.
He will not pander to Wall Street or evangelical Christians ad nauseam like every Republican nominee. He speaks truth to power, and if he gets the media attention he deserves, he will do more than shake up the primaries.
Massive corporate propaganda has forced Democrats and Republicans to shift so far to the right in the past 35 years or so that seemingly common-sensical issues are now consider radical: giving everyone health care, acting aggressively on climate change, using money spent on perpetual war for social programs and education, etc.
Sanders' campaign will not survive if working people are not prepared to sustain a grassroots movement. Corporations and the Koch brothers will not be supporting him, and yet the game must be played. I encourage anyone to donate any amount of money they can to Bernie's campaign if they are serious about bringing forth true democracy and opposing corporate fascism in the United States.
He will not pander to Wall Street or evangelical Christians ad nauseam like every Republican nominee. He speaks truth to power, and if he gets the media attention he deserves, he will do more than shake up the primaries.
Massive corporate propaganda has forced Democrats and Republicans to shift so far to the right in the past 35 years or so that seemingly common-sensical issues are now consider radical: giving everyone health care, acting aggressively on climate change, using money spent on perpetual war for social programs and education, etc.
Sanders' campaign will not survive if working people are not prepared to sustain a grassroots movement. Corporations and the Koch brothers will not be supporting him, and yet the game must be played. I encourage anyone to donate any amount of money they can to Bernie's campaign if they are serious about bringing forth true democracy and opposing corporate fascism in the United States.
103
Personally, I would vote for Mr. Sanders over Hillary Clinton, any day of the week, as it stands at the moment. Honesty trumps dynasties, every time. Ms. Clinton has a lot of explaining to do, if she is to capture my vote. Neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party have a coherent platform that addresses the major issue of our day, which is income inequality. I have heard Mr. Sanders speak on this subject, and he seems to be absolutely well informed and, I believe, can make the case to the American people that it needs to be addressed, as well as how, just as I do believe that Ms. Warren or Mr. Sherrod Brown could make the argument in terms that people could understand and respond. I do not find Ms. Clinton to be committed to addressing the problems at hand. She is from a different era, it seems, and is a profiteer, more than a politician. I believe she is running because she can, and becoming the first woman President, gaining stature along side of her husband (who in my judgement is just more baggage) will make them a gazillion. I think "liberals" understand that Mr. Obama was a weak President in terms of pressing the issues that the country and the common people really required, not that he had any support to do differently, but there would have been a different rhetoric than the kind that he displayed, which was just trying to be bipartisan and getting along, amicably . In contrast, Mr. Sanders is like a breath of fresh air, even if from Bwucklin.
59
Great analysis again, Nate. A long time ago (sigh) in my undergrad school there was a so-called "Dump Johnson" movement. There were lots of movements back then.
At an ad-hoc meeting (there were lots of ad-hoc meetings back then) in which organizers were planning to convert Democratic voters in town, a professor, Jay Schulman, commented that we won't convert those Democratic blue collar workers and that there will never be any Liberal leadership. Well, McCarthy and McGovern were attempts at it, but the rest is history, as we say.
Bernie Sanders is the same way. I agree with all of his positions, but there aren't enough votes.
At an ad-hoc meeting (there were lots of ad-hoc meetings back then) in which organizers were planning to convert Democratic voters in town, a professor, Jay Schulman, commented that we won't convert those Democratic blue collar workers and that there will never be any Liberal leadership. Well, McCarthy and McGovern were attempts at it, but the rest is history, as we say.
Bernie Sanders is the same way. I agree with all of his positions, but there aren't enough votes.
8
His entry into the race is a godsend for Mrs. Clinton. No longer unopposed, no longer "the anointed one", she'll now have a fiery, unapologetic Senator who's sharp as a whip to debate against. It'll invigorate her, bring out the best in her, and, as it should, make her work even harder for the nomination.
At the end of the day, though, Sanders just won't have the deeply embedded national support necessary to win the General. Something Mrs Clinton has fostered and continued to feed for the last twenty or so years.
I could see him as a strong asset to her Administration, though.
At the end of the day, though, Sanders just won't have the deeply embedded national support necessary to win the General. Something Mrs Clinton has fostered and continued to feed for the last twenty or so years.
