Why does everyone forget the Ross Perot phenomenon? The center of our country has longed for a party or a candidate who is not far to the left or right and who will strike the right balance of fiscal sanity and liberal social policies. If this country had a parliamentary system, we would have long ago experienced the rise of different political parties. The two party system creates an obstacle to anyone who does not espouse the party lines. It stifles rather than accepts dissenting opinions. Trump and Sanders have one very big characteristic that fuels support for them and it is that they both are against the status quo. I know many people who would be terrific political leaders but do not fit the mold of either party. These are the same people who listen to the siren calls of Trump and Sanders even if neither of them is an ideal candidate..
7
Hello. It's me.
When reading an article about how angry voters are at the dysfunction of our Congress, and I'm assuming Congress's inability to get along and pass meaningful legislation is what they're angry about, I'd like to see mention of how Senator Mitch McConnell gathered the Members of the Republican Congress together the day after Barak Obama got elected president-the first time- and informed them they were to vote against everything President Obama tries to enact.
Just once, somewhere I'd like to see this put out there for the masses to read so they can see why exactly it is that the current Congress hasn't been able to get anything passed to further their well being. That it's not the whole Congress but just the Republicans.
Just Say No To Everything Obama has been their mantra for seven and a half years, and now we read how they'll even go as far as not even take part in the approval process to fill former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's vacated seat. Wouldn't this be an appropriate time to bring up this point, that they were informed to Vote No To Everything Obama seven and a half years ago and the vacated Antonin Scalia seat is about to be more of the same?
What am I missing here? Why can't this be written about, in length, better yet, discussed during segments on screen for CNN, MSNBC, PBS, Face The Nation, Meet The Press, eta al, and, heaven forbid, even on Fox News during the "Fair" part of a "Fair and Balanced" news segment?
Good bye.
When reading an article about how angry voters are at the dysfunction of our Congress, and I'm assuming Congress's inability to get along and pass meaningful legislation is what they're angry about, I'd like to see mention of how Senator Mitch McConnell gathered the Members of the Republican Congress together the day after Barak Obama got elected president-the first time- and informed them they were to vote against everything President Obama tries to enact.
Just once, somewhere I'd like to see this put out there for the masses to read so they can see why exactly it is that the current Congress hasn't been able to get anything passed to further their well being. That it's not the whole Congress but just the Republicans.
Just Say No To Everything Obama has been their mantra for seven and a half years, and now we read how they'll even go as far as not even take part in the approval process to fill former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's vacated seat. Wouldn't this be an appropriate time to bring up this point, that they were informed to Vote No To Everything Obama seven and a half years ago and the vacated Antonin Scalia seat is about to be more of the same?
What am I missing here? Why can't this be written about, in length, better yet, discussed during segments on screen for CNN, MSNBC, PBS, Face The Nation, Meet The Press, eta al, and, heaven forbid, even on Fox News during the "Fair" part of a "Fair and Balanced" news segment?
Good bye.
26
I think this editorial has a tremendous amount of content ripe for examination and contemplation. The likes of Trump and Sanders are not new: Think Teddy Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan.
Personally, I think an alliance of the outsiders from the current right and left -- supported by the new information technologies -- is more possible now than ever before. The fact that it hasn't happened up to now in American politics is more a facet of the elites fostering a false party division than the real polarization of Americans.
It is wise to remember that -- going back to the Founders -- men poles apart like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams routinely associated and worked together.
Personally, I think an alliance of the outsiders from the current right and left -- supported by the new information technologies -- is more possible now than ever before. The fact that it hasn't happened up to now in American politics is more a facet of the elites fostering a false party division than the real polarization of Americans.
It is wise to remember that -- going back to the Founders -- men poles apart like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams routinely associated and worked together.
2
I just read an interesting tidbit of history in a Swedish novel: during World War 2 when Sweden remained neutral, its security services monitored both local supporters of Nazi Germany and of the USSR. The former were known as "brown socialists", the latter - as "red socialists". Political opposites are often ideological and psychological twins. I don't see much daylight between the vindictive, unreasonable, over-the-top rhetoric of Sanders and Trump. Their enemies are different but equally vague (" the Wall Street", "the Mexicans", as if such entities were monolithic) and their solutions are equally implausible.
7
There is actually no one in either party whom I WANT to vote for. If Sanders wins the Democratic primary, which is extremely unlikely, I will vote for him, because I mostly agree with the policies he espouses, &, in addition feel that he's a pretty decent human being for a politician. If Sanders loses the Democratic primary, which is likely, I'll have to say - 'I don't have a dog in this race.
4
Trump punches down, beating up on immigrants, Muslims and other minorities.
Bernie punches up, beating up on those who have a virtual monopoly on power.
Since immigrants, Muslims, etc don't like like ME and rich people are either white or otherwise familiar and non-threatening, guess which politician is pandering to people's worst instincts and is going to h*ll (OK, so it's times like these which make me wish Sister Mary Catherine was right about that place).
Bernie punches up, beating up on those who have a virtual monopoly on power.
Since immigrants, Muslims, etc don't like like ME and rich people are either white or otherwise familiar and non-threatening, guess which politician is pandering to people's worst instincts and is going to h*ll (OK, so it's times like these which make me wish Sister Mary Catherine was right about that place).
2
Insiders who once prayed that they could continue to dominate their parties are waking up to what DT & BS mean - the old boss is gone and there is no new boss. The people running the D's and the R's are as relevant as the Rambler Ambassador station wagon and the doctors in old ads recommending you use tobacco.
The funny part is that the Mitch Mcconnells and the Debbie Schultzes betrayed the people paying their salaries. The Right needed a crusader with or withour the chin. The neo-socialists expected an even playground for Bernie and the younger fringe Leftists to follow. Oops.
The funny part is that the Mitch Mcconnells and the Debbie Schultzes betrayed the people paying their salaries. The Right needed a crusader with or withour the chin. The neo-socialists expected an even playground for Bernie and the younger fringe Leftists to follow. Oops.
1
This silly analysis goes wrong in its opening paragraphs:
"Both candidates have tapped into the frustration of those stuck on the middle and bottom rungs of the economic ladder."
I can't speak for the Trump followers, but have you considered that many Sanders followers may not be stuck on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, but, rather, see the unfairness of the situation for others?
"Both candidates have tapped into the frustration of those stuck on the middle and bottom rungs of the economic ladder."
I can't speak for the Trump followers, but have you considered that many Sanders followers may not be stuck on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, but, rather, see the unfairness of the situation for others?
16
Thomas B. Edsall, to you it's a fantasy, but to those of us who have had enough of the Establishment it's called HOPE. Hope for better or worse, as Trump & Sanders are on the opposite sides of the spectrum in their policies. Anger and sick of the pols in government are common threads that runs thru both Trump supporters and those [of us] for Sanders. Why is it a fantasy to want more or different? All starts with a dream and with focus and action that dream can become a reality. Trumpers want an America that is white and religious. they are motivated by fear of diversity. Sanders supporters see an America that is behind the times, "we have seen the dream" work in Nordic countries. The young Millennials also see possibility; the future belongs to them. The world is changing. They don't see color, they are gender fluid, they see community, which is what socialism is. It is NOT communism, as the outdated establishment wants to portray us. It is inclusive. It's about equality in education, right livelihood, to clean water, health, and respecting the environment, the animals of the fields, and sea creatures, that all voices have a right to be heard.
The present obstructionist self-interest pols who line their pockets with money from Big Business, Big Pharma must go! They are not for middle Americans nor the plight of the poor. A revolution is indeed taking place in our country and regardless of who wins, the revolution will continue.
The present obstructionist self-interest pols who line their pockets with money from Big Business, Big Pharma must go! They are not for middle Americans nor the plight of the poor. A revolution is indeed taking place in our country and regardless of who wins, the revolution will continue.
5
Readers have it right. This is ALL about fairness and demise of a once great American middle class.
Trump, Sanders or Jesus Christ, people don't care. They want someone to bring them home and they'll overlook every character flaw and every deceit to find a 'leader'. These are very hopeless times for many Americans and in some manner, well articulated by Sanders, implied by Trump, both men are promising a jubilee.
For what it's worth, I'll pick Clinton who promises nothing more than intelligence and experience.
Trump, Sanders or Jesus Christ, people don't care. They want someone to bring them home and they'll overlook every character flaw and every deceit to find a 'leader'. These are very hopeless times for many Americans and in some manner, well articulated by Sanders, implied by Trump, both men are promising a jubilee.
For what it's worth, I'll pick Clinton who promises nothing more than intelligence and experience.
9
It's simple - Here are the similarities among Trump/Sanders supporters: Both are upset at the middle class being systematically shafted and seeing their opportunities steadily decrease.
Here is the main difference between Trump/Sanders supporters: Trump's policies which would further squeeze the middle class and further entrench the same system that exploits them. Sander's policies would reverse this trend, significantly.
Here is the main difference between Trump/Sanders supporters: Trump's policies which would further squeeze the middle class and further entrench the same system that exploits them. Sander's policies would reverse this trend, significantly.
9
Clinton and Trump are two of the world's most recognized celebrities with raging narcissistic personality disorders and sordid, selfish histories. Anyone who even tries to teach their children right from wrong cringes at the sight of them.
"Nobody" Bernie Sanders has worked this election brilliantly: he has the most principled, on-message campaign in recent history and as we speak is closing in on or tying Hillary in National polls as well as beating Trump in almost every polled match-up. And get this, he is a moral man who walks it. It's pretty easy to see, as the pope pointed out: the most Christian candidate is the jew.
Many, many Democrats no longer like or trust the DNC machine and Republicans largely hate the RNC. They are after all co-joined twins, two antagonistic heads pumping the same nutrients from the same corrupt body. America has a two-party problem and we are so isolated in our political discourse that we now reply on intuition at this point.
America itself is the fantasy the author speaks of, brought on by the isolation of ideas that keep us decades behind the rest of the industrialized world. As a person who lived in The Netherlands for almost 20 years, Bernie would just be considered an old-school "Social-Dem", not even close to a real Socialist but just a center leftist. Hillary would be an establishment center-right Tory and Trump would be a nativist, xenophobic National Front candidate (think Geert Wilders).
"Nobody" Bernie Sanders has worked this election brilliantly: he has the most principled, on-message campaign in recent history and as we speak is closing in on or tying Hillary in National polls as well as beating Trump in almost every polled match-up. And get this, he is a moral man who walks it. It's pretty easy to see, as the pope pointed out: the most Christian candidate is the jew.
Many, many Democrats no longer like or trust the DNC machine and Republicans largely hate the RNC. They are after all co-joined twins, two antagonistic heads pumping the same nutrients from the same corrupt body. America has a two-party problem and we are so isolated in our political discourse that we now reply on intuition at this point.
America itself is the fantasy the author speaks of, brought on by the isolation of ideas that keep us decades behind the rest of the industrialized world. As a person who lived in The Netherlands for almost 20 years, Bernie would just be considered an old-school "Social-Dem", not even close to a real Socialist but just a center leftist. Hillary would be an establishment center-right Tory and Trump would be a nativist, xenophobic National Front candidate (think Geert Wilders).
7
Why should there be a cap on SS payments? Why don't people simply pay a fix percentage of their income? True, the rich would not need SS in retirement, but would they want to live in a country surrounded by hungry retirees? The same goes for investment in education. How much it cost to provide free college vs. incarceration? Isn't is the best investment to educate young people who can then pay taxes instead of collecting welfare and food stamps? And of course research is the foundation of cutting edge manufacturing and high paying jobs. Try to increase the research budget by a couple of billions. The answer will be - we cannot increase the debt. Try to get billions for a weapon system that no one needs, and there will be no objection. This is why we need Bernie. Trump is a different issue altogether and his election will be a dark day in America.
8
Trump and Sanders are worlds apart. the far greater concern is Trump moving forward while the republicans wring their hands. I recommend Danielle Allen in the Washington Post on the Banality of Evil
2
Gee, I didn't read the words lying, foul-mouthed, belligerent, racist, narcissistic, xenophobic or intolerant - not once in the entire article. Is there some other Trump out there I don't know about?
4
The Democratic Party tilted the playing field against Bernie Sanders from the start in a number of ways. And, Hilary has said a number of times that Sanders is not a "real" Democrat. There is no way that Bernie can get the party's nomination.
Trump, on the other hand, is likely to get the Republican nomination. Trump and Sanders should run together on a "national unity" ticket. Far fetched? Not really. A lot is at stake in this election.
Trump, on the other hand, is likely to get the Republican nomination. Trump and Sanders should run together on a "national unity" ticket. Far fetched? Not really. A lot is at stake in this election.
1
One other point of commonality Edsall didn't mention. Notice that both the Sanders and Trump populist insurgencies are overwhelmingly driven by angry white people.
4
Since both Trump and Sanders are really Democrats, they should merge. Trump should buy out Sanders, and they should run as the Democratic team. They would beat Hillary easily, which would be especially helpful to the Democratic party if Hillary is indicted.
Let the Republicans run their best candidate against the TrumpSanders Corporation team.
Let the Republicans run their best candidate against the TrumpSanders Corporation team.
Interesting perspective. Yet it is hard to understand, on the Republican side, why someone with a strong record on fiscal responsibility in Congress followed by a successful tenure as the governor of a major Midwestern state, this being John Kasich of course, does not garner a major share of Republican support in the early stages of this campaign.
It's simple - Here are the similarities among Trump/Sanders supporters: Both are upset at the middle class being systematically shafted and seeing their opportunities steadily decrease.
Here is the main difference between Trump/Sanders supporters: Trump's policies which would further squeeze the middle class and further entrench the same system that exploits them. Sander's policies would reverse this trend, significantly.
Here is the main difference between Trump/Sanders supporters: Trump's policies which would further squeeze the middle class and further entrench the same system that exploits them. Sander's policies would reverse this trend, significantly.
4
The New York Times editorial board seems keen to equate Trump and Sanders, but doesn't seem to notice the implications: Sanders can pull voters away from Trump. Clinton can't. The blue collar anti-NAFTA crowd who loves Trump also hates her. This is why Sanders does much better than Clinton in any head-to-head match-up with the Republicans. This is why the questions should be about Clinton's electability, not Sanders'.
8
There is absolutely no movement anywhere to join the Trump wing with the Sanders wing. Just another attempt at making Sanders appear too "fringe", by yet another fatuous insider.
4
Trump and Sanders doing so well is bad enough already. Why hope for an even more frightening combination of both?
1
as a frequent visitor to Vermont during the entire time Bernie has served, I always asked "why can't THIS guy run for president?" the answer back has always been that our country is too stupid to elect someone so consistent and selfless, and besides he'd never run, although Vermonters across all ideologies LOVE him. that's because they actually listen to what he says, and what he says is NOT fantasy, but more in tune with what everybody wants to happen. he's actually mainstream, but is being painted as an angry fanatic. He's gained traction and huge crowds because so many people are listening.
i see the similarities between the two men, but Bernie has ALWAYS been this guy. he's never changed his tune. Trump is, shall we say, more changeable. Yet some of what he says resonates with Bernie supporters. if it came down to these two as the candidates, it would be YUGE, and interesting, but Bernie is not gonna be bullied, like Jebra Bush was. I believe Bernie would prevail in the matchup, not because that's what I want, but because he's always been who he is, and unwaveringly so.
i see the similarities between the two men, but Bernie has ALWAYS been this guy. he's never changed his tune. Trump is, shall we say, more changeable. Yet some of what he says resonates with Bernie supporters. if it came down to these two as the candidates, it would be YUGE, and interesting, but Bernie is not gonna be bullied, like Jebra Bush was. I believe Bernie would prevail in the matchup, not because that's what I want, but because he's always been who he is, and unwaveringly so.
23
Dear rollie:
As someone who says they are very familiar with Senator Sanders and Vermont's politics please explain why the Green Mountain state's recent plan to initiate single-payer health insurance failed? A state receptive to socialist ideas, a population of less than a half million, without the opposition one would face from obstructionist Republicans in Congress, could not get off the ground. Well, what went wrong, and why would it be any different nationally?
DD
Manhattan
As someone who says they are very familiar with Senator Sanders and Vermont's politics please explain why the Green Mountain state's recent plan to initiate single-payer health insurance failed? A state receptive to socialist ideas, a population of less than a half million, without the opposition one would face from obstructionist Republicans in Congress, could not get off the ground. Well, what went wrong, and why would it be any different nationally?
DD
Manhattan
Clearly we have problem in America that empty sound bites that the ruling class uses to sway the peasants no longer works. The French had a king for centuries then killed one in anger.Ido not think we are there yet but give a few more like SHKRELIi, and i will pull the cord gladly myself. We have had trade deals that destroyed the middle class manufacturing class and a right wing ideology that has destroyed the worker-corporate relationship.Job safety and reward have turned employees into widgets, all squeezed profit goes to the top. Forty million dollar compensation followed by 10% layoffs for the worker bee. The public can only stand so much, SHARPEN YOUR PIKES!
6
Thanks for unpopular but compelling insight -- as is your habit. The four moral values scales are especially valuable for reminding us people fundamentally do not see things in the same way. This is a rebuke to the Us vs. the Other campaigns being run by both Trump and Sanders. There is no Silent Majority and equally no incipient Political Revolution -- unless, by some disaster, one side or the other is enabled to use force. We are just going to have to work it out back toward the center, not to the extremes -- as always in American politics.
3
Who is the "Other" in bernie's campaign, Wall Street bankers and their ilk? They ARE the "Other."
1
"The emergence of strong populist insurgencies in both parties has raised the hope that the two constituencies could be joined to create a genuine left-right populist alliance."
This article lost me right off the bat.
Who in their right mind has postulated that the similarities between the Sanders Campaign and Trump Circus mean there is a future for populism that bridges the gap between left and right? If anything, the emergence of these two men has shown that the anti-establishment wings of both parties are further apart than the Milky Way and our favorite galaxy far, far away.
It goes on to quanity the alleged similarities between Sanders and Trump: rejection of corporate world ownership masked as free trade, rejection of Super PAC money, and support of 'health care for all':
1 - Sanders doesn't support TPP because he is an ally of the working class, and by many estimates the TPP would pull the plug on our manufacturing industry that is already on life support. Who knows what nefarious reason Trump may have for rejecting it, he sure as hell doesn't know what it says.
2 - Bernie rejects PAC money because he opposes Citizens United and corporate lobbying, aka codified bribery. Trump is self-financing his campaign, but also, no one, not even Wall St, wants to give him a nickel.
3 - Bernie wants mandated, single-payer, health care for all, like most other advanced countries have. Trump wants to repeal the ACA with "something much better", but he hasn't given any details
This article lost me right off the bat.
Who in their right mind has postulated that the similarities between the Sanders Campaign and Trump Circus mean there is a future for populism that bridges the gap between left and right? If anything, the emergence of these two men has shown that the anti-establishment wings of both parties are further apart than the Milky Way and our favorite galaxy far, far away.
It goes on to quanity the alleged similarities between Sanders and Trump: rejection of corporate world ownership masked as free trade, rejection of Super PAC money, and support of 'health care for all':
1 - Sanders doesn't support TPP because he is an ally of the working class, and by many estimates the TPP would pull the plug on our manufacturing industry that is already on life support. Who knows what nefarious reason Trump may have for rejecting it, he sure as hell doesn't know what it says.
2 - Bernie rejects PAC money because he opposes Citizens United and corporate lobbying, aka codified bribery. Trump is self-financing his campaign, but also, no one, not even Wall St, wants to give him a nickel.
3 - Bernie wants mandated, single-payer, health care for all, like most other advanced countries have. Trump wants to repeal the ACA with "something much better", but he hasn't given any details
14
Dear Matt C:
You state Senator Sanders wants single payer health care for all? You, as I, are neighbors of the Green Mountain state, so I'll make the big leap and assume you are aware of Vermont's plan to institute single payer in one of the smallest states in the Union, an electorate extremely acceptable to socialist proposals. Why then did their plans collapse? If they could not get it passed in a state of less than a half-million how in heaven's name does Senator Sanders propose to take Vermont's debacle nationwide? Please do enlighten us.
DD
Manhattan
You state Senator Sanders wants single payer health care for all? You, as I, are neighbors of the Green Mountain state, so I'll make the big leap and assume you are aware of Vermont's plan to institute single payer in one of the smallest states in the Union, an electorate extremely acceptable to socialist proposals. Why then did their plans collapse? If they could not get it passed in a state of less than a half-million how in heaven's name does Senator Sanders propose to take Vermont's debacle nationwide? Please do enlighten us.
DD
Manhattan
3
You mean former Mike Bloomberg stole the election from these 2 wackos?
1
If two people are expressing similar ethical/ideological positions, but only ONE of them is SINCERE, they are not truly of similar mind. With the possible exception of gun manufacturer liability, Sanders's positions are nothing if not consistent over the course of many years. Meanwhile, Trump's inconsistencies are too numerous to detail, which puts the lie to his "values." His greatest hits include: (1) Trump says he wants to end corruption, but in debates he has admitted to paying politicians in the past (including some people on the stage) so he could "call" if he "needed something" years later. (2) Trump promised he would not sue Cruz over the issue of his birth (saying Democrats would), but months later said he was giving it serious consideration as retaliation for one of Cruz's "slanderous." (3) That same "slanderous" ad quoted Trump's unequivocal statement that he was "pro-choice" in every respect. That statement is now at odds with his assertion of being "pro-life." (4) Personal favorite-Trump's tendency to follow clearly disparaging and hateful remarks against certain demographics with assertions that he, in fact, LOVES this demographic (and that they love him). (5) Trump expresses insult that the Pope would question his Christian values, yet Trump previously said he has never felt the need to ask any God for forgiveness. (6) Trump's previous massive financial support for, and current derision of, Hilary Clinton's charities and general political goals.
3
All of this ignores the central fact that the corporate/industrial right has so successfully undermined the findings of science that the majority of the Republican base believes evolution and climate change to be hoaxes generated by cabals of University professors to extort grant monies from hard working Americans via Big Government.
This mostly began with Reagan and his successful selling of Voodoo Economics until it has become an article of faith to a majority of Americans that their roads, bridges, electric grids, relatively healthy food supplies, and somewhat clean water sources continue to appear as if by magic while the only role of government has become taking things away from those who work hard and giving them to illegal immigrants and blacks on welfare.
So progressive people are supposed to join in some kind of political union with any of that how again?
This mostly began with Reagan and his successful selling of Voodoo Economics until it has become an article of faith to a majority of Americans that their roads, bridges, electric grids, relatively healthy food supplies, and somewhat clean water sources continue to appear as if by magic while the only role of government has become taking things away from those who work hard and giving them to illegal immigrants and blacks on welfare.
So progressive people are supposed to join in some kind of political union with any of that how again?
4
Are we going to have a column on the similarities between Romney's message and Clinton's? Clinton's latest line - Sanders wants everything "free" - seems to be evolving towards Romney's there's the makers and the takers. Clinton's line is particularly intriguing, since the man who influentially stopped the University of California from offering free tuition to residents was Ronald Reagan, in 1967 - and California's move influence public colleges throughout the country. So basically, Clinton is on Reagan's track, as was Romney. Lets see the thumbsucker about that.
6
Hillary Rodham Clinton was a GOP and served under Barry Goldwater in his campaign...Hillary still is GOP AND PROBABLY NOT AS GOOD as Reagan,
in fact, can't guess what he would have thought of her...Hillary became a Democrat when Bill Clinton became president, her first words were I am now a Democrat and the next campaign will be mine, Hillary's, and you will get to see how a "first" man feels...it's my turn!
in fact, can't guess what he would have thought of her...Hillary became a Democrat when Bill Clinton became president, her first words were I am now a Democrat and the next campaign will be mine, Hillary's, and you will get to see how a "first" man feels...it's my turn!
What's not to like about simplistic answers to your physical, mental and emotional stress delivered by angry old guys wagging their fingers, yelling and shouting just to up the anti of emotion? The structure of our system has been tweaked and tourqued totally out of balance and as it exists today will not nor can it support such simplistic solutions . I don't see either Trump or Bernie going after the support they will need at the State and Federal level to plan, pass, implement and judicate their pipe dreams. We have work to do, this election will be a tipping point forcing realignment of the system not distruction of it. We have had enough distruction and disruption.
4
Even in the November survey (which included several GOP candidates with low poll numbers) Governor Martin O'Malley was omitted. He received scant coverage in NYT and other media, and barely any questions during Democratic debates which only had 3 - 5 candidates at most.
O'Malley was quite a viable candidate who governed a large city and a state with a larger (and more diverse) population than Iowa or New Hampshire. It's a shame candidates like Trump, Carson and even Fiorina - with no political experience - captured attention and coverage versus a decent, well-regarded Governor. Michigan has learned the hard way what happens when you place a businessman in a public service position. Doesn't end well - their misery is far from ending. Imagine the damage Trump would wreak.
O'Malley was quite a viable candidate who governed a large city and a state with a larger (and more diverse) population than Iowa or New Hampshire. It's a shame candidates like Trump, Carson and even Fiorina - with no political experience - captured attention and coverage versus a decent, well-regarded Governor. Michigan has learned the hard way what happens when you place a businessman in a public service position. Doesn't end well - their misery is far from ending. Imagine the damage Trump would wreak.
6
Trump beat all the establishment candidates of the Republican party. He is going to be the nominee, period. If Trump doesn't have a powerful message now, A Clinton nomination win will give him one. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, Trump will have a powerful platform to run against her with, and many of Bernie's supporters will join him. As we sit through another year of a bitter congressional infighting, people are only going to get more fired up against the establishment and decide to turn it on it's head, even if they have to elect Trump to say, "You're all fired!"
6
This article brings up very good points, however I believe the analogy between our current political situation and the reference between Barry Goldwater/Nelson Rockefeller and the George McGovern/Hubert Humphrey intraparty schism is flawed. Nelson Rockefeller was liberal enough to actually be courted to change parties and become a democrat, so he would have stood a better chance of being elected as a democrat as opposed to a republican. I don't see anybody in the present republican field that comes close to fitting that bill. So the disparity in the current republican field is between hard-line conservatism and REALLY hard-line conservatism, not liberal vs conservative.
As for McGovern/Humphrey analogy: The democratic party has always been on a broad enough spectrum that it always had room to encompass a substantial liberal wing. Also, while McGovern was liberal his main problem was one of timing. He railed against the corruption of the Nixon administration, but was proven correct only AFTER he lost the election. If some of the things that transpired just prior to Nixon's resignation happened earlier, McGovern could have been elected.
As for McGovern/Humphrey analogy: The democratic party has always been on a broad enough spectrum that it always had room to encompass a substantial liberal wing. Also, while McGovern was liberal his main problem was one of timing. He railed against the corruption of the Nixon administration, but was proven correct only AFTER he lost the election. If some of the things that transpired just prior to Nixon's resignation happened earlier, McGovern could have been elected.
4
The real "McGovern" in 2016 may be Hillary, who is so universally and vehemently disliked across the political spectrum for some good reasons and for some not so good reasons, but disliked all the same, that she can't possibly win a national election, regardless of who her opponent is.
Dear F. Ciccone:
Governor Rockefeller was a lifelong four term Republican who never contemplated being a Democrat. He was liberal by today's standards but the Democrats were more so. LBJ won by a landslide due to Kennedy's assassination more than anything else, and began to institute his Great Society agenda. Rockefeller served briefly as an unelected VP but his career declined after Ford's loss.
McGovern's campaign was a study in contrasts and disarray which resulted in the DNC installing super delegates into the nominating process. The "72 Democratic Convention was a pure democratic event and it showed. It was a circus, a disorganized fractured fiasco. McGovern's speech was given at three in the morning, his VP had to resign due to reports surfacing of electro-shock therapy. Nixon's CREEP committee was already into its dirty tricks covert war against the Dems, including that "third-rate burglary" at the Watergate. Reports of Nixon's corruption and "plumbers" operations were being reported in '72 by the Woodstein team, but they were generally ignored. McGovern's ideas were ridiculed and lambasted by even liberals. If the public managed to wake up before November perhaps McGovern would have won more than one state, but I doubt he could have captured the presidency.
Times were a-changing, as they are now, but not nearly enough to convince half this nation who hates President Obama to embrace Senator Sanders.
DD
Manhattan
Governor Rockefeller was a lifelong four term Republican who never contemplated being a Democrat. He was liberal by today's standards but the Democrats were more so. LBJ won by a landslide due to Kennedy's assassination more than anything else, and began to institute his Great Society agenda. Rockefeller served briefly as an unelected VP but his career declined after Ford's loss.
McGovern's campaign was a study in contrasts and disarray which resulted in the DNC installing super delegates into the nominating process. The "72 Democratic Convention was a pure democratic event and it showed. It was a circus, a disorganized fractured fiasco. McGovern's speech was given at three in the morning, his VP had to resign due to reports surfacing of electro-shock therapy. Nixon's CREEP committee was already into its dirty tricks covert war against the Dems, including that "third-rate burglary" at the Watergate. Reports of Nixon's corruption and "plumbers" operations were being reported in '72 by the Woodstein team, but they were generally ignored. McGovern's ideas were ridiculed and lambasted by even liberals. If the public managed to wake up before November perhaps McGovern would have won more than one state, but I doubt he could have captured the presidency.
Times were a-changing, as they are now, but not nearly enough to convince half this nation who hates President Obama to embrace Senator Sanders.
DD
Manhattan
2
I passionately made just this argument at our district nominating caucus at the 1972 Texas State Democratic Convention. The Wallace and McGovern delegates represented 60% of our district, with the the Establishment Humphrey contingency filling out the remaining 40. Our populist common cause alliance went down in flames when a buzz-kill kid in the back shouted out "How can you make common cause with a man who espoused Segregation Now, Segregation Forever as he blocked the door at Alabama!?" My nascent political career went up in smoke, I never recovered.
1
Notions that Trump and Sanders supporters overlap are fanciful. What really matters are the enormous partisanship between the parties and the emergence of strong populist insurgencies within each of them simultaneously. The last Presidential election with these two conditions was the election of 1860. But this time no Lincoln is running who might save the Republic from its follies and risk taking.
4
"One could even argue that the presence of two Hispanic contenders for the nomination reflects a concentration of the conservative mind on expanding the Republican electorate."
This actually highlights the stupidity of the party elites. Voters select candidates based on their views, not ethnicity or religion as NYT apparently thinks (I say that because today we have the 2nd piece on Bernie's Jewishness, as if his voters didn't know). Selecting a hispanic who is as clueless as the rest of the establishment on what voters are looking for won't "expand the Republican electorate". One would've thought they would've learned something from Cantor's defeat. The message there was 'Cantor is the representative of the establishment, pandering to Wall Street even after 2008 debacle, we reject'.
If the Democratic party pulls a fast one with the so-called 'super delegates' and steals the election from the voters, a lot more than 4% of Bernie voters will vote for Trump.
This actually highlights the stupidity of the party elites. Voters select candidates based on their views, not ethnicity or religion as NYT apparently thinks (I say that because today we have the 2nd piece on Bernie's Jewishness, as if his voters didn't know). Selecting a hispanic who is as clueless as the rest of the establishment on what voters are looking for won't "expand the Republican electorate". One would've thought they would've learned something from Cantor's defeat. The message there was 'Cantor is the representative of the establishment, pandering to Wall Street even after 2008 debacle, we reject'.
If the Democratic party pulls a fast one with the so-called 'super delegates' and steals the election from the voters, a lot more than 4% of Bernie voters will vote for Trump.
3
The two GOP contenders are CUBAN. not Hispanic...gee....
Not surprising at all. The more Trump and Bernie seem not alike. the more they seem alike, a real contradiction.
1
Jonathan Haidt's breakdown of "values" is absurdly simplistic. The two sides have both similarities and differences, but Haidt's framework, taken from his book, is not a good basis for analyzing them. His own worldview limits the range of factors he considers relevant. What about fear or hope, tribalism or solidarity, complexity or simplicity... I could go on but you get the point. Simply selecting a different subset of "values" might show a completely different conclusion.
I am one of the people who find both Trump and Sanders appealing, in different ways and different degrees.
Evidently like most people who think this, I also can imagine voting for one but not the other.
One thing is clear to me though: The anger and fear and feelings of betrayal that dominates their supporters' thoughts are not going away -- and we know that the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Party want nothing more than for the Trump/Sanders people to shut up and go away so that they can continue ignoring the American people's interest in peace.
Change is coming. It must be, because the status quo is finally, finally becoming unacceptable to so many voters.
Evidently like most people who think this, I also can imagine voting for one but not the other.
One thing is clear to me though: The anger and fear and feelings of betrayal that dominates their supporters' thoughts are not going away -- and we know that the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Party want nothing more than for the Trump/Sanders people to shut up and go away so that they can continue ignoring the American people's interest in peace.
Change is coming. It must be, because the status quo is finally, finally becoming unacceptable to so many voters.
34
This article seeks to compare apples and.....not oranges but a rotten egg. Bernie Sanders is the apple of many Americans´eyes, including mine. He is decent, honest, straightfoward, and has a vision for our country that will be more fair for all....if we who think at all will stay engaged and help him out...his values are quite similar to those of FDR, no radical at all. Michael Moore´s new movie shows us a vision of what America can become. He visits countries around the world that have successful educational systems, decent infrastructure, time off for vacations and babies, and universal healthcare. Michael, in his movie, has envisioned for us what we can become.
Trump, in contrast, is the rotten egg, full of bombast but not much else.
Trump, in contrast, is the rotten egg, full of bombast but not much else.
12
Both Trump and Sanders supporters are angry but its the Sanders supporters who have the deeper understanding of why they are angry and toward whom their anger should be directed. And like all democrats and quasi-democrats, they fundamentally believe a very wealthy country like this one can do much better by most of its people. The Trump supporters, in contrast, like all republicans and quasi-republicans, don't care about other people. Instead they are fearful and resentful of immigrants and other Americans.
11
This post tortures the original result somewhat to fit the desired outcome, so we'll dive deeper.
Vox post does combine loyalty/authority/sanctity into one group so they become meaningful; however, the separate blog post http://righteousmind.com/presidentialprimaries/ breaks it down by category.
There we see that the full breakdown is:
Authority: Sanders -.2, Clinton +.1, Trump +.1
Loyalty: Sanders -.3, Clinton +.05, Trump +.1
Sanctity: Sanders -.3, Clinton +.05, Trump +.1
See how Trump's voters are suddenly clones of Clinton? They are not that different, as opposed to Sanders. Mind it, margins of error here are really +-.1, so Trump and Clinton are in a tie (unless you invent aggregate measures), while Sanders isn't.
Some of the categories in the "sanctity", for example, is actually more interesting. The questions used to measure this are:
- I would call some acts wrong on the grounds that they are unnatural
- [It is relevant in justifying actions] whether or not someone violated standards of purity and decency
See, how this suddenly involves your definition of "unnatural" act? So, for example, if you fully agree that some acts are wrong because they are unnatural, like 46% of respondents did, do you think of homosexual relationship and interracial sex - or child molestation and bestiality? Important distinction, don't you find - and also the one which is telling, because the question is very open.
Vox post does combine loyalty/authority/sanctity into one group so they become meaningful; however, the separate blog post http://righteousmind.com/presidentialprimaries/ breaks it down by category.
There we see that the full breakdown is:
Authority: Sanders -.2, Clinton +.1, Trump +.1
Loyalty: Sanders -.3, Clinton +.05, Trump +.1
Sanctity: Sanders -.3, Clinton +.05, Trump +.1
See how Trump's voters are suddenly clones of Clinton? They are not that different, as opposed to Sanders. Mind it, margins of error here are really +-.1, so Trump and Clinton are in a tie (unless you invent aggregate measures), while Sanders isn't.
Some of the categories in the "sanctity", for example, is actually more interesting. The questions used to measure this are:
- I would call some acts wrong on the grounds that they are unnatural
- [It is relevant in justifying actions] whether or not someone violated standards of purity and decency
See, how this suddenly involves your definition of "unnatural" act? So, for example, if you fully agree that some acts are wrong because they are unnatural, like 46% of respondents did, do you think of homosexual relationship and interracial sex - or child molestation and bestiality? Important distinction, don't you find - and also the one which is telling, because the question is very open.
I am wondering which of the deserts on our planet could be described as the most "just" - see graphic in this article. In the meantime, I'll go back to making my dessert for this evening's dinner.
1
This column boils down to a (another) rather pedestrian, establishment attack on Sanders and his supporters. By deploying words like "populist" and "blue collar" that raise the specter of a mob and seeking to link Sanders to the rightly despised Trump it seeks to dissuade the formers base. I hope no one falls for it.