I could see him as a strong asset to her Administration, though.
26
There is no best in Hillary Clinton. She wrecked healthcare in her husband's administration. She voted for the Iraq war, in which one million civilians died. She wrecked Libya and set human and women's rights there back hundreds of years. She contributed to the wreckage of Egypt.
2
So many people from both sides of the political spectrum have serious reservations about Mrs. Clinton . . . I'm concerned that she just wont able to win. It feels like the Democratic Party has decided it's her turn, but I doubt that will be enough. I wish we had a fresher candidate with good ideas - like Mr. Sanders!
2
..."at the end of the day", which one of the two lives integrity; "un-bought or sold"??
The last time we fought to elect a left wing liberal (Obama), what we got was a continuation of Bush policy, no investigation of Wall Street crimes or war crimes, folding early and without a fight on single payer health insurance, prosecution of government whistle blowers and leakers, increased government secrecy, renewal of the Bush Patriot Act, NSA spying on US citizens, renewal of Bush tax cuts, and continued destabilization of the Middle East, Libya, Egypt, and Syria. What could Mr. Sanders (or Ms. Clinton) do when it's obvious that oligarchs run the country and voters only matter to them on election day?
27
Bob, anyone who thought Barack Obama was a left-wing liberal really must not have been listening to an actual word he said.
7
Bernie Sanders is a completely different kind of politician than Barack Obama (who was certainly NOT a left wing liberal). Obama was totally in hock to the big financial interests by the time he was elected. But Sanders burned those bridges long ago. He is someone—and a long record shows this to be true—who is exactly as he appears, a populist fighter for the 99%.
And unlike Obama—who strongly implied in his campaign that he understood continued organizing would be necessary to enact the progressive aspects of his program but then demobilized his base once in office—Sanders really does understand the nature of oligarchy and what is necessary to combat it.
And unlike Obama—who strongly implied in his campaign that he understood continued organizing would be necessary to enact the progressive aspects of his program but then demobilized his base once in office—Sanders really does understand the nature of oligarchy and what is necessary to combat it.
8
If for no other reason than having a debate among Democrats, I applaud Mr. Sanders' entering the race. He may even encourage others to join him. Just dropping the nomination in Hillary's lap when there is no incumbent is a weary sign of defeat. I can't remember this ever happening in my lifetime. Expanded choices gives us all a voice in who leads our country. Let the debates begin.
145
@ Kim: There was Bob Dole in the GOP.
1
maybe our definition of "liberal" differ. The Clintons have always been closer to the center, center left, sure, but nowhere near the edge. Hilary grew up a republican and switched parties when the GOP moved away from her toward the religious right. She is as pro business as is possible in a party that is similarly dominated by its fringe. That she can easily lose the nomination is more a function of her un-likability. Democrats will certainly vote for her in a general election, but everyone hopes a better option comes along. (True on the Republican side as well, by the way. Please can someone electable step up?) Sanders has a spark that will win folks over once the big money election machine presents him to a wider audience. He won't pull people wholeheartedly to the left as I am sure he would like to do, but he will energize them, and that's all the party needs. AND, his message of getting money out of politics plays to a huge audience on both sides.
101
The Clintons center left? I think of them as center right, even Democrats in Name Only.
1
Sanders' most important role will be to serve as an antidote to all of the far right candidates. When the news is full of right wing speeches, it creates a gravity that pulls centrist candidates more to the right -- if only because there is no need to cover the liberal or socialist flank.
Politics and national leadership need a broad spectrum of opinion to expose voters to the gamut of possibilities. Without it, people begin to see centrist positions at extreme. Even Martin Luther King was perceived as a radical for much of his career. Public opinion strongly embraced him mainly after the Panthers and other more radical groups stepped into the headlines to advocate a much more radical position.
Politics and national leadership need a broad spectrum of opinion to expose voters to the gamut of possibilities. Without it, people begin to see centrist positions at extreme. Even Martin Luther King was perceived as a radical for much of his career. Public opinion strongly embraced him mainly after the Panthers and other more radical groups stepped into the headlines to advocate a much more radical position.
104
Excellent point! Thanks. There can never be enough exposure of diverse ideas.