7
In today's Politics section is a piece that explains the illogic of this one. "Bernie Sanders is Jewish, but He Doesn't Like to Talk About It" quotes Bernie explaining his spirituality: "We're all in this together and it's not a good thing to believe that as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people. . . .We cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more money." I wouldn't look farther than this for an explanation of the Trump phenomenon. He worships himself and his billions, and his fans have made a God of him because he lives in a gold-plated mansion with a fashion model. Those of us who support Bernie see that the sickness of greed is rapidly destroying our country. We want him as our president because he values people more than profits. Some of his Jewish admirers fear he will never be accepted by Middle America because "it would not take much for anti-Semitism to surface in the United States, as it has in corners of Europe. . . .Some hateful people might bring" up his Judaism. Who could those hateful people be? The same ones rallying behind a candidate who encourages them to despise Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, women, the disabled. Bernie lost members of his family in the Holocaust. He knows what Trump's demagoguery leads to. NYTimes Opinion Pages, you continue to insult your readers' intelligence. We know the difference between a statesman and a thug.
9
Well, even if there are many issues & mindsets that divide Trump & Sanders supporters, can't we find some way to all work together to get widespread support for the 4 issues we do agree on??
2
The commonalities among Trump and Sanders voters seem to be heavily outweighed by the differences that the data suggest. And rightly so: Sanders is a deeply caring man who seeks to redress grievous economic injustice in America. Trump is very close to qualifying as a fascist who spews hateful speech, encourages violence against those who attempt to voice their disgust at his rallies, stokes nativism and xenophobia, and appeals to a jingoistic nationalism. It would not surprise me to witness a modern brown-shirt rabble rising to “defend” their candidate.
I’m an ex-pat Brit in my late seventies who remembers WW II vividly and is disbelieving of the notion that “it couldn’t happen in America.” I fear it has started.
I’m an ex-pat Brit in my late seventies who remembers WW II vividly and is disbelieving of the notion that “it couldn’t happen in America.” I fear it has started.
7
There are other ways a strong anti-establishment national sentiment might play out. It would be somewhat neutralized in a head-to-head contest between Trump and Sanders, forcing voters to choose on other grounds (e.g., whether attracted or repulsed by Trump’s personality cult authoritarianism). In a contest between Trump and Clinton, it would seem to tilt the scales in Trump’s favor, accentuating the right’s existing antipathy to the Clinton brand, depressing turnout among Clinton-fatigue Democrats, and perhaps even enticing some Bernie fans to take a chance with Trump-change.
The conventional wisdom being espoused by the Clinton camp is that she’s inevitable and Bernie’s not electable. Maybe; maybe not.
The conventional wisdom being espoused by the Clinton camp is that she’s inevitable and Bernie’s not electable. Maybe; maybe not.
3
I support Bernie Sander. I know he has a slim chance for the nomination, however, thats not the point. I'm sending a message. The message is business as usual will not cut it anymore. Nothing has trickled down and no one has "triangulated" a solution as the US continues its inexorable march towards third would nation status.
6
Excellent piece by Thomas Edsall. Any "good" demagogue worth his - or in the case of the National Front's Marine Le Pen, her - salt knows that you have to appeal to your supporters' economic self interests. The Nazis knew this. It was no accident that the "S" in NSDAP stood for "Socialist." The Nazis combined right wing, nationalist and anti-Semitic appeals as well as left leaning appeals (bread, jobs) to its lower middle class supporters, and in fact, there were left wing Nazis such as Gregor Strasser, who was murdered during the infamous "Night of the Long Knives" in 1934. America isn't Nazi Germany, of course, but I think history teaches us that a left-right fusion of the type described by Mr. Edsall, at the very least, promotes authoritarian attitudes which are corrosive to our democracy.
“Everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don’t infringe on the freedom of others.”
This is the American freedom-from government delusion.
Your freedom to do as you choose MEANS--ALL others are must put up with you--they are NOT free to interfere with you. There is no such thing as one person's freedom that does not limit the freedom of others.
This is the American freedom-from government delusion.
Your freedom to do as you choose MEANS--ALL others are must put up with you--they are NOT free to interfere with you. There is no such thing as one person's freedom that does not limit the freedom of others.
4
The author states:
"The Democratic Party, in turn, became the political ally of emerging rebellions — moving sharply to the left of American opinion."
How can this statement be true when one considers the Democratic embrace of President Bill Clinton?
"The Democratic Party, in turn, became the political ally of emerging rebellions — moving sharply to the left of American opinion."
How can this statement be true when one considers the Democratic embrace of President Bill Clinton?
2
Enjoy your corrupt political puppets while they last, oligarchs. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but the handwriting is on the wall.
The people are growing restive...
The people are growing restive...
11
Those "feeling the Bern", just like their Occupy Wall Street antecedents, have things only half right. Who knows, they could easily wake up, see that Government AND Wall Street, both are the problem.
They used to call these two jointly as "The Man", though many have willfully forgotten this after like-minded souls slowly took over the bureaucracy, the media, and academia, of course.
They used to call these two jointly as "The Man", though many have willfully forgotten this after like-minded souls slowly took over the bureaucracy, the media, and academia, of course.
2
How can Government be the problem? We elect Government. If you don't know that perhaps it is time to find out that it is the case. On the other hand, we do not have any influence on Wall Street unless we are billionaire investors or simply people running the brokerages and banks. The only chance we have in doing something about Wall Street is again through Government. If we elect the right people, they will appoint proper regulators and provide them with budgets so that they can operate and help.
4
Fascism is the flip side of Communism. It comes down to whose ox is being gored.
Yes, Sanders and Trump see many similar things, but they do so from disparate view points. The same is true for their supporters.
Each has much the same appeal, but different references.
Vive la difference...
Yes, Sanders and Trump see many similar things, but they do so from disparate view points. The same is true for their supporters.
Each has much the same appeal, but different references.
Vive la difference...
7
I have been a long admirer of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren...both are trustworthy, eager to make the U.S. Congress perform for the better of our nation...However, Hillary Rodham Clinton (and Bill and possibly Chelsea) have taken advantage of the Clinton's position in the attempt to elect Hillary Rodham Clinton...questions arise about her use of BILLIONAIRE'S MONIES, refusal to adapt Glaspeal (big banks change that will benefit U.S.) and also Hillary's use of LARGE PACS (which Citizen's United tried to rid the U.S.)...
What ever Hillary does, including corrupting SECRET E.MAIL SERVICE...
It ain't going away according to TODAY'S WASHINGTON POST REPORT and lots of complaints have been received early this morning 4,500 a.m. and this is 6:26....Hillary is still in the OVEN and the U.S. People are asking fairness!
What ever Hillary does, including corrupting SECRET E.MAIL SERVICE...
It ain't going away according to TODAY'S WASHINGTON POST REPORT and lots of complaints have been received early this morning 4,500 a.m. and this is 6:26....Hillary is still in the OVEN and the U.S. People are asking fairness!
1
Very interesting article, as a so called progressive I am very concerned regarding HRC chances in a general election, her unfavorable ratings re honesty and trustworthy are alarming, recent polling,, 57 percent of Democrats do not trust her, almost 70 percent of independents find her untrustworthy, her response to speech transcripts was very telling evasive and cunning, not leading in disclosure but reluctantly agreeing if everyone else goes first, demonstrating political cowardice, we may see the horror of a Trump or other extremists nominating to the SCOTUS, WAKE UP
8
Morgan, it's interesting that you use an op-ed about Trump and Sanders to throw a bunch of tired Republican memes at Clinton. No facts are presented, merely beliefs.
I think you are "concern-trolling" to get rid of the Democratic candidate who will win in November. If she's so weak, why are the Republicans still spending millions to attack her, while leaving Bernie unscathed?
I think you are "concern-trolling" to get rid of the Democratic candidate who will win in November. If she's so weak, why are the Republicans still spending millions to attack her, while leaving Bernie unscathed?
3
Read today's Washington Post regarding "Concern regarding Hilliary''s e.mails. No, they have not gone away...investigation has resumed and Hillary Rodham Clinton APPEARS to be GUILTY of having MISUSED SECRET E.MAILS and also mention that Huma Abedin has been under investigation because of her one/two/three jobs under Hillary Rodham Clinton...this isn't going to go away...
Hillary is possibility a LIABILITY to the Democrat Campaign - however Debbie Wasserman Schulz has begun to explain......etc!
Hillary is possibility a LIABILITY to the Democrat Campaign - however Debbie Wasserman Schulz has begun to explain......etc!
This article, along with some common sense, contains some interesting information about the possible movement of voters between Trump, Sanders, and Hillary Clinton.
Would some Sanders supporters be willing to vote for Trump? The answer from this article is yes.
Would some Trump supporters be willing to vote for Sanders? The answer again is yes.
Would some Hillary supporters be willing to vote for Trump? The answer is no.
Would some Trump supporters be willing to vote for Hillary? The answer again is no.
Would some Hillary supporters be willing to vote for Sanders? The answer is yes, most Hillary supporters would vote for Sanders if Hillary isn't a choice.
Conclusion: In a Trump Sanders contest, Sanders has the chance of changing some Trump voters' minds and getting their votes. In a Trump Clinton contest, nobody siding now with either Clinton or Trump would change their already formed opinions. Also, in a Trump Clinton contest, some Sanders supporters will desert Clinton for Trump.
The best chance Democrats have in a contest against Trump is with Sanders as the nominee.
Would some
Would some Sanders supporters be willing to vote for Trump? The answer from this article is yes.
Would some Trump supporters be willing to vote for Sanders? The answer again is yes.
Would some Hillary supporters be willing to vote for Trump? The answer is no.
Would some Trump supporters be willing to vote for Hillary? The answer again is no.
Would some Hillary supporters be willing to vote for Sanders? The answer is yes, most Hillary supporters would vote for Sanders if Hillary isn't a choice.
Conclusion: In a Trump Sanders contest, Sanders has the chance of changing some Trump voters' minds and getting their votes. In a Trump Clinton contest, nobody siding now with either Clinton or Trump would change their already formed opinions. Also, in a Trump Clinton contest, some Sanders supporters will desert Clinton for Trump.
The best chance Democrats have in a contest against Trump is with Sanders as the nominee.
Would some
12
" Also, in a Trump Clinton contest, some Sanders supporters will desert Clinton for Trump."
I don't get it. On one hand, its indignation on the part of Bernie supporters for any suggestion that Bernie has anything in common with a demagogue like Trump; on the other hand , some of them apparently prefer Trump to Hillary.
What's going on: the hypocrisy of those who style themselves truly noble?
I don't get it. On one hand, its indignation on the part of Bernie supporters for any suggestion that Bernie has anything in common with a demagogue like Trump; on the other hand , some of them apparently prefer Trump to Hillary.
What's going on: the hypocrisy of those who style themselves truly noble?
3
Beg to differ. You left out an important group: the hordes of Republicans who sre not on the extreme right fringe. They lost their voice in the GOP and if Hillary is the nominee, they will cross over and vote for her, not Trump.
The moderate and liberal Republicans have nowhere else to go. And they do exist. Many have already crossed the lines and accepted Clinton, but find Bernie a step too far.
The moderate and liberal Republicans have nowhere else to go. And they do exist. Many have already crossed the lines and accepted Clinton, but find Bernie a step too far.
1
Mike,
I'm not trying to judge the moral character of Sanders, Trump, or Clinton supports. Just stating that there are some Sanders supporters who are so distrustful of Clinton, so strongly dislike her, find her so unacceptable under any circumstances that they would walk away from voting for her in a Clinton Trump contest. They may go Green Party, stay home, or vote Trump. I think the size of the absolutely anti-Clinton people among Sanders supporters is rather large and some of them will go for Trump, as Edsall's article shows.
I'm not trying to judge the moral character of Sanders, Trump, or Clinton supports. Just stating that there are some Sanders supporters who are so distrustful of Clinton, so strongly dislike her, find her so unacceptable under any circumstances that they would walk away from voting for her in a Clinton Trump contest. They may go Green Party, stay home, or vote Trump. I think the size of the absolutely anti-Clinton people among Sanders supporters is rather large and some of them will go for Trump, as Edsall's article shows.
I think I got it. I'm dumb if I support Trump or Sanders. Thanks. Makes sense.
4
Ragers trend Republican, and dreamers tend Democrat.
Candidates have exploited the gritted-teeth fury of the ragers, and the wide-eyed innocence of the dreamers for political gain since the beginning of time.
The only thing different this year is the added push from the media's (commercial media and social media) 24-hour propaganda spin cycle.
It just added MORE gullible Americans to both eternal camps.
Candidates have exploited the gritted-teeth fury of the ragers, and the wide-eyed innocence of the dreamers for political gain since the beginning of time.
The only thing different this year is the added push from the media's (commercial media and social media) 24-hour propaganda spin cycle.
It just added MORE gullible Americans to both eternal camps.
2
When I listen to Sanders, it certainly sounds like he's raging against the 1%.
1
There are a couple of problems with this analysis apart from putting Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the same basket and that is the kind of voter each is attracting.
In Nevada, Donald Trump was favored by a broad section of the electorate, winning those with post-graduate degrees (are these people on the bottom of the economic ladder?) as well as those without a college education. And he is pulling the votes of "moderate Republicans" a group that tends to be better educated.
Bernie Sanders, who is Trump's polar opposite, is attracting working class voters but his dedicated constituency also includes young voters, college educated voters, and apparently a good number of Hispanic voters. The young voters drawn to the Sanders campaign are the same who helped put Barack Obama in the White House.
So let's be honest. This is not just about the voter who is at the bottom or struggling to stay on the middle rung of the income ladder, both campaigns - though they have very different messages - are drawing voters who are simply fed up with the way our political system works, disgusted with the slow recovery from a recession caused by rampant financial speculation, and interested in a candidate who truly brings change for all.
In Nevada, Donald Trump was favored by a broad section of the electorate, winning those with post-graduate degrees (are these people on the bottom of the economic ladder?) as well as those without a college education. And he is pulling the votes of "moderate Republicans" a group that tends to be better educated.
Bernie Sanders, who is Trump's polar opposite, is attracting working class voters but his dedicated constituency also includes young voters, college educated voters, and apparently a good number of Hispanic voters. The young voters drawn to the Sanders campaign are the same who helped put Barack Obama in the White House.
So let's be honest. This is not just about the voter who is at the bottom or struggling to stay on the middle rung of the income ladder, both campaigns - though they have very different messages - are drawing voters who are simply fed up with the way our political system works, disgusted with the slow recovery from a recession caused by rampant financial speculation, and interested in a candidate who truly brings change for all.
7
There also both pro-guns. (Although Trump's position may be feigned)
2
Most of my adult life, I have often observed how every-day "conservatives" and "liberals" share more than what is represented in their political leaders. For example, both distrust government. Both have problems with "elites" controlling the political process. Most conservatives and liberals I know are a confusing, often contradictory, mix of political impulses. Most, in fact, don't even define themselves as liberal or conservative unless prompted to do so in an election year!
In the current political season, I have likewise observed that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, although representing opposing groups, strangely meet in some odd places.
Given this, it makes intuitive sense that a combination of inherently opposing figures would work. The idealist in me thinks it would be wonderful to join both extremes in the White House, forcing Congress to figure out more widely representative policies and perhaps bringing an end to the greatest political issue of our day: partisan divisions. Maybe it could happen. But I fear that there is an underlying emotional distance between the two sides that would prevent it from happening.
In the current political season, I have likewise observed that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, although representing opposing groups, strangely meet in some odd places.
Given this, it makes intuitive sense that a combination of inherently opposing figures would work. The idealist in me thinks it would be wonderful to join both extremes in the White House, forcing Congress to figure out more widely representative policies and perhaps bringing an end to the greatest political issue of our day: partisan divisions. Maybe it could happen. But I fear that there is an underlying emotional distance between the two sides that would prevent it from happening.
2
In polls Sanders does better against Trump than Clinton.
Where is a column devoted just to that, and the reasons for it? Not too interesting? The Times must think this is a fluke and is waiting for it to pass.
The op ed page could do much better in discussing the range of crucial issues that are all fit to print.
Re health care, could the Times reporters/ columnists take a drive over the border to Canada and ask a few questions on how they have been financing and using health care for all—since the 1960s?!
No? Why because the facts might support Sanders proposals, and they don't want to be seen as doing that in any way?
But why? Please explain.
Where is a column devoted just to that, and the reasons for it? Not too interesting? The Times must think this is a fluke and is waiting for it to pass.
The op ed page could do much better in discussing the range of crucial issues that are all fit to print.
Re health care, could the Times reporters/ columnists take a drive over the border to Canada and ask a few questions on how they have been financing and using health care for all—since the 1960s?!
No? Why because the facts might support Sanders proposals, and they don't want to be seen as doing that in any way?
But why? Please explain.
13
Meredith,
You write "In polls Sanders does better against Trump than Clinton." This article confirms that that's true. This article shows that there's some fluidity between Sanders and Trump voters. Some Trump voters could vote for Sanders, and vice versa.
But between Trump and Clinton, minds are already made up. There's no crossing over.
The best chance at beating Trump is Sanders because Sanders can attract some Trump voters, that is, change their minds; Hillary can't.
You write "In polls Sanders does better against Trump than Clinton." This article confirms that that's true. This article shows that there's some fluidity between Sanders and Trump voters. Some Trump voters could vote for Sanders, and vice versa.
But between Trump and Clinton, minds are already made up. There's no crossing over.
The best chance at beating Trump is Sanders because Sanders can attract some Trump voters, that is, change their minds; Hillary can't.
4
Hope is not a plan. We are witnessing the dumbing down of America by citizens accepting the fraud being perpetrated on our country.
4
Nice try Edsall, tell me something I don't know. You could more profitably focus on class struggle, general poverty, lack of opportunity and on and on.
This column strikes me as being about everything and nothing. But in the end it is about nothing because counter to your assumptions Trump is a wild hair who has no clarity of mind, does not know who he is or what he is for beyond being for himself. All you can say about him is that he assumes he can figure out what to do when he comes to the bridge. Though based on his bombastic statements anyone paying attention can see he is more than a little disordered in his personality and that selecting him as president represents insane judgement.
As far as similarities in the two camps supporters if the idea were not so preposterous I'd be insulted.
This column strikes me as being about everything and nothing. But in the end it is about nothing because counter to your assumptions Trump is a wild hair who has no clarity of mind, does not know who he is or what he is for beyond being for himself. All you can say about him is that he assumes he can figure out what to do when he comes to the bridge. Though based on his bombastic statements anyone paying attention can see he is more than a little disordered in his personality and that selecting him as president represents insane judgement.
As far as similarities in the two camps supporters if the idea were not so preposterous I'd be insulted.
6
Trump and Sander's supporters have both identified a problem exists - it's far, far from clear they agree on the solution though
3
The comparison limps because you have omitted the contrast. Bernie Sanders is UNLIKE Trump in that he has served in the Senate, has a consistent record of supporting progressive causes such as women's rights, economic justice, prison reform, health care for all, addressing inequality. Neither is funded by the Koch cartel, but Trump has enough financial chicanery in his career to match those crooks, while Sanders is supported by modest contributions from his supporters. Sanders will make a great president; Trump will make a great presence.
57
Flawlessly framed . . . thank you for this clarifying view.
3
well said, except your last phrase
As someone who could support sanders or trump, let me remove some of the noise and explain to you the common threads.
Trump supporters are not anti immigrant, blacks, gays, women, free trade and so forth. What they are upset with are things like quotas be it for blacks or women. They can support free trade but not when other countries manipulate their currencies or ignore environmental concerns to hammer us. Gays are free to do what they want with each other, but don’t compel us to believe that children do not need a mother and father. You might be surprised that these are positions that Sanders supporters can also support if push comes to shove.
Sanders is strong because he is talking about a moral climate favoring an elitist societal class not a cluster of biologically self identifying groups. This he has in common with Trump.
Likewise Trump and Sanders supporters are for taking care of Americans by building up infrastructure. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Trump support free public universities and move to make medical care more equal.
Let the elite democrats label those who don’t agree as hateful bigots, and the elite republicans call those who struggle to make a living as parasites – thankfully we have both Bernie and Donald to give them something to think about.
Trump supporters are not anti immigrant, blacks, gays, women, free trade and so forth. What they are upset with are things like quotas be it for blacks or women. They can support free trade but not when other countries manipulate their currencies or ignore environmental concerns to hammer us. Gays are free to do what they want with each other, but don’t compel us to believe that children do not need a mother and father. You might be surprised that these are positions that Sanders supporters can also support if push comes to shove.
Sanders is strong because he is talking about a moral climate favoring an elitist societal class not a cluster of biologically self identifying groups. This he has in common with Trump.
Likewise Trump and Sanders supporters are for taking care of Americans by building up infrastructure. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Trump support free public universities and move to make medical care more equal.
Let the elite democrats label those who don’t agree as hateful bigots, and the elite republicans call those who struggle to make a living as parasites – thankfully we have both Bernie and Donald to give them something to think about.
29
Would it surprise you that a President Trump's support for free tuition or more equitable medical care would be no more persuasive to the right-dominated Legislature than such proposals from a President Sanders (despite the Donald's self-vaunted artistry as a deal-maker)? And would it surprise you--the success of the Trump brand/ego being his primary, lifelong motivation--that a President Trump would seek to record a record of success that such a right-dominated Legislature would permit him? It seems to me that a President Trump might well become the anti-progressive, anti-populist CEO that would surprise eve his conservative doubters.
4
You are so right.
The 4th Estate (or what remains of it) has created the perception that there are irreconcilable differences. And, predictably, pundits find statistics to confirm that.
Maybe they should heed the Pope's call to build bridges, not walls?
The 4th Estate (or what remains of it) has created the perception that there are irreconcilable differences. And, predictably, pundits find statistics to confirm that.
Maybe they should heed the Pope's call to build bridges, not walls?
1
What this article proves, without saying so, is that Sanders would be the better candidate to run against Trump. Assuming most Dems - even Hillary supporters - would vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination, he would also pull a certain amount of voters who would otherwise vote for Trump, unlike Hillary, who would not win these votes.
As for Trump actually being a populist, I would point out that being POPular, does not make one a POPulist. Trump has never lived the life of an average American, and therefore has no idea what reality is like for the "little guy". Moreover, his motto could be summed up as "To the winner go the spoils", so his claims to help the "common" people ring hollow. Whereas Sanders has spent his life fighting for the common people - the definition of a populist.
Finally, I would caution those who believe Trump will return government to the People, by reminding them of a certain Bavarian Private who made the same claim.
As for Trump actually being a populist, I would point out that being POPular, does not make one a POPulist. Trump has never lived the life of an average American, and therefore has no idea what reality is like for the "little guy". Moreover, his motto could be summed up as "To the winner go the spoils", so his claims to help the "common" people ring hollow. Whereas Sanders has spent his life fighting for the common people - the definition of a populist.
Finally, I would caution those who believe Trump will return government to the People, by reminding them of a certain Bavarian Private who made the same claim.
Survey results cited: "Among all voters, just 4 percent said both Trump and Sanders would be either great or good. If you expand that to include average, just 15 percent said both would be at least average" This is written as if this is some tiny %, when the reality is that if even part of 4% of the vote switched in *any* presidential election since perhaps George Washington, the outcome would have changed. This includes the so-called "landslides" of recent memory, Reagan '84 and Nixon '72.
Hillary Clinton.
"The uniting of the Trump and Sanders electorates under a common banner in a future election has strong appeal, especially to Democrats on the left." - Edsall
But what if Trump and Sanders bonded together is THIS election?
I don't know what the legal and technical mechanics of Trump and Sanders leaving what many would characterize as their nominal attachments to the Republican and Democratic parties respectively. But I think if they combined forces (I'm not going to get into who would be President, who would be Vice President, etc.), and agreed on a platform, who could beat them?
But what if Trump and Sanders bonded together is THIS election?
I don't know what the legal and technical mechanics of Trump and Sanders leaving what many would characterize as their nominal attachments to the Republican and Democratic parties respectively. But I think if they combined forces (I'm not going to get into who would be President, who would be Vice President, etc.), and agreed on a platform, who could beat them?
Both parties, for far too long, have been taking their moderate middle class voters for granted.
The GOP would pull its share over with pro-life and guns, but was really buying votes to give the top 1 percent their tax breaks and corporate welfare.
The DNC, similarly, used reproductive rights as a wedge issue, while giving the far left the expanding welfare state and extreme sexual orientation rights their demands, and far more than the moderate middle was comfortable with.
There is still a huge vacuum void in the middle.
Hillary might get it by default, by simple risk aversion.
How much of our racial divide has been brought on by 3 or 4 generations, since the 1960s, of welfare-subsided single-parent families where a child never gets paternal parenting?
How many small business owners actually resent the corporate welfare and tax havens and hedge-fund tax breaks of the super rich, but vote GOP anyway because government bureaucrats keep harassing the small business owner with regulation and random audits?
How many want to allow guns for hunting but are fine with banning semi-automatic rifles and pistols in cities?
How many feel abortion really is a form of legal murder, and more should be done to limit it rather than simply using it as a Plan C option of convenience?
How many want their friends from high school and college who everyone knew is gay to have the full rights to marry each other, but are not comfortable having a gay man leading their son's Boy Scout troop?
The GOP would pull its share over with pro-life and guns, but was really buying votes to give the top 1 percent their tax breaks and corporate welfare.
The DNC, similarly, used reproductive rights as a wedge issue, while giving the far left the expanding welfare state and extreme sexual orientation rights their demands, and far more than the moderate middle was comfortable with.
There is still a huge vacuum void in the middle.
Hillary might get it by default, by simple risk aversion.
How much of our racial divide has been brought on by 3 or 4 generations, since the 1960s, of welfare-subsided single-parent families where a child never gets paternal parenting?
How many small business owners actually resent the corporate welfare and tax havens and hedge-fund tax breaks of the super rich, but vote GOP anyway because government bureaucrats keep harassing the small business owner with regulation and random audits?
How many want to allow guns for hunting but are fine with banning semi-automatic rifles and pistols in cities?
How many feel abortion really is a form of legal murder, and more should be done to limit it rather than simply using it as a Plan C option of convenience?
How many want their friends from high school and college who everyone knew is gay to have the full rights to marry each other, but are not comfortable having a gay man leading their son's Boy Scout troop?
1
I can't imagine how Egan can have had such a complete misunderstanding of the two candidates, one a thoughtful, consistently principled, politically experienced idealist; the other pretty much the opposite; thoughtless, inconsistent and unprincipled, politically inexperienced charlatan.
As for the claim that both attract "the blue-collar native-born" class, I wish Sanders did. And I wish that the class was capable of it.
As for the claim that both attract "the blue-collar native-born" class, I wish Sanders did. And I wish that the class was capable of it.
5
Every candidate has voters who may not meet the highest ethical standards and could be caricatured. I’m sure pollsters would find that Sanders is supported against Clinton 10 to 1 by people who smoke marijuana while watching children’s cartoons with the sound off. But looking at the best in people, their thinking, so far as I can tell, seems to be that a vote for Sanders is more likely to be an issues-based one than a vote for Clinton, so his election, even if by a small margin, would be more informative, with direct policy implications, and re-center the national political agenda. Is that reasonable? No one, except our smokers, could imagine that after taking office, 535 difficult people would agree to Medicare for all within the first 100 days, but some portion of his agenda would still be achieved in his term, whereas a Clinton Presidency would be status quo in every way, with no resolution of the divisions roiling the country, so hers might actually prove less successful, because it would imply no change necessary. That’s their thinking.
4
As the Country matures,it was inevitable that a class system would develop.Concurrently,technology and globalization amplify the impact of lack of education and relevant skills whilst changing US demographics exacerbate racial tensions.Taken together,these make the less well off angry and resentful.The Sanders and Trump followers simply choose different "enemies" for the situation they find themselves in.The discontent they feel is magnified by their expectations based on the mythology of the American Dream coupled with the notion that we all have the right to make a living "doing what we love".It will take years for the culture to embrace class coupled with diversity and a mature view of life.Only then will we be in a position to realign the party system with the new social reality.
1
According to the Pew Research Center, "By 2043 the minority population of the U.S. will outnumber the population of non-Hispanic whites." How might such an understanding play a response to what is going on in the present election fight? Might Trump's followers deeply fear the fact that in the not too distant future, whites will be in the minority in the United States?
4
Think about it, Wcdessert Girl: Do you really beieve that the man who appointed Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary ever had any intention of taming Wall Street's excesses? Or that ACA, which enshrines into law for-profit insurance companies' dominon over our health and now our pocketbooks, is progress in the right direction? In many ways, Obama is ideologically out of step with the rank and file of the party that he ostensibly leads.
By contrast, poll after poll shows that a solid majority of Americans want universal healthCARE (not mandatory "coverage), government-financed college tuition, an end to unnecessary and costly military misadventures, an aggressive response to climate change, sanity in our drug laws, refurbishment of our crumbling infrastructure, and a social safety net. The truth is that Sander's ideas are "controversial"only because Congress that has been bought and paid for by individuals and corporations that profit from from the dysfunctional status quo, namely for-profit insurance, pharmaceutical companies, student loan lenders, the military industrial complex, fossil fuel interests, the military industiral complex, and people like the Kochs.
It was not ever thus. It took 40 years for things to get this bad, so it will not happen overnight. Electing Bernie Sanders is an esential first step to helping us to finally shake off the unsustainable pseudo-democratic kleptocracy that is killing America's future.
By contrast, poll after poll shows that a solid majority of Americans want universal healthCARE (not mandatory "coverage), government-financed college tuition, an end to unnecessary and costly military misadventures, an aggressive response to climate change, sanity in our drug laws, refurbishment of our crumbling infrastructure, and a social safety net. The truth is that Sander's ideas are "controversial"only because Congress that has been bought and paid for by individuals and corporations that profit from from the dysfunctional status quo, namely for-profit insurance, pharmaceutical companies, student loan lenders, the military industrial complex, fossil fuel interests, the military industiral complex, and people like the Kochs.
It was not ever thus. It took 40 years for things to get this bad, so it will not happen overnight. Electing Bernie Sanders is an esential first step to helping us to finally shake off the unsustainable pseudo-democratic kleptocracy that is killing America's future.
5
"poll after poll shows that a solid majority of Americans want universal healthCARE (not mandatory "coverage)"
Yep, reported relentlessly by Republicans in their zeal to kill Obamacare. But why is this news? Don't we all want a free lunch?
Yep, reported relentlessly by Republicans in their zeal to kill Obamacare. But why is this news? Don't we all want a free lunch?
If we are honest, we have had few, really intelligent leaders in our country since Eisenhower. America started borrowing money rather than taxing when they decided develop the Minuteman 1 missile program. Instead of explaining to the American public why they felt it was necessary, and taxing accordingly, the Presidents and Congress set a place that every single program whether it was the military or social was able to go forward because of borrowing money. That has been our economic policy. Then, if we can't collectively admit that it was a mistake for President John Kennedy to go into Vietnam, for President George Bush to go into Iraq, and for President Obama to appeal to naivety in the middle east and Africa, we the American public won't demand a more intelligent approach to foreign policy. America's whole economy was built, not on reasonable growth, and spending on long range programs and policies, but overbuilt malls, sports stadiums 50% funded by taxpayers, due to ignorant Mayors and legislators in major cities across America, the McMansion mentality, variable rate mortgages rather than fixed rate (cause of 2009 market collapse), home equity loans on top of mortgages that many people had, high credit card debt for little of importance other than consuming, and here we are as a nation, almost $20 trillion in debt. We have underfunded pensions because too much was promised to retirees, States in debt, and a nation, obese!
3
I'm a probable Bernie Sanders voter, and I think you are wrong in pairing him with Trump. I'd say that while they have both tapped into public anger, the similarity beyond that is superficial. Sander's most prominent argument is that economic inequality is America's greatest problem. No where does Trump talk about inequality. Sander's would substantially increase taxes on those who are most well off. Trump's tax plan would be another big give away to the wealthy and make inequality worse. Trump's idea for fixing the corruption of money in politics is to have billionaires self-finance campaigns for the White House. Sanders wants to overturn Citizens United. Sorry Mr. Edsall but you've got it wrong.
3
Here's another common value: the rejection of our current system of campaign financing. Both candidates are seen as having honesty and integrity because they don't take money from the big PACs.
I hope both parties are paying attention to this problem of campaign financing. The courts seem to have no problem with the corruption engendered here, because they say money = speech.
People on both sides of the aisle reject this belief and the system.
I hope both parties are paying attention to this problem of campaign financing. The courts seem to have no problem with the corruption engendered here, because they say money = speech.
People on both sides of the aisle reject this belief and the system.
My few psychology classes in the 1960s are inadequate to diagnose Mr. Trump, but if he truly thinks everything is about him -- they love me in Mexico! -- then his delusions are disqualifying. Let's hope the electors haven't lost their nerve.
1
the people supporting sanders have either forgotten or have never know the long history of failure of socialist (even democratic ones) governments. Clinton instead of pointing out how impossible it would be for sanders to accomplish his socialist agenda should be pointing out what would happen if he succeeded in implementing it. in Denmark for instance its true that a college education is free, but only for those that pass very restrictive tests. for the rest is high school graduation and then a job. if you aren't authorized to go to university you have to go to America to get a college education. In England the was a doctor's strike for higher wages. the government forced the doctors back to work with no pay raise. that's the way they hold down costs over there by controlling the wages of doctors, prices for medical services and drugs, and who can get what treatment and when. the average unemployment rate in Europe is around 10 percent in many countries the unemployment rate for college grads is over 15 percent compared to about 2.5 percent in the US. in conclusion I voted twice for President Obama and would do so again, but I will never vote for sanders and im guessing I am not alone in that.
2
A Sanders/Trump ticket, though at some level unimaginable, would probably do more to temper the madness of the spawn created by Citizens United than any other combination.
Between them these two guys draw a yuge amount of followers who, like the rest of us, are frustrated and to some degree fearful of the run of the mill, holier than thou, baloney filled, Bank rolled, candidates.
If nothing else it would show the rest of the world we still have a sense of humor.
Between them these two guys draw a yuge amount of followers who, like the rest of us, are frustrated and to some degree fearful of the run of the mill, holier than thou, baloney filled, Bank rolled, candidates.
If nothing else it would show the rest of the world we still have a sense of humor.
1
I am a Bernie man and Hillary supporter. Make common cause with Trump- bite your tongue sir! For me to join ranks with that crowd, the real estate mogul would have to retract and shut down all of his racist xenophobic statements. That is just a start. He could support Obama's constitutional duty to nominate and the Senate's duty to advise and consent on a Court nominee. After that he would have to demonstrate he understands and intends to do something about global warming. Don't worry he won't.
5
How could anyone be afraid of Bernie, except maybe the corporate and banking elite and the oil companies? What middle or working class person or small business owner would not benefit substantially from single-payer health insurance replacing their overpriced, high-deductible, complicated, anti-competitive, job destroying private insurance? Who in their right mind would protest actually getting something of real value to them and their families for the taxes they pay? Whereas Trump is promising nothing you can eat, wear, drive, or take to the bank, just a feeling of American greatness, Bernie is. At a price, sure, nothing is free but at a lower price and a fairer price than we're now paying, just like the rest of the civilized world who didn't run screaming in the streets when somebody yelled "Socialist!"
4
"the moral narratives that they believe in, about America, and how we got here, and what we must do to get out, are completely incompatible, except for a shared sense that the elites are corrupt."
Corrupt and/or incompetent elites are the only possible explanation for the persistence for decades of observable, negative trends which have reached such stark extremes that large majorities of polled Americans have said the country is on the wrong track every time the right/wrong track question has been asked for more than 12 years.
A properly functioning elite/establishment acts to keep socioeconomic conditions reasonably stable and improving. A huge share of America's elite has shown minuscule concern for "promoting the general welfare", to borrow from the Preamble of the Constitution.
The public has signaled for years its recognition of failed establishment performance; the elites haven't responded adequately; so a majority of the public is voting for serious change.
Corrupt and/or incompetent elites are the only possible explanation for the persistence for decades of observable, negative trends which have reached such stark extremes that large majorities of polled Americans have said the country is on the wrong track every time the right/wrong track question has been asked for more than 12 years.
A properly functioning elite/establishment acts to keep socioeconomic conditions reasonably stable and improving. A huge share of America's elite has shown minuscule concern for "promoting the general welfare", to borrow from the Preamble of the Constitution.
The public has signaled for years its recognition of failed establishment performance; the elites haven't responded adequately; so a majority of the public is voting for serious change.
1
The Democratic establishment lost its footing (the GOP controls more on the federal and state levels), and the GOP lost its mind.
It's very simple - Sander supporters believe their pain is the fruit of GOP-spawned inequality - this is especially true if you are a recent college grad after the great recession with debt and no decent job prospects. The Trump people blame Mexicans and want to punch someone in the face. One thing is true - both sides are hurting. Perhaps a massive Trump loss in the fall might just be the GOP catharsis needed to purge the GOP from its madness. Maybe the GOP might turn more kitchen table, less corporate board table. We shall see.