1
The Nader wing of the Democratic party is very small. No more than 10% at most and for them nothing is always better than not enough. Sanders is a good fellow and his heart is in the right place but you have to wonder why he's wasting his time and energy in this Quixotic quest.
2
He is not wasting his time, for all you know there may be a lot of non Hillary fans to throw out a good candidate.
To John of Hartford Sanders is not wasting his time, he's bringing out real issues that are of importance to all Americans over and above the religious ones, anti-women voting, and scientific ignoramuses. We need to start a real conversation about the world as it is right now - clean air, water, climate changes, and getting the billionaires who are controlling our country and government. Folks with the big bucks donate to worthwhile causes and hospitals but make sure their name gets on the institution. Meanwhile they secretly are buying and owning our Congress and government - KOCH BROTHERS - once and for all - all Americans should know just who they are and what they are doing in their secret super-Pacs. If I mention their name, and one more person says " who's that", I think I'll scream. Why don't Americans know what is really going on in this country? Why do those billionaire corporations send their headquarter to Ireland and thus avoid paying their taxes? Stop all this once and for all. If you're an American corporation, stop hiding out all over the world and pay your fair share.
4
You are more or less saying that the best candidate (in a nonpolitical sense) is unelectable. That's our national problem, in a nutshell.
5
"The majority of Democrats and Democratic primary voters are self-described moderates or even conservatives, according to an Upshot analysis of Pew survey data and exit polls from the 2008 Democratic primary."
Is this still true? A lot can change in eight years and a lot more will change by the time we have another competitive Democratic presidential primary. I guess we'll have to wait for the survey data and exit polls from 2016 to know for sure, but given that it is likely to be an uncompetitive primary it's not clear that the data will be as valuable. Bernie's biggest problem is also his biggest strength: little to no connection with the party's megadonor class. Until proven otherwise, you can't win the nomination without at least 40% of those people supporting you, in part because it would go against much of the Senator's ideology to rely heavily on financial support from one or two billionaires to keep his candidacy afloat for several more months.
Is this still true? A lot can change in eight years and a lot more will change by the time we have another competitive Democratic presidential primary. I guess we'll have to wait for the survey data and exit polls from 2016 to know for sure, but given that it is likely to be an uncompetitive primary it's not clear that the data will be as valuable. Bernie's biggest problem is also his biggest strength: little to no connection with the party's megadonor class. Until proven otherwise, you can't win the nomination without at least 40% of those people supporting you, in part because it would go against much of the Senator's ideology to rely heavily on financial support from one or two billionaires to keep his candidacy afloat for several more months.
8
Look at the states where the primaries begin -- no big cities, no large minority populations. Who would the nominees (for both parties) be if the first states were, say, Oregon and Delaware?
11
This is a really thoughtful point.
Under the current, and still somewhat fluid, rules (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-presidential-primary-calendar.html), the Carolinas will hold their primaries in late February, 2016. South Carolina ranks fifth, and North Carolina seventh, when states are ordered by the proportion of their residents who are African-American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_pop....
As for big cities, New York's primary is now scheduled for February 2nd, a week after New Hampshire. Michigan ranks 16th in African-American population, has a big beleaguered city, and votes a week after North Carolina.
The primary calendar might reduce the influence of Hispanics and Latinos, but probably not by much. Florida and Texas vote on March 1st. Arizona and especially California hold their primaries late enough that they usually don't influence the outcome.
As for big cities, New York's primary is now scheduled for February 2nd, a week after New Hampshire. Michigan ranks 16th in African-American population, has a big beleaguered city, and votes a week after North Carolina.
The primary calendar might reduce the influence of Hispanics and Latinos, but probably not by much. Florida and Texas vote on March 1st. Arizona and especially California hold their primaries late enough that they usually don't influence the outcome.
3
The "left wing" of the Democratic Party is not fixed. Opinions can and sometimes do change. Mr. Sanders time may well be now. At the very least he will add a needed voice into the process. Eventually the propaganda machine that drives our current dysfunction will begin to fail. Hopefully for democracies sake it will be sooner rather than later. I think Mr. Sanders might be just the man to start chipping away at the issues.
75
Perhaps you're right in saying the leftist wing of the Democratic party isn't big enough anymore to make a difference. But that doesn't make her their representative.