It's very simple - Sander supporters believe their pain is the fruit of GOP-spawned inequality - this is especially true if you are a recent college grad after the great recession with debt and no decent job prospects. The Trump people blame Mexicans and want to punch someone in the face. One thing is true - both sides are hurting. Perhaps a massive Trump loss in the fall might just be the GOP catharsis needed to purge the GOP from its madness. Maybe the GOP might turn more kitchen table, less corporate board table. We shall see.
2
This column answers the wrong question. Comparing the two is a false equivalence- Sanders' positions, whether you agree with them or not, are clearly stated, supported by evidence, and based in a coherent and cohesive set of ideas. For many establishment/moderate Republicans, Trump is a nightmare- an egotistical, shoot-from-the-hip loudmouth with neither a philosophical nor a moral compass. Sanders, on the other hand, is not far from an Eisenhower Republican. In the event of a Clinton/Trump contest, virtually no Sanders voters would vote for Trump. If they don't vote for Clinton, they'll most likely vote for the Green party's Jill Stein, another small-party progressive candidate, or stay home. The more pertinent question is: In the event of the nomination of Trump by the Republicans and Sanders by the Democrats, how many Republicans would vote for Sanders?
3
The thesis can not be serious. Bernie is a Socialist, but Trump harkens back to the Know-nothings from America's past. Common ground is a fiction. Though Bernie does adhere to a belief system and has for a very long time, Trump's stated values are du jour. He knows what angers a good part of the American population and panders to that anger. For example since many Americans fear illegal migrants, Trump will send all 11 million back to Mexico. The Know-nothing part of what he states, is a total lack of any idea of what is contained in Constitution or what the rule of law even means. He has no idea what America actually stands for. Bernie at least has an idea.
4
I have to admit that I'm surprised by the supporter's values charts. On the plus side, I'm a Clinton supporter...and I line up pretty well with her supporters on 3 out 4 graphs. My second choice would be Sanders, but I line up with Trump's supporters better than Sanders supporters!!! I didn't see that coming...but I've been wondering why Sanders supporters are so anti-Hillary. Sanders supporters are much angrier than I am, and so, are more radical. Sanders supports are also more socialist than I am. As for Trump supporters, I'm sure the devil is in the details as far as any level of agreement I have with them. We may score at similar levels, but reach that value by adding up different components for each of the 4 categories.
A final point to remember...the candidate may not be a perfect match for his/her supporters...but the supporters have no one better and are hoping to pull their candidate over to their point of view.
A final point to remember...the candidate may not be a perfect match for his/her supporters...but the supporters have no one better and are hoping to pull their candidate over to their point of view.
4
Another ridiculous lumping of Sander together with Trump. Does the NYT think that the people who would read these editorials would be that stupid to entertain such drivel. There is not one similarity between the two, except they are both running for President. This is just the constant effort to discredit Sanders. By the way, I have noticed that the NYT has written a couple of articles emphasizing that Sanders is Jewish. Now I am sure that the NYT would not be doing this with any malicious intent and we will be seeing articles emphasizing Hillary's and Trumps religious affiliations in the near future as well.
5
Great analysis of opinions. But some more subtle rebellions may be what the people really need. For Hillary Clinton there is the rise of women.
Unfortunately, Hillary has not yet found a way to push herself to the max, as the first woman to make it to the White House. I suggest that she work on this, maybe with a symbol, like a "W" (Two "V" signs with both hands, together).
A woman in the White House would be a constant reminder of hope for all women and all men to rise up. This might stimulate our stagnant economy with hope for years to come
The people are looking for candidates with CHUTZPAH. I hope that Hillary Clinton will find hers: W W W W W W W W W W W
Tump and Sanders have Chutzpah, and so far Hillary does not.
One step for (W)oman. One giant leap for (H)umankind?
==========================================
Unfortunately, Hillary has not yet found a way to push herself to the max, as the first woman to make it to the White House. I suggest that she work on this, maybe with a symbol, like a "W" (Two "V" signs with both hands, together).
A woman in the White House would be a constant reminder of hope for all women and all men to rise up. This might stimulate our stagnant economy with hope for years to come
The people are looking for candidates with CHUTZPAH. I hope that Hillary Clinton will find hers: W W W W W W W W W W W
Tump and Sanders have Chutzpah, and so far Hillary does not.
One step for (W)oman. One giant leap for (H)umankind?
==========================================
2
You do understand that even if Hillary loses to Bernie, Elizabeth Warren becomes the obvious heir apparent? In fact it's well know to those who followed such things that Bernie actually waited to declare until after Warren announced she would not run. He would not even be in this race if she were there.
3
An excellent article.
Here's another difference between the two candidates and their campaigns. Mr. Sanders calls upon the electorate to join in a political revolution to abruptly turn this country into a large version of Denmark (would that it were possible!). Explicit in his message is that everyone has to pitch in and force change upon Congress. Mr. Trump invites us to punch dissenters in the face and go back to whatever we were doing while he does the deals that will make America great again, details to be announced (and spun) at sometime in the future.
Oil and water, different planets, call it what you like, but I certainly cannot see supporters of these two candidates comprehending each other, let alone working together.
Here's another difference between the two candidates and their campaigns. Mr. Sanders calls upon the electorate to join in a political revolution to abruptly turn this country into a large version of Denmark (would that it were possible!). Explicit in his message is that everyone has to pitch in and force change upon Congress. Mr. Trump invites us to punch dissenters in the face and go back to whatever we were doing while he does the deals that will make America great again, details to be announced (and spun) at sometime in the future.
Oil and water, different planets, call it what you like, but I certainly cannot see supporters of these two candidates comprehending each other, let alone working together.
1
It's time to realize that Americans will never wake up. That's why we will be stuck with Billery, probably for eight years.
3
Many people are secretly supporting Sanders but don't want to be seen as backing someone who the establishment characterizes as a crackpot socialist, so they will keep it to themselves. The more he's attacked, the stronger and more silent the support. That's why the smart liberal media simply IGNORES him, i.e. the Bernie Blackout.
It's almost the same with Donald Trump. Many people support the billionaire Wharton School grad labeled a buffoon and fascist by the establishment, but who voters suspect is just a smart, irreverent guy thumbing his nose and giving the finger to the establishment - exactly as they'd do.
But there's a big difference between the two camps. While the media can ignore Sanders, they can't and won't ignore Trump because he brings in money through viewers, as Trump astutely pointed out to CNN regarding his appearance in the debates. Trump knows how capitalism works and he works it to his advantage.
Trump is already a winner in terms of the Trump brand and he may win the whole thing. If Hillary fails along the way to the general election, the Democrats and media will be left wishing they had given Bernie more attention.
The bottom line is that it's not the money that wins elections, it's the media exposure, especially unpaid that masquerades as news, i.e. debate coverage, endorsements, etc. and the favoritism which determines who gets what and why.
Thanks, NYT, for showing us exactly how that's works.
It's almost the same with Donald Trump. Many people support the billionaire Wharton School grad labeled a buffoon and fascist by the establishment, but who voters suspect is just a smart, irreverent guy thumbing his nose and giving the finger to the establishment - exactly as they'd do.
But there's a big difference between the two camps. While the media can ignore Sanders, they can't and won't ignore Trump because he brings in money through viewers, as Trump astutely pointed out to CNN regarding his appearance in the debates. Trump knows how capitalism works and he works it to his advantage.
Trump is already a winner in terms of the Trump brand and he may win the whole thing. If Hillary fails along the way to the general election, the Democrats and media will be left wishing they had given Bernie more attention.
The bottom line is that it's not the money that wins elections, it's the media exposure, especially unpaid that masquerades as news, i.e. debate coverage, endorsements, etc. and the favoritism which determines who gets what and why.
Thanks, NYT, for showing us exactly how that's works.
6
Complaints about congress’s inability to get things done could be more accurately diagnosed as frustration over the failure of the individual to have his or her voice heard. It may not be political outsiders we want so much as it is corporate outsiders. The popularity of two candidates from opposite ends of the political spectrum can be explained by the fact that neither one is dependent on corporate contributions. This appears to suggest that, regardless of which of the two were to be elected, power would be returned to the people.
Not so. Trump is a glaring example of the obscene wealth that can be cornered by someone who inherits privilege in a period when the regulatory climate rewards those with monopoly holdings, such as in real estate. Trump’s fortune is made on the backs of workers earning the lowest wages he can get away with paying them. Bernie Sanders's loyalty has always been with ordinary citizens and the problems that beset them. Before we can tackle any of the big problems facing our country, one important change must be made. We have to start by getting corporate money out of politics. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate with a proven track record in this area.
Not so. Trump is a glaring example of the obscene wealth that can be cornered by someone who inherits privilege in a period when the regulatory climate rewards those with monopoly holdings, such as in real estate. Trump’s fortune is made on the backs of workers earning the lowest wages he can get away with paying them. Bernie Sanders's loyalty has always been with ordinary citizens and the problems that beset them. Before we can tackle any of the big problems facing our country, one important change must be made. We have to start by getting corporate money out of politics. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate with a proven track record in this area.
1
Toxic Trump runs on a platform of hate, making any thoughts of a fantasy alliance with Sanders laughable and ridiculous.
8
Equating Trump's and Sander's campaigns, because they both have ant-establishment components, is similar to equating 12 midnight and 12 noon because both, on average, are equally far from the gray dawn .
Trump's agenda is an appeal to a benighted electorate while Sanders' is dependent on an enlightened one.
Trump's agenda is an appeal to a benighted electorate while Sanders' is dependent on an enlightened one.
9
In 1999, David Foster Wallace, writing about John McCain's campaign for the presidency, described an electorate "so paroxysmically thankful for a presidential candidate somewhat in the ballpark of a real human being." Which explains the attraction, and the overlap, of Trump and Sanders today.
3
The trade issues with Nafta and now TPP and how the candidates stand is crucially related to jobs, thus living standards, thus inequality. Where is the column on that?
Obama and the Dem party are pushing what will continue negative impacts on US jobs.
Obama and the Dem party are pushing what will continue negative impacts on US jobs.
4
The logic the author proposes goes something like this...
"Since the solution of the pain is fantasy-land therefore the pain does not exist."
The Trump supporters are saying that globalization is taking away our jobs and the countries resources are wasted and foreign wars and corporate/bank bailout but where is OUR support even basic healthcare.
Sanders supporters are saying that the global policeman maintains total 120K troops in Germany, Japan, S Korea so that they can save money for their defense and provide free higher education but WWII was 70yrs ago. Why can't we have free education.
These questions needs to be answered and not wished away as the author does.
"Since the solution of the pain is fantasy-land therefore the pain does not exist."
The Trump supporters are saying that globalization is taking away our jobs and the countries resources are wasted and foreign wars and corporate/bank bailout but where is OUR support even basic healthcare.
Sanders supporters are saying that the global policeman maintains total 120K troops in Germany, Japan, S Korea so that they can save money for their defense and provide free higher education but WWII was 70yrs ago. Why can't we have free education.
These questions needs to be answered and not wished away as the author does.
4
Our constitutional system is being stretched beyond its limits. The most basic built in checks and balances no longer work. The problem is with the party system and that is where the solution lies. We could never have an effective Constitutional Convention rewriting the rules because it would be stymied. The system has long relied on two parties working within established norms of behavior, as party leaders tack toward the fringes. The looming breakdown of the federal system, barring tweaks to the rules, begs for a union of the moderates into a centrist coalition. A majoritarian party would be allied with the left on some issues and the right on others.
The barrier is that it does not fit within the long term strategy of the Republican Party to succeed on its agenda at the state level, as approved, when challenged, by a Supreme Court dominated by Republicans.
But for the Republican strategy, the path to a new party system lies in a Presidential candidate who can win as an independent. The victory of that candidate will only come when voters are ready, which could happen in 2020 if the logjam continues in 2017 - 2020 with a Democratic President and Republican Congress. We can thank Donald Trump for showing us this scenario is possible , just not with him as the candidate. Unless this scenario develops, we could see even more severe fracturing of our political system.
http://whentacticsbecomepolicy.blogspot.com/
The barrier is that it does not fit within the long term strategy of the Republican Party to succeed on its agenda at the state level, as approved, when challenged, by a Supreme Court dominated by Republicans.
But for the Republican strategy, the path to a new party system lies in a Presidential candidate who can win as an independent. The victory of that candidate will only come when voters are ready, which could happen in 2020 if the logjam continues in 2017 - 2020 with a Democratic President and Republican Congress. We can thank Donald Trump for showing us this scenario is possible , just not with him as the candidate. Unless this scenario develops, we could see even more severe fracturing of our political system.
http://whentacticsbecomepolicy.blogspot.com/
Sounds like a recreation of the FDR New Deal coalition, minus the racism.
2
Both Sanders and Trump are appealing to the lower income voters. These voters are angry and bitter about their status in life. I think that the key criteria in both constituencies is that there has been a massive transfer of wealth between the middle class and the wealthy. Many middle class families have fallen into poverty as a result We were in a severe recession after the housing bubble collapsed and millions lost their jobs and their homes. Many people's jobs have been exported overseas and there is no job to replace it. They exhausted any savings and were forced to empty their 401K's just to survive financially. And those lucky ones that kept their jobs haven't gotten a decent raise in years although prices keep going up while the wealthy owners of production and finance have greedily kept the profits for themselves.
Given that scenario, I don't understand why the candidates are not beating the jobs drum. This country needs jobs. People need jobs to survive. The US needs to stop exporting our jobs overseas. No job is safe now days and no one is secure. Why are the candidates not talking about a jobs program, job training and stopping the drain of jobs being exported out of this country? Why is there not a ceiling on how much profit the 1% can take for themselves while denying their employees are raise? Why is that not the candidates number one priority in this election season?
Given that scenario, I don't understand why the candidates are not beating the jobs drum. This country needs jobs. People need jobs to survive. The US needs to stop exporting our jobs overseas. No job is safe now days and no one is secure. Why are the candidates not talking about a jobs program, job training and stopping the drain of jobs being exported out of this country? Why is there not a ceiling on how much profit the 1% can take for themselves while denying their employees are raise? Why is that not the candidates number one priority in this election season?
5
Frankly, during these campaigns, what have you been watching? The cornerstone of Sanders campaign has consistently been the idea of jobs, corralling Wall Street along with the massive inequality and the persistent unsavory growth of the the one percent.
2
I have watched almost all the Dem debates and town meetings. Sanders talks about free universal health care and free college education. He briefly mentions something similar to the WPA under FDR. But he doesn't say how he will get any of these bills passed under a Republican led Congress. In fact, he says that the people will have to lead a "Revolution" to change to a Dem led Congress. Good luck on that one with a Republican gerrymandered House for the next generation. Which Sanders fully knows since he's been a politician in Congress for the past twenty-five years.
Here's an "unimagined political system"--no parties. They are self-appointed interference between the People and their governance. Their funders got what they paid for. If you want a real representative democracy, please consider www.thefairelectionsfund.com. Is your government worth $7.00 a year to you?
If you like eminent domain vote for Donald Trump. He will take away you property and build an ugly hotel or golf course.
7
rich ny wasp repub candidate
vs
poor ny jewish dem candidate
its got mini-series written all over it
vs
poor ny jewish dem candidate
its got mini-series written all over it
5
So which side is the "Force" on? The universe loves both the rich guy and the poor guy equally. Its upto them to make peace on earth.
1
Sanders talks about problems, Trump solves problems. That's all you need to know.
1
Actually, I "need to know" just exactly what these "problems" are that Trump solves, how any of them are remotely similar to the issues a president faces. Sincerely, I don't know what you mean.
3
Yep, Trump solves the problems, especially jobs, by having his clothing line manufactured in Bangladesh and China.
1
Sanders = ineffective 40-year career politician. No meaningful legislation passed.
Trump = successful (non-Wall Street) businessman. Employed thousands of union workers, many of whom were minorities.
One has a history of accomplishments, one has none. Who would you want negotiating with Putin. Sadly, I probably know the answer.
Trump = successful (non-Wall Street) businessman. Employed thousands of union workers, many of whom were minorities.
One has a history of accomplishments, one has none. Who would you want negotiating with Putin. Sadly, I probably know the answer.
1
Can you imagine Bernie saying that he'd like to punch a protester in the face?
2
I cannot, as the Bernie Sanders I see and read about is a thoroughly decent man.
His supporters, however, seem delighted to (verbally) punch his Democratic opponent in the face all the live-long day.
His supporters, however, seem delighted to (verbally) punch his Democratic opponent in the face all the live-long day.
What a lousy bunch of stats in the chart! Everybody is within a standard deviation /- of the mean. Which is what you'd expect if took a random sample!
Where’s a column on the crucialdifferences between Sanders and Trump, Mr. Edsall?
You can’t fuse what’s basically incompatible. Right wing, no matter how they portray it, boils down to a Might Makes Right philosophy. It’s based on the superiority of a small group of elites calling the shots for the rest. It’s the opposite of the original American ideal and that of the modern European Union.
What’s called Left Wing in the US is extending rights and economic equality to the many. It’s the opposite of consolidating power/wealth at the top.
It was once realized better in our past generations. It’s better realized in most other social democracies with basic citizen protections in h/c, education, retirement, worker rights, and public safety from guns—but it’s been increasingly out of reach for Americans, land of the Bill of Rights, and once home to the most secure middle class in the world.
Obviously, Sanders doesn’t try to magnify and utilize aggressive hostility to the ‘other’. That’s the usual technique of dictators to be---in any country, including America the Beautiful.
You can’t fuse what’s basically incompatible. Right wing, no matter how they portray it, boils down to a Might Makes Right philosophy. It’s based on the superiority of a small group of elites calling the shots for the rest. It’s the opposite of the original American ideal and that of the modern European Union.
What’s called Left Wing in the US is extending rights and economic equality to the many. It’s the opposite of consolidating power/wealth at the top.
It was once realized better in our past generations. It’s better realized in most other social democracies with basic citizen protections in h/c, education, retirement, worker rights, and public safety from guns—but it’s been increasingly out of reach for Americans, land of the Bill of Rights, and once home to the most secure middle class in the world.
Obviously, Sanders doesn’t try to magnify and utilize aggressive hostility to the ‘other’. That’s the usual technique of dictators to be---in any country, including America the Beautiful.
3
Now that is scary thought, looks to me Trump is on his way to win the nomination and when people are talking more of Sander`s hair than Hillary Clinton`s that adds more to it.
Sanders appears to be a good man and fantasizing for a revolution and how he is going to achieve that with Republican congress ? Now this Bernie cult factor of being a political Guru is bringing this election to a ridiculous level.
Mr. Sanders have passed his momentum with Nevada loss it is Hillary`s time now.
Sanders appears to be a good man and fantasizing for a revolution and how he is going to achieve that with Republican congress ? Now this Bernie cult factor of being a political Guru is bringing this election to a ridiculous level.
Mr. Sanders have passed his momentum with Nevada loss it is Hillary`s time now.
2
Facts: B S is a communist who does not believe in God and who happens to be Jewish but doesn't like to talk about it because frankly he is simply not religious. D T is a billionaire able to fund his own candidacy and is anti government yet wants to be President. Neither of these candidates would make a good President. Thus HRC is an excellent candidate who will be the best President and will beat them both.
1
Oh my, I hope you base choosing our next commander in chief on more than just this superficial analysis.
1
IF HRC and Trump are the candidates, liberals will lose their opportunity for at least another generation to move America forward. It's now or never unless slow, incremental change is what Americans want.
5
Its like the civil rights movement making common cause with the KKK. "Its racism stupid!"
3
MOCK ON MOCK ON The Donald and Sanders. You mock in vain. You throw the sand against the wind that blows it back again. So far this campaign season has been about nothing so much as the ineffable quantities of overheated hot air. Still, nobody has really climbed to the top of the heap without sliding down again. There are those, nonetheless, who believe that Trump is a RINO (Republican In Name Only), a Democrat in sheep's clothing. But would that make Bernie the Big Bad Wolf? Will he huff and puff and bring the house down? Or climb down the chimney and end up in hot soup? Since both of these guys are making such vastly unattainable claims, on some level it makes them fit to run as a team. Would Trump really show his true color of red; or is he true blue? Whatever the case, they would be the Dream Team of overblown blowhards blowing hot air about unreachable goals. They could get a kind of rhythm going you know. Donald with his denunciations of his opponent's facts. And Bernie with his claim, That's wrong! One thing I could fairly well guarantee is that Bernie would NEVER insult the Pope, as he seems to have a vanishingly small interest in religion. Trump called the Pope a name, then said he was a good guy the next day. Talk about changing colors! I think it's a tittilating notion, the two guys with the weird hair ending up as the dream team! But the dream team where? Not 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! Or maybe voters would cast their ballots for both parties?!?
1
I wonder what this might have read like had the two candidates been other people. I know, quite rhetorical, but.....
If T rump were a serious political candidate, instead of a carnival barker, with some policy triumphs behind him we might be talking about a different breed of supporter, but his supporters remind me of the kind of people who have probably made the "Jackass" movies so big.
Since Sanders' message is one of inclusion, except for the billionaires, I am heartened by your figures showing Sanders getting 8-9% more crossover appeal.
Maybe enough Americans are waking up to our realities and will actually effect the revolution Bernie is trying to incite. Millions of voters participating in democracy is exactly what the koch bothers don't want.
If T rump were a serious political candidate, instead of a carnival barker, with some policy triumphs behind him we might be talking about a different breed of supporter, but his supporters remind me of the kind of people who have probably made the "Jackass" movies so big.
Since Sanders' message is one of inclusion, except for the billionaires, I am heartened by your figures showing Sanders getting 8-9% more crossover appeal.
Maybe enough Americans are waking up to our realities and will actually effect the revolution Bernie is trying to incite. Millions of voters participating in democracy is exactly what the koch bothers don't want.
4
I actually had a similar thought. You could almost write the same thing saying that communist Stalin and fascist Hitler could form an alliance, and that they are the same because both were dictators/tyrants. They actually did, of course, but it didn't hold together so well ...
Excellent column as you point out Both are similar in venting and exploiting peoples vulnerabilities.
So there is no conspiracy as Sander`s so called cult supporters accuse Hillary`s supporters and NYT of . The math is simple Hillary is winning the States as it was predicted and Mr. Sanders is putting up a strong fight .
Yes I am for Hillary from the beginning because she has the strength and experience of the world and home states to be our President.
She happens to be a woman , oh by they way there is nothing wrong wanting to have a Woman as our President.
USA is falling far behind to most of the Countries they call as Third World.
So there is no conspiracy as Sander`s so called cult supporters accuse Hillary`s supporters and NYT of . The math is simple Hillary is winning the States as it was predicted and Mr. Sanders is putting up a strong fight .
Yes I am for Hillary from the beginning because she has the strength and experience of the world and home states to be our President.
She happens to be a woman , oh by they way there is nothing wrong wanting to have a Woman as our President.
USA is falling far behind to most of the Countries they call as Third World.
6
Hmmm...Trump professes nationalism. Trump supports some of the key social programs, aka, socialism. Swap out the Jewish people and swap in Mexican folks and Muslims. What have we here? I'll let you decide.
2
The NY Times is shameless.
Its second prominent story today, front page, above the fold, after the Trump win, in Nevada, is how Bernie Sanders does not like to acknowledge his Jewishness ..., and of course no comments permitted.
Bernie is a man of the people, a non-practicing Jew, who was born into a Jewish family, just as any Christian, or any Muslin, or anyone else, is born into any faith.
This is yet another attempt to malign Mr. Sanders, directed at two groups, Jews and hard core Midwestern Christians, who historically dislike Jews.
The Times has thrown all caution to the wind, in its relentless effort to see that Hillary is crowed the first Queen of the United States, ensuring that the status quo will stay the same and that the Trans Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP) will be ratified, sending the last few manufacturing jobs left in our nation, overseas, gone forever.
So far, both parties have destroyed our way of life, they spent four decades doing it, and they have no intention of letting "we the very stupid, blind foolish people", interfere with their plans.
Hopefully we are awake, and will show them how a Sanders Presidency will end their dream of furthering the nightmare they have made of our lives.
Its second prominent story today, front page, above the fold, after the Trump win, in Nevada, is how Bernie Sanders does not like to acknowledge his Jewishness ..., and of course no comments permitted.
Bernie is a man of the people, a non-practicing Jew, who was born into a Jewish family, just as any Christian, or any Muslin, or anyone else, is born into any faith.
This is yet another attempt to malign Mr. Sanders, directed at two groups, Jews and hard core Midwestern Christians, who historically dislike Jews.
The Times has thrown all caution to the wind, in its relentless effort to see that Hillary is crowed the first Queen of the United States, ensuring that the status quo will stay the same and that the Trans Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP) will be ratified, sending the last few manufacturing jobs left in our nation, overseas, gone forever.
So far, both parties have destroyed our way of life, they spent four decades doing it, and they have no intention of letting "we the very stupid, blind foolish people", interfere with their plans.
Hopefully we are awake, and will show them how a Sanders Presidency will end their dream of furthering the nightmare they have made of our lives.
21
Could you PULEEZE not engage in this whiney "Everybody hates me, nobody loves me, I'll go vote Trump" drivel?
Look, it's politics. Your guy must take his shots too. This is entirely tasteful compared to the relentless Hillary-hate you BernieBros parrot from the Republicans.
Look, it's politics. Your guy must take his shots too. This is entirely tasteful compared to the relentless Hillary-hate you BernieBros parrot from the Republicans.
9
And everyone who takes a shot gets to respond to it. Could *you* practice what you preach and not whine about that?
2
Donald Trump the "Populist" is an absurd fiction perpetrated on us by a journalistic society that has long ago forgotten how to evaluate political movements. He's as "populist" as a carnival room full of mirrors. He is the personification of Groucho Marx's phrase "Do you want to believe me or do you want to believe your own eyes." Enough said.
5
Trump accolades Putin and insults Pope Francis. He also does not like people who do challenge him.
Its not clear if he is scripting to pull in votes or whether his "left" stance is real. It feels though that his admiration of Putin is real.
Its not clear if he is scripting to pull in votes or whether his "left" stance is real. It feels though that his admiration of Putin is real.
1
Their supporters are alike too. Trump's believe he's going to build a magic wall protecting the U.S., and Sander's believe he's going to give every child a free pony. Just give your money to the one who shouts the loudest, and you too can fly to Never-Never land.
3
The Cato institute? Your data comes from the Cato Institute? Aren’t these the guys who blew their credibility by telling an NEA teachers conference in Indianapolis that if they wanted to see how education should work they should take a look at George Bush’s Texas?
As a socialist, I have passionate discussions with conservatives. Many I avoid because they are sometimes violent. Still others can be approached. I’ve spun their heads a few times with thought-provoking comments. For example, on abortion, I tell them that it’s a financial issue not a moral issue. If conservatives will pay for the child care, get the mother a job and education and support her, then who am I to say anything. But, if you want to tax me for your wars and your moral issues against children who get pregnant then I certainly have say it that. After that, I ask them if there are some things that we can agree on. Then, I ask them if they don’t see that these moral issues are side-tracks meant to divide us: progressive and conservative. I think things aren’t as cut and dried as Cato would have you believe, especially among the young.
As a socialist, I have passionate discussions with conservatives. Many I avoid because they are sometimes violent. Still others can be approached. I’ve spun their heads a few times with thought-provoking comments. For example, on abortion, I tell them that it’s a financial issue not a moral issue. If conservatives will pay for the child care, get the mother a job and education and support her, then who am I to say anything. But, if you want to tax me for your wars and your moral issues against children who get pregnant then I certainly have say it that. After that, I ask them if there are some things that we can agree on. Then, I ask them if they don’t see that these moral issues are side-tracks meant to divide us: progressive and conservative. I think things aren’t as cut and dried as Cato would have you believe, especially among the young.
7
IMHO, the difference between Sanders and Trump is that one (guess who) knows whose boot is on his neck. The other, in the true ignorance of bullies, picks on those with no power.
Would that the American public had the wisdom to know smart from wrong.
I am increasingly drawn to thoughts of Germany between the two world wars. Is this how Hitler came into power?
Would that the American public had the wisdom to know smart from wrong.
I am increasingly drawn to thoughts of Germany between the two world wars. Is this how Hitler came into power?
4
But only one of them has the boot on their neck. the other actually owns a lot of pairs of those boots.
Tautology, or begging the question,, pure and simple. Corporate media champions certain memes, conducts polls that says people by and large believe those memes and present that as evidence the memes are true. Sheesh.
11
Oil and water? Heck, I'd say it's more like snake oil and the water of life.
3
The issue here is solidarity of American Christians. You can call them evangelicals, conservatives, liberals, democrats or republicans....but they will remain American Christians. Deal with that.
First, the word is American Christians...and not evangelicals.
Second, most Americans of Hispanic extraction are not in favor of killing, butchering illegal Mexicans, they are Catholics and will vote for a president who will defend the American Christian churches. Blacks have had no relief with bozo (barack hussein obama) warming his buns in the oval office for eight years and are still looking for someone to help them with their plight of injustice, bigotry and racism. Someone who will change their existence as second class American citizens.
Third, the population of the U.S. is a little over 300 million, population of humans on earth is over 7.4 billion of which 1.2 billion are Catholics opposed to homosexuality. There are also 1.3 billion Chinese which do not recognize same-sex marriage nor homosexual civil unions, Islam religion has 1.62 billion members comprised primarily of Muslim believers who do not condone homosexuality, communist countries also do not condone homosexuality. Power and control over 7.4 billion humans on earth is impossible. Deal with that.
First, the word is American Christians...and not evangelicals.
Second, most Americans of Hispanic extraction are not in favor of killing, butchering illegal Mexicans, they are Catholics and will vote for a president who will defend the American Christian churches. Blacks have had no relief with bozo (barack hussein obama) warming his buns in the oval office for eight years and are still looking for someone to help them with their plight of injustice, bigotry and racism. Someone who will change their existence as second class American citizens.
Third, the population of the U.S. is a little over 300 million, population of humans on earth is over 7.4 billion of which 1.2 billion are Catholics opposed to homosexuality. There are also 1.3 billion Chinese which do not recognize same-sex marriage nor homosexual civil unions, Islam religion has 1.62 billion members comprised primarily of Muslim believers who do not condone homosexuality, communist countries also do not condone homosexuality. Power and control over 7.4 billion humans on earth is impossible. Deal with that.
I find it rather humorous that while Trump continually espouses his Make America Great Again mantra and we must deal with and punish the Chinese, he has a clothing line in which the products he sells are manufactured in Bangladesh and China. What a guy.
9
I am grateful for your consistently informed and thoughtful articles. When Haidt first presented his moral reasoning analysis I found it persuasive. But in the current environment it should perhaps be supplemented by looking at how people think about adhering to the rule of law, cruelty, truthfulness, self-promotion, and social inconsiderateness. In other words, I think Haidt's 6 values are too limited for a truly useful set of predictions.
1
If Republicans win in November, you can be sure that the next Supreme Court nominee will be more like Scalia or even Thomas than a centrist. Say goodbye to security of your iPhone data, to abortion rights even in the case of rape or incest, to immigration of any Hispanics except those from Cuba or anyone not on an H1B visa (thus your job may well be gone). Say hello to increased airport searches of all including your senile grandmother, 1984-style surveillance in your own home, the thought police.
It will not be pretty. Trump is the leader now. Do you know anything about him and his propensity to stiff his creditors?
Think carefully before you vote and don't just go for the glitzy surface presentation.
It will not be pretty. Trump is the leader now. Do you know anything about him and his propensity to stiff his creditors?
Think carefully before you vote and don't just go for the glitzy surface presentation.
6
Actually Hillary is just as likely to sell out on privacy as any republican. After doing her usual careful polling to decide what she believes, a couple years ago she belatedly called Snowden a traitor and said there was nothing wrong with what the NSA had been doing.
2
The populist message is simple and economic. The less than wealthy are getting shafted. That's the commonality between left and right populists. They respond to different proposals (i.e. Donald and Bernie) to assuage their frustration but the cause is the same; a smaller piece of the pie.
The establishments; political, financial and social (which often overlap) have control and aren't going to give up easily. They will lie and distort reality; finance causes that feed their coffers and/or support their agendas; and whip up the fervor of the masses - both religious and secular to keep the status quo in their favor.
Nobody likes to relinquish power.
The establishments; political, financial and social (which often overlap) have control and aren't going to give up easily. They will lie and distort reality; finance causes that feed their coffers and/or support their agendas; and whip up the fervor of the masses - both religious and secular to keep the status quo in their favor.
Nobody likes to relinquish power.
2
It's an interesting and provocative analysis, but it gives far too much credit for the underlying basis of the wild support for Trump. What exactly are Trump supporters angry about? And does an angry middle class white citizen really understand what Trump stands for, and thus how he will fix his problems? The bar graphs are telling; Trump falls in the middle of all four categories. He doesn't stand out on any particular issue. He's angry, about what I'm not sure, and his anger resonates at a visceral - not cognitive - sense with other angry people. The establishment of the Republican seems to detest Trump. And they are in control of the Senate and the House. If people fed up with Washington want change in this country that will improve their lives, don't elect a guy who, like Obama, is hated by the Republicans in power. That latter group isn't going away soon and will do everything in their power to squash Trump's promises of making "American great again."
2
The thing is, on very practical terms, if Sanders were elected, he would have to become a benign dictator in order to implement the changes that he wants to see. If Trump were elected, he would also have to become a dictator (probably a tad more malignant) in order to implement the changes that he wants to see. If Clinton were elected, she would follow the Constitution with regards to Presidential power. If Cruz or Rubio were elected, I am afraid that we would see much more of the Christian Taliban and an undoing of much of the progress that we have made over the past sixty years. What's the answer? Well, my heart is still with Bernie because I think that he would still serve in the best interests of the vast majority of the American people whether he had to become a benign dictator or not. I can't say that about the other candidates.
2
Our system prevents any President from becoming a dictator, benign or otherwise.
"One of the great liabilities of history is that all too many people fail to remain awake through great periods of social change. Every society has its protectors of status quo and its fraternities of the indifferent who are notorious for sleeping through revolutions. Today, our very survival depends on our ability to stay awake, to adjust to new ideas, to remain vigilant and to face the challenge of change." –- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please don't sleep through the political revolution. Stay wide awake and support/vote for Senator Sanders.
Please don't sleep through the political revolution. Stay wide awake and support/vote for Senator Sanders.
3
"Jill Lepore, a professor of American history at Harvard, writing in the Feb. 22 issue of The New Yorker, also describes the similarity of the Trump and Sanders campaigns:
The people who turn up at Sanders and Trump rallies are wed, across the aisle, in bonds of populist unrest. They’re revolting against party elites, and especially against the all-in-the-family candidates anointed by the Democratic and the Republican leadership: Clinton and Bush, the wife and brother of past party leaders."
And that one excerpt tells the entire story.
In the final analysis, if it comes down to Sanders or Trump, Americans will never elect a bigot, an avowed racist, a man who delights in insulting whomever does not agree with him.
This is not a reality show; this is the life and times, of Americans, each and every day, and Americans can tell the difference, and they will.
Mr. Bernie Sanders, the refreshing cleansing breeze from the mountains of Vermont, by way of Brooklyn, will set America back on the tracks.
The people who turn up at Sanders and Trump rallies are wed, across the aisle, in bonds of populist unrest. They’re revolting against party elites, and especially against the all-in-the-family candidates anointed by the Democratic and the Republican leadership: Clinton and Bush, the wife and brother of past party leaders."
And that one excerpt tells the entire story.
In the final analysis, if it comes down to Sanders or Trump, Americans will never elect a bigot, an avowed racist, a man who delights in insulting whomever does not agree with him.
This is not a reality show; this is the life and times, of Americans, each and every day, and Americans can tell the difference, and they will.
Mr. Bernie Sanders, the refreshing cleansing breeze from the mountains of Vermont, by way of Brooklyn, will set America back on the tracks.
6
Would be nice if we could finally put to rest the extra-Constitutional party system as it currently stands. It has little to do with representation and a lot to do with power cultivation.
1
"Both ... are convinced that politicians in Washington have sold out to powerful interests that contribute huge sums to campaigns."
I would not say 'sold out' but it is clear that politicians who hope to be re-elected need a lot of money and that most of it comes from the wealthy, corporations and lobbyists. The result of this is that out of self-interest politicians are sensitive to the desires of this group and tend to produce the legislation that this group wants. I would be surprised to see legislation that most of the population favors but is opposed by this group pass.
This appears to be a uniquely American issue. Somehow the rest of us have avoided it -- so far.
I would not say 'sold out' but it is clear that politicians who hope to be re-elected need a lot of money and that most of it comes from the wealthy, corporations and lobbyists. The result of this is that out of self-interest politicians are sensitive to the desires of this group and tend to produce the legislation that this group wants. I would be surprised to see legislation that most of the population favors but is opposed by this group pass.
This appears to be a uniquely American issue. Somehow the rest of us have avoided it -- so far.
1
Sir: You are creating similarities where they are none. Your motivation is obvious. By equating a thoughtful, experienced politician who deeply cares about the future of the United States as an egalitarian, democratic, healthy and happy society with a crazed weirdo that any sane person would want nothing to do with you are insulting my intelligence. Bernie Sanders follows a tradition that is exemplified by the late John Rawls and his immortal Theory of Justice. You should read it if you have not in the past. Rawls describes a society where everyone goes to bed without now knowing who they will wake up as and allocates resources accordingly. In such a society the welfare of the least fortunate is maximized as it should be, This is not fantasy. Universal healthcare, free public education from Kindergarten through a doctoral degree, paid sick leave, decent minimum wages for working people, tax fairness all have been achieved to a large degree in countries like Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and Norway. Please be a mensch and think again before equation Trump with Sanders.
1
Sir: You are creating similarities where they are none. Your motivation is obvious. By equating a thoughtful, experienced politician who deeply cares about the future of the United States as an egalitarian, democratic, healthy and happy society with Trumpolino that any sane person would want nothing to do with you are insulting my intelligence. Bernie Sanders follows a tradition that is exemplified by the late John Rawls and his immortal Theory of Justice. You should read it if you have not in the past. Rawls describes a society where everyone goes to bed without now knowing who they will wake up as and allocates resources accordingly. In such a society the welfare of the least fortunate is maximized as it should be, This is not fantasy. Universal healthcare, free public education from Kindergarten through a doctoral degree, paid sick leave, decent minimum wages for working people, tax fairness all have been achieved to a large degree in countries like Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and Norway. Please be a mensch and think again before equation Trump with Sanders.
8
At this point one should start to wonder about many things. And Mr. Trump's ascendancy in the national polls is one of them. For a Presidential candidate that no one took seriously at first, and wrote off as merely a publicity heat-seeking-missile, Mr. Trump appears to be having the last laugh. But at our cost.
On the other hand, there is Mr. Sanders. With his dreams of egalitarian social responsibility, which stand diametrically opposed to the elite capitalist engines that drive this country and benefit only a few at the top, his message is certainly better than that of praising corporate greed. But it would be far more effective, if it didn't have to cut through so many layers of anger.
Are they on the same page? No way. Not even in the same book! Will it come to a showdown between these two? Hard to say. But a televised debate would definitely kill in the ratings.
On the other hand, there is Mr. Sanders. With his dreams of egalitarian social responsibility, which stand diametrically opposed to the elite capitalist engines that drive this country and benefit only a few at the top, his message is certainly better than that of praising corporate greed. But it would be far more effective, if it didn't have to cut through so many layers of anger.
Are they on the same page? No way. Not even in the same book! Will it come to a showdown between these two? Hard to say. But a televised debate would definitely kill in the ratings.
2
"Or will the two parties be supplanted by an as yet unimagined political system?"
We will have two major parties as long as we have our system of checks and balances and tripartite government. A multiple party system begs for a parliamentary government, which we are nowhere near having, regardless of ideological trends. Third parties and insurgencies appear from time to time, but serve mainly to push one of the major parties in a certain direction. What the parties will look like, and perhaps their names, may be up for grabs.
We will have two major parties as long as we have our system of checks and balances and tripartite government. A multiple party system begs for a parliamentary government, which we are nowhere near having, regardless of ideological trends. Third parties and insurgencies appear from time to time, but serve mainly to push one of the major parties in a certain direction. What the parties will look like, and perhaps their names, may be up for grabs.
Listen. There is simply no way any Democrat or progressive or socialist will support a bigoted, racist, xenophobic candidate who deliberately stokes violent rhetoric, whose rallies resemble something out of 1930's Germany, who attacks women, entire religious groups and nationalities.
I'm amazed that people try to find similarities between Trump and Sanders.
Sanders is well within the respectable range in modern political philosophy, including New Deal Democrats and representative even of centrists and all but very far right wing conservatives in Europe, who take the welfare state and reasonable rates of taxation for granted, and who all support the idea of science and who are working to combat climate change.
Trump is something else again. He's stirring up something implicitly violent within his constituents. He's promising torture, war, discrimination, expulsion of millions of people, denying refuge to desperate people.
Please, let's have some honesty in the discourse here. If the New York Times can't speak plainly and truthfully who can.
The GOP has been flirting with far right wingers, racists, white supremacists and religious bigots for decades and now they're seeing the fruits of the labors.
Let's pray this awfulness is soundly rejected by the American people in November.
But let's remember it's there, and it's dangerous.
I'm amazed that people try to find similarities between Trump and Sanders.
Sanders is well within the respectable range in modern political philosophy, including New Deal Democrats and representative even of centrists and all but very far right wing conservatives in Europe, who take the welfare state and reasonable rates of taxation for granted, and who all support the idea of science and who are working to combat climate change.
Trump is something else again. He's stirring up something implicitly violent within his constituents. He's promising torture, war, discrimination, expulsion of millions of people, denying refuge to desperate people.
Please, let's have some honesty in the discourse here. If the New York Times can't speak plainly and truthfully who can.
The GOP has been flirting with far right wingers, racists, white supremacists and religious bigots for decades and now they're seeing the fruits of the labors.
Let's pray this awfulness is soundly rejected by the American people in November.
But let's remember it's there, and it's dangerous.
5
You are wrong. The reason I would vote Trump over Clinton if the DNC is successful in pushing her on is is that I think our government is dysfunctional at best, but more like a cancer at the moment; so if we cant have the peaceful betterment of Sanders, then the other option is the violent ripping out of parts of the establishment, and I am sure I can count on Trump to do at least some of that.
1
@Hardley, I'm sure Bernie would be proud.
It would have to be a Trump-Sanders ticket, because Mr. Trump would never accept second billing. And, Mr. Trump is definitely bringing the larger crowds out to vote.
Other than free floating anger at the Establishment and the preference for simple answers in a complex world, the supporters of the two don't have much in common. One group looks to a strong leader with Libertarian leanings for the solution, the other looks to a Utopian state.
I would love to see a few townhall sessions between the two. It would be a contest to see who could be the angriest. More than likely the sessions would devolve into chaos with fights breaking out between the two groups.
Other than free floating anger at the Establishment and the preference for simple answers in a complex world, the supporters of the two don't have much in common. One group looks to a strong leader with Libertarian leanings for the solution, the other looks to a Utopian state.
I would love to see a few townhall sessions between the two. It would be a contest to see who could be the angriest. More than likely the sessions would devolve into chaos with fights breaking out between the two groups.
4
I believe that some Sanders and Trump voters are more alike than they wish to admit. I think many Sanders voters would be appalled to be lumped together with the openly prejudiced, President Obama-hating, "go back where you came from" Trump folks who are so visible and prominent.
But when you hear those Sanders voters in person - again, some, not all - or read their comments, the prejudice slowly seeps out - and I don't think they even notice it. But I do. And I always remember what the fictional Major Bunny Colvin of the Baltimore Police said to Mayor Tommy Carcetti on "The Wire" (I had to look up the exact quote on YouTube, from the episode "Middle Ground", but it's always stayed with me). Colvin was showing Carcetti around a neighborhood and pointed out a funeral home that had traditionally served only white Baltimore residents, until they moved away:
Colvin: Somebody asked old man Stryker - they say, Stryker, you gonna change your policy and start burying black folk? And Stryker said, yeah, on one condition - that I can do them all at once. (Laughs)
Carcetti: That's sick.
Colvin: But you know somethin'? I had a lot of respect for that man. Because unlike most folks (stares at Carcetti), I always knew where he stood.
I know where many of the Trump (and Cruz) voters stand, because they don't hide it. Some of the Sanders (and Rubio) people? I know where they stand, too. It just takes a little longer to find out.
But when you hear those Sanders voters in person - again, some, not all - or read their comments, the prejudice slowly seeps out - and I don't think they even notice it. But I do. And I always remember what the fictional Major Bunny Colvin of the Baltimore Police said to Mayor Tommy Carcetti on "The Wire" (I had to look up the exact quote on YouTube, from the episode "Middle Ground", but it's always stayed with me). Colvin was showing Carcetti around a neighborhood and pointed out a funeral home that had traditionally served only white Baltimore residents, until they moved away:
Colvin: Somebody asked old man Stryker - they say, Stryker, you gonna change your policy and start burying black folk? And Stryker said, yeah, on one condition - that I can do them all at once. (Laughs)
Carcetti: That's sick.
Colvin: But you know somethin'? I had a lot of respect for that man. Because unlike most folks (stares at Carcetti), I always knew where he stood.
I know where many of the Trump (and Cruz) voters stand, because they don't hide it. Some of the Sanders (and Rubio) people? I know where they stand, too. It just takes a little longer to find out.
14
As a Sanders supporter here, I'm wondering how you can know someone by the comments they post (anonymously) here and elsewhere. Among other reasons, the reason I support Sanders is because Hillary Clinton has done NOTHING to advance civil rights issues at all. Everyone talks about how much African Americans support here, but I think she makes appearances in church to get votes, then turns her back on causes important to people of color. Consider her outspoken support for welfare reform and increased prison sentences during the 1990's (sure, she was First Lady, but she didn't have to lobby Congress on these issues. Barbara Bush remained silent on issues she disagreed with her husband about). Consider too her support for the Iraq war, which disproportionately affects people of color because of their higher rates of service in the military at lower ranks than white people. Consider too her very, very friendly support of of banking deregulation and her extremely hawkish views on the Middle East, which, though not directly, do impact Muslims and other people from the Middle East who now live in the USA. Sanders policies and opinions differ from Clinton's on all these points, and are much more geared toward the concerns of those marginalized from society. He even got arrested to support civil rights. Clinton has done nothing of the sort, nor would she.
7
cjpBerkeley, CA,
Agree wholeheartedly with you.
Mr. Sanders is a gentleman, in every imaginable way, any applying the definition in a 21st. century world, with all of its ethnicities, and creeds.
A true representative of all of the people; I'm proud to call myself a supporter.
I never expected to see such a person appear in my lifetime; in fact I had given up hope.
Agree wholeheartedly with you.
Mr. Sanders is a gentleman, in every imaginable way, any applying the definition in a 21st. century world, with all of its ethnicities, and creeds.
A true representative of all of the people; I'm proud to call myself a supporter.
I never expected to see such a person appear in my lifetime; in fact I had given up hope.
4
Would you people stop equating Trump and Sanders? Sheesh. One is an egomaniac and one is a public servant who has dedicated his life to helping his constituents.
15
They won't.
The plan is to do whatever it takes to malign Bernie.
I love it, because every attempt to turn people off Bernie, is doing the opposite.
Keep it up, you incomprehensible elitists, at the Times.
Still, when Bernie wins, we will be forgiving.
The plan is to do whatever it takes to malign Bernie.
I love it, because every attempt to turn people off Bernie, is doing the opposite.
Keep it up, you incomprehensible elitists, at the Times.
Still, when Bernie wins, we will be forgiving.
1
The New Times and pundits have been a source of truth and sanity for many years but now they are showing their true colors in the face of losing the status quo. They were fine in throwing a few crums to the commons but equal opportunity and a fair shake not so much. You guys are getting pretty desperate in your disdain.
10
Hillary Clinton won this race the day that Bill Clinton agreed to campaign for Barack Obama back in 2008.
That was the beginning and the end. Hillary is owed two terms and she and Bill will have them.
That was the beginning and the end. Hillary is owed two terms and she and Bill will have them.
5
To sum up: Both are against the elites. Trump supporters are avowed racists. Sanders supporters aren't. A gulf too far to bridge.
6
Meh. Racism is secondary to economic issues for Trump's supporters. They may even have a clue that the racist dog whistles of the other Republican candidates are just that. If we had some economic security, no one among Trump's followers would really care what 'those people' get, or get away with.
And let's remember that Sanders isn't really a Democrat and Trump isn't really a Republican. In the Senate, Sanders has caucused with the Democrats, but he has always been fierce about his independence as a Democratic Socialist. Trump used to be professedly a Democrat, and on issues he's all over the place. Really, they are -- both of them -- Third Party candidates running under the banners of convenience of the two moribund traditional parties. How weirder than weird it would be if Bloomberg now gets in as one more hybrid third-party candidate.
10
I once had a boss, a self-proclaimed "small-town country boy from Ohio," who was enamored beyond words over Rudy Giuiliani. Being fron Connecticut, and getting my news out of New York, I was very quick to point out that he would change his tune, and in short order, if he (like the rest of the country, who didn't know "bupkis" about "America's Mayor," the way New Yorkers, and any regular viewer/listener of New York TV/radio coverage of the man (same for readers of all the NYC-based newspapers) did.
Much the same can be said about Donald Trump; the rest of the country is largely clueless about the man's bankruptcy declarations, lawsuits against him; his multiple divorces, and the glaring fact that he is not even close to being the kind of businessman he's cracked up to be.
Unless the media is waiting for him to be nominated, in which case either HRC or Sanders or the DNC, or some other group plans on springing in salvo, a barrage of attack ads pointing out these things, Trump supporters (in particular) are in for the rudest of awakenings if he wins in November.
Sure; they'll get what they deserve. But, the rest of the country will suffer worse than during Dubya's terms in office.
Much the same can be said about Donald Trump; the rest of the country is largely clueless about the man's bankruptcy declarations, lawsuits against him; his multiple divorces, and the glaring fact that he is not even close to being the kind of businessman he's cracked up to be.
Unless the media is waiting for him to be nominated, in which case either HRC or Sanders or the DNC, or some other group plans on springing in salvo, a barrage of attack ads pointing out these things, Trump supporters (in particular) are in for the rudest of awakenings if he wins in November.
Sure; they'll get what they deserve. But, the rest of the country will suffer worse than during Dubya's terms in office.
8
I was most struck by the values results, and where they place Trump's supporters within the Republican field. On Care and Proportionality, Cruz and Rubio's supporters hold more extreme views, while Bush supporters fall closer to the average, i.e. somewhere between Trump and the Democratic candidates. The situation is similar on the Authority dimension, with Bush supporters falling around the average, and between the rest of the Republicans and the Democrats (and the Libertarian wing of the Republican party). As Edsall notes, the Liberty dimension is the outliner. On this dimension all four of the leading Republican candidates fall between Sanders and Clinton, with Trump falling closest to Bush, Cruz most like Sanders, and Rubio closest to Clinton. The other thing to note is that on every dimension Bush is often the major Republican candidate that comes closest to Clinton.
What this suggests is two things. First, if there is an "establishment" Republican candidate still in the race, at least in terms of values (other than Kasich, whose supporters were not included in the results), it looks like that candidate is probably Trump rather than Cruz or Rubio. Second, if moderate Republicans are looking for a candidate remaining in the field (again, other than Kasich) that candidate is probably Clinton. They may not like it, and I'm sure Sanders supporters would suggest it makes Clinton the wrong choice for the Democratic party, but so it goes if voting mainly on values.
What this suggests is two things. First, if there is an "establishment" Republican candidate still in the race, at least in terms of values (other than Kasich, whose supporters were not included in the results), it looks like that candidate is probably Trump rather than Cruz or Rubio. Second, if moderate Republicans are looking for a candidate remaining in the field (again, other than Kasich) that candidate is probably Clinton. They may not like it, and I'm sure Sanders supporters would suggest it makes Clinton the wrong choice for the Democratic party, but so it goes if voting mainly on values.
5
How wrong you are.
You should define any values that Clinton holds, as applying entirely to her own lot in life, whereas Sanders thinks only of the values, the people hold dear, such being, life, liberty, love, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which have become impossible under the establishments long in-power Plutocrats, Clinton being the latest they hope to foist on us.
Sanders is our salvation, and the people know it.
You should define any values that Clinton holds, as applying entirely to her own lot in life, whereas Sanders thinks only of the values, the people hold dear, such being, life, liberty, love, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which have become impossible under the establishments long in-power Plutocrats, Clinton being the latest they hope to foist on us.
Sanders is our salvation, and the people know it.
1
I have no reason to believe Trump is a populist. He's just an opportunist. What has he ever done to improve the lives of average working Americans? Nothing. He has no history of public service.
18
Yah, Trump and Sanders are like peas in a pod. They are both older, straight, white men with funny hair. They both wave their arms when they speechify. They both have accents from some east coast place. They both want to sell you a great, big, pie in the sky.
But Bernie has a functioning brain that isn't focused on his own navel. He has decency, civility and decorum. He doesn't want to hit somebody in the face, doesn't revile everybody who isn't Trump, and he knows quite a bit about how government actually works.
Otherwise, they probably really are the same person. Have you ever seen then in the same room at the same time?
But Bernie has a functioning brain that isn't focused on his own navel. He has decency, civility and decorum. He doesn't want to hit somebody in the face, doesn't revile everybody who isn't Trump, and he knows quite a bit about how government actually works.
Otherwise, they probably really are the same person. Have you ever seen then in the same room at the same time?
12
i can't believe so much effort was expended to state the obvious: Trump voters and Sanders voters are much more different than alike.
10
Just because you identify (some of) the same problems doesn't mean you have the same solutions. You really have to hide yourself behind the Beltway and the Acela axis to not notice that Trump's supporters and their beliefs are a lot different than Sanders'. Trump's constituency is nativist and racist to the core; the anger is directed at the "others." The laziness of the media is so utterly obvious in Edsall and Lepore. Have they ever once in their lives left the East Coast except to maybe go skiing in Vail or some similar unreal place? Have they ever spoken to anyone who earns less than $100,000 a year and is not their housecleaner or landscapers? I highly doubt it. They are king and queen of false equivalence. They mystery to me is why anyone employs them.
7
More of the NY Times not-so-subtle attempts to create false equivalences and denigrate the only honest and sincere candidate in the current election cycle. It is getting quite tedious and boring. The only common ground between Sanders and Trump supporters: They all agree that it is long past time to throw the plutocrats out----including the New York Times' favored candidate.
14
Trump says, Just leave all our problems to me and I will take care of them. No fuss, or bothersome thinking needed.
He has declared himself the great father just as the actor, Reagan did. To evangelicals this is the normal way as they are used to giving up responsibility to some higher power. But to others drained by lower wages, joblessness and the struggle to keep their heads above water, the idea of some power crazed politician offering them sanctuary is appealing.
In some ways we were lucky with Reagan even though he set the conservative agenda as he was capable of compromise and working in government even with his antigovernment mindset. But are we willing to throw the dice with the demagogue Trump? to give up our power to someone so hateful? And the other Republicans are no better as they try to sell you snake oil.
Pleas Democrats. We need to realize how much better this country would be under either Bernie or Hillary even though you may support either one of the other of them right now.
He has declared himself the great father just as the actor, Reagan did. To evangelicals this is the normal way as they are used to giving up responsibility to some higher power. But to others drained by lower wages, joblessness and the struggle to keep their heads above water, the idea of some power crazed politician offering them sanctuary is appealing.
In some ways we were lucky with Reagan even though he set the conservative agenda as he was capable of compromise and working in government even with his antigovernment mindset. But are we willing to throw the dice with the demagogue Trump? to give up our power to someone so hateful? And the other Republicans are no better as they try to sell you snake oil.
Pleas Democrats. We need to realize how much better this country would be under either Bernie or Hillary even though you may support either one of the other of them right now.
6
In my opinion the only thing both candidats have in common is that I wouldn't vote for either of them.
3
It appears that the two party system has broken into 4.
1
' bout time.
Quinnipiac University has been polling for quite some time and the most recent polling shows Bernie doing very well with the national electorate- beating every Republican Candidate while Hillary lost to all. That was a national poll off Democrats, Independents and Republicans. It also includes Trump.
Donald Trump is trading on anger and fear and Bernie is trading in the hope and promise of an America that lives up to it's potential. The enthusiasm at a Sanders rally is not hatred of people or fear for tomorrow- it is a disgust at a rigged economy and a corrupt political system that is not responsive to the needs and desires of the American people. They are very different in more ways than you detail.
Bernie's message centers around three concepts:
Community- we are all in this together.
Equity- we should all get a fair shot.
Justice- we should all be equal before the law.
If you filter any issue through those three concepts you can see his platform.
For the life of me, I see no unifying theme in Trump's word salad diatribes.
Donald Trump is trading on anger and fear and Bernie is trading in the hope and promise of an America that lives up to it's potential. The enthusiasm at a Sanders rally is not hatred of people or fear for tomorrow- it is a disgust at a rigged economy and a corrupt political system that is not responsive to the needs and desires of the American people. They are very different in more ways than you detail.
Bernie's message centers around three concepts:
Community- we are all in this together.
Equity- we should all get a fair shot.
Justice- we should all be equal before the law.
If you filter any issue through those three concepts you can see his platform.
For the life of me, I see no unifying theme in Trump's word salad diatribes.
15
Mr. Edsall, you repeat an error that most of the media continue to make (heard it this morning on NPR, as well): that Cruz and Rubio are "Hispanic" and therefore will appeal to other "Hispanic" voters. Cruz and Rubio are CUBANS. The rest of the mostly mestizo Spanish-surnamed community do not really consider Cubans "one of them". Cubans are Iberian, they speak with a Castillian accent. Most of the early Cuban immigrants were upper class, or at least formerly wealthy. They got special help when they immigrated - late, by the standards of Mexican Americans, whose ancestors were landowners in what is now the southwestern US before there was an English-speaking colony anywhere in the eastern US. They are simply two different (too different?) groups.
96
More to the point, many of the Miami Cubans are Batistanos or their descendants. In fairness, some were real revolutionaries who left Cuba after Castro stole their revolution. But those were not a majority. As Batistanos, they were the beneficiaries of the old regime and often complicit in the injustices that brought about the Castro regime. We gave them special help just as we had helped Batista himself. They responded in many cases by assuming a position in our politics analogous to that of their former position in Cuba.
And even more: the Iberian/Castilian Batistanos were not representative of all of Cuba. In the years after the revolution, one could observe different accents and even skin tones between many groups of demonstrators in Miami versus Havana.
With the passage of generations, these things hare running out their course, much to the benefit of everyone: Cuba si, Castro no, Batista no!
And even more: the Iberian/Castilian Batistanos were not representative of all of Cuba. In the years after the revolution, one could observe different accents and even skin tones between many groups of demonstrators in Miami versus Havana.
With the passage of generations, these things hare running out their course, much to the benefit of everyone: Cuba si, Castro no, Batista no!
2
Agreed. Latino, yes; Hispanic, no. Latin America encompasses all of the countries who speak some form of Spanish. Hispanic refers specifically to Spain. Americans speak a form of English but are not called English. (Probably the Spaniards and the English shudder at the thought that people in the Americas are grouped in with them!)
3
While I would agree with your general point about Cubans having a distinct identity from most people who are labeled "Hispanic," I have never met a Cuban with "a Castillian accent," if what you mean are people who maintain the "theta" pronunciation of the letter Z. And Iberians are people from Spain or Portugal, not anywhere in the Americas.
I believe all human beings shared north of 98% of the same genetic code. Regardless of the similarity between the two candidates or how they are appealing to their base, the biggest difference between the two is that Bernie wants better for more people, whereas Trump promotes tribalism by peddling to people that they would be better off if only select club members were present and all others were kicked out.
3
For me, a Trump/Sanders ticket would be a match made in heaven, complete with all the inherent conflict and contrast and energy that keeps things in motion. Traditional of predictable - who cares about that stuff - other than those who wish to remain stuck in the same place for all eternity.
Now that Trump looks like the GOP nominee, it's absolutely critical that the Dems win the White House. The time for sentimentality and purity is fading quickly: the only candidate that can beat Trump and possibly bring a majority into the U.S. Senate is Hillary Clinton.
2
You are so wrong about that.
2
Based on this article, one might conclude that a Trump/Sanders or a Sanders /Trump ticket would be a winner in November. Yet, in my mind, Bernie has exactly diagnosed what ails American democracy and his response is not to appeal to fear and arrogance masquerading as strength but to appeal to courage and a greatly involved and informed electorate
6
Thought-provoking article. In truth, very little is new in either Trump or Sanders.
Populism arises from drive to create a new political party based upon the belief that the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, were controlled by bankers, landowners and elites hostile to the needs of the average citizen. (James Weaver, presidential candidate, 1892)
Populism draws support from angry citizens and operated on the left-wing of American politics. It was highly critical of capitalism, especially banks and railroads, and allied itself with the labor movement. Bernie Sanders? Nope. Tom Watson, candidate in 1904.
Populists see the panic of 2008 as confirmation that evil global conspiracies and big city villains were to blame. I lied - the panic was actually in 1893 and gave rise to William Jennings Bryan. The panic was blamed, among other things, on the Jews and adherence to the gold standard by the way.
The point being here that we've seen this before. The last great populist was George Wallace in 1968. Historically interesting is that it is thus far unheard of for a populist contender to get elected despite high impact and voter percentages.
Populism arises from drive to create a new political party based upon the belief that the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, were controlled by bankers, landowners and elites hostile to the needs of the average citizen. (James Weaver, presidential candidate, 1892)
Populism draws support from angry citizens and operated on the left-wing of American politics. It was highly critical of capitalism, especially banks and railroads, and allied itself with the labor movement. Bernie Sanders? Nope. Tom Watson, candidate in 1904.
Populists see the panic of 2008 as confirmation that evil global conspiracies and big city villains were to blame. I lied - the panic was actually in 1893 and gave rise to William Jennings Bryan. The panic was blamed, among other things, on the Jews and adherence to the gold standard by the way.
The point being here that we've seen this before. The last great populist was George Wallace in 1968. Historically interesting is that it is thus far unheard of for a populist contender to get elected despite high impact and voter percentages.
Trump is his own special interest, and he will continue to use all the levers of power at his disposal to enrich himself and make himself feel big. Trump's construction sites are staffed by illegal immigrants. His clothing is produced in sweatshops in China. His "University" literally bilked attendees out of millions of dollars. He is a carnival barker and snake oil salesman!
2
Trump and Sanders each have a little of Ross Perot in them in that they are appealing to people sick and tired of Washington. The other thing they have in common with Perot is that neither will be our next president; Sanders, for his "out-there" call for a political revolution, and Trump, for his weak grasp of vital issues and thin-skinned, abrasive personality that will be exposed by Hillary.
This time, you may be wrong.
1
The single largest gap is rooted in basic tribalism. If you could see a right wing thought bubble, it would typically say: "If you don't look, pray and think like I do, I don't support you." That's a gap that is very difficult to span, especially since it's existence is denied by so many. It drives divisions rooted in prejudice surrounding class, race, religion and sexual orientation. Fortunately, it also shrinks with each passing generation. We are in an historical moment where several thousand years of unchallenged tribalism is slowly melting away. This is partially thanks to the very formation of the United States itself. The worlds first and greatest secular democracy has changed the world over a few scant centuries of existence. While the demise of tribalism is happening far too slowly for many, it is happening. Check back on the state of humanity in another seventy years or so.
1
After reading Sander's take on television in the NYT, I think to myself, I feel similar. Sanders, though he has long spoken on the dulling aspects of television, is quite willing to speak to the positive and potentially positive aspects of the global internet. I feel the same. The NYT hugely exaggerated again through that particular article.
Take a trip away from television, say, read, start a project of one kind or another, go to the ocean, or to the mountains for a month without television, return home and turn on the tv. The commercials alone are felt as harmful shocks to one's spiritual and physical systems, unremitting blasts of raucous pollution to one's mind and body.
Go Bernie !
Take a trip away from television, say, read, start a project of one kind or another, go to the ocean, or to the mountains for a month without television, return home and turn on the tv. The commercials alone are felt as harmful shocks to one's spiritual and physical systems, unremitting blasts of raucous pollution to one's mind and body.
Go Bernie !
6
Kindly put, the attempt to equate Sanders with Trump on any level or for whatever argumentative reason is either specious or the opposite of intelligent. We deserve better.
8
Our problem is not who is or will be, President of our nation. Our problem is Congress.
All incumbents or professional politicians offer just more of the same unacceptable, irresponsible behavior that has totally bankrupted our nation and created a government rife with institutionalized corruption.
We let this happen. We let these "representatives" get away with this behavior and we are now paying a HUGE price.
I have but a single vote and will, in the primaries and the general election, NOT vote for any incumbent or "professional politician". I will vote against them all until we turn our nation around.
All incumbents or professional politicians offer just more of the same unacceptable, irresponsible behavior that has totally bankrupted our nation and created a government rife with institutionalized corruption.
We let this happen. We let these "representatives" get away with this behavior and we are now paying a HUGE price.
I have but a single vote and will, in the primaries and the general election, NOT vote for any incumbent or "professional politician". I will vote against them all until we turn our nation around.
1
What I find both sad and amusing is that the "establishment" so many people are dead-set against today has only come into possession of its political power because those same people couldn't find the time, the energy or the conviction to vote in the past.
1
What exactly is a "populist message" and why would anyone--except Trump--think he delivers one. And if he does, wait for tomorrow's message.
Trump merely creates an "I'll show them" image--not unlike "Dirty Harry"--that appeals to intellectual adolescents of all ages. Unfortunately that may well be the average American--due to years of education starvation and delusions about freedom-from government, instead of focusing on good government and good communities.
Sanders "populist message"--in a nutshell--Government FOR the people--i.e. the common people, those without enormous inherited wealth resulting from property tax and labor law--what is neo-aristocracy.
This is hardly a one issue idea. That one idea covers everything. Sanders campaign is actually reminiscent of the great underrated politician and president--Truman--whose slogan was "Vote for yourself."
Trump merely creates an "I'll show them" image--not unlike "Dirty Harry"--that appeals to intellectual adolescents of all ages. Unfortunately that may well be the average American--due to years of education starvation and delusions about freedom-from government, instead of focusing on good government and good communities.
Sanders "populist message"--in a nutshell--Government FOR the people--i.e. the common people, those without enormous inherited wealth resulting from property tax and labor law--what is neo-aristocracy.
This is hardly a one issue idea. That one idea covers everything. Sanders campaign is actually reminiscent of the great underrated politician and president--Truman--whose slogan was "Vote for yourself."
3
Great comparison -- of simlarities, and vast differences. Forgive me if someone else has cited this, but in our generational shift, we who followed the 'greatest generation" have seen not just wage stagnation, but the corporate dismantling of the social safety net that many American workers once depended on -- union contracts, generous health care coverage, and retirement security built around not just government Social Security benefits, but also the privately funded defined benefit pension plan. The looming retirement crisis facing many middle class Americans is in great part a result of corporations killing DB plans in favor of DC plans, and the inability of most people to manage their own retirement savings. I would submit that this, combined with other corporate shenanigans that torpedoed the fiction that our homes were our chief retirement asset, is fueling the fear and anger among many pre-retirees. Here's a great overview of the retirement funding shift. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n3/v69n3p1.html
5
Not to mention all the bad performance reviews 50 y.o.s get so they can throw us out early and hire an H1B or a young person. And not to mention that the market drops on regular intervals so that profits can be taken from funds that don't move fast and handle everyone's 401Ks and siphoned off to the slick willies that run the casino. And not to mention that more of our compensation goes to health insurance which is now catastrophic only. And the one percent raises since the 1980s. And the working 2-6 people's jobs since 2009 and grateful for it. And the automation...
2
Sanders is not anything like the outlier to the Democratic party as Trump is to the Republicans. Nor is the Democratic party facing the fundamental problems the Republicans are.
Most Democratic voters can support either Bernie or Hillary. I think there are very few Clinton supporters who fundamentally oppose Bernie's big ideas on principle, rather there is a sense that Bernie's platform is unachievable at present, and there are so many fundamental things that Democrats must achieve to move our country forward, that Bernie is just blowing smoke about.
There is a lot of Hillary-hate among the committed Bernie-Bros. I would not be surprised in a significant fraction of them vote for Trump in the election.
Most Democratic voters can support either Bernie or Hillary. I think there are very few Clinton supporters who fundamentally oppose Bernie's big ideas on principle, rather there is a sense that Bernie's platform is unachievable at present, and there are so many fundamental things that Democrats must achieve to move our country forward, that Bernie is just blowing smoke about.
There is a lot of Hillary-hate among the committed Bernie-Bros. I would not be surprised in a significant fraction of them vote for Trump in the election.
7
There would be a lot less 'hate' if there were less 'Bernie Bros', said the 54 year old woman in the HRC demographic who is ill at the thought of another dynasty, even if it is Ferdinand Marcos', I mean, Bill Clinton's, wife. Voting for Sanders, and you'll find independents feel like I do. No more Clintons. Been there, done that, bought the T shirt. I feel like HRC is one step away from picking Bill for VP.
2
I see the underlying problem that has led to the surprising populist enthusiasm for Trump & Sanders as, in a word, plutocracy. The voters sense that only Trump on the right & Sanders on the left are somewhat authentic & speak for themselves & not wealthy neoconservative or liberal puppet-masters. Trump can do this because he has his own money & Sanders because he won't take money, except from the common people. The Citizen's United decision has turned what was already a bad situation of money influencing politics into one that now seems intolerable to a lot of voters. Money has poisoned politics completely.
Personally, I think Trump is dangerous & I don't like Sanders' socialism, but we're left with either them or militaristic plutocratic oligarchy of one shade or the other.
Personally, I think Trump is dangerous & I don't like Sanders' socialism, but we're left with either them or militaristic plutocratic oligarchy of one shade or the other.
4
Better red than Ted, though.
1
Edsall's counter-evidence is misframed.
For example, he cites differences such as that 77 percent of Sanders supporters think that Trump would be a horrible president, and 60 percent of Trump supporters think the same of Sanders.
If "joining" right- and left- leaning populist constituencies is literally that: Getting the backing of ALL of both of them, then this is great evidence that it won't happen.
But that's a distortion of the more interesting question: Whether either populist candidate can draw large numbers of populism-driven voters who tend to vote for the other party. When thus reframed, we find that Sanders has a chance of making inroads with a whopping 40 percent of Trump supporters, whereas Trump can at best get the support of 23 percent of Sanders supporters. That Sanders might draw right-leaning populist voters, thus comes across as a substantial prospect.
Similarly for the other stats. Change the framing a bit, and we get a strong indication that Sanders has enough appeal to draw a large chunk of right-leaning populists who would otherwise be Republican voters. Trump doing the reverse, not so much.
A united populist front ain't gonna happen. But a populist majority just might.
For example, he cites differences such as that 77 percent of Sanders supporters think that Trump would be a horrible president, and 60 percent of Trump supporters think the same of Sanders.
If "joining" right- and left- leaning populist constituencies is literally that: Getting the backing of ALL of both of them, then this is great evidence that it won't happen.
But that's a distortion of the more interesting question: Whether either populist candidate can draw large numbers of populism-driven voters who tend to vote for the other party. When thus reframed, we find that Sanders has a chance of making inroads with a whopping 40 percent of Trump supporters, whereas Trump can at best get the support of 23 percent of Sanders supporters. That Sanders might draw right-leaning populist voters, thus comes across as a substantial prospect.
Similarly for the other stats. Change the framing a bit, and we get a strong indication that Sanders has enough appeal to draw a large chunk of right-leaning populists who would otherwise be Republican voters. Trump doing the reverse, not so much.
A united populist front ain't gonna happen. But a populist majority just might.
4
See Mark Pepp. We need a party that stops allowing employers to hire illegal immigrants, shuts down the H1B, deals with the huge overhang of student loan debt, simplifies health insurance to cut out so many middle men and cost markups, taxes corporations and unearned income at appropriate and unavoidable rates, stays the heck out of marriage, gun ownership, cell phones and the bedroom, takes care of our vets, mentally ill and homeless, allows restructuring of mortgage debt, stops paying out for people who buy beach property, and keeps the air, water and food supply clean. In other words, who cares about the citizens of the USA.
2
If he is elected President, you can be assured Trump will make you THINK he will be dealing with the idea of illegal immigration. In case you did not know, Trump has a clothing line in which all of it is manufactured in Bangladesh and China. That is how HE deals with illegal immigration.
1
We can also thank the democrats for the popularity of Trump. They elected a President Obama with hope and change and we got bigger banks, bigger corporations, more bureaucracy, a healthcare for big insurance and pharma but more people covered, a bigger revolving door, more wars and more terrorists, an educated voter who has no money invested in the waring machine knows that drones and killing civilians created more terrorists.
Feeling the Bern but the whole of the democratic pundits are out to get him and put him down as a loon like Trump so we will possibly get Clinton dynasty family again.
Feeling the Bern but the whole of the democratic pundits are out to get him and put him down as a loon like Trump so we will possibly get Clinton dynasty family again.
3
I "thank" the combination of an uninformed electorate enamored of reality TV and lazy journalists for Trump.
2
Unless we actually get Trump.
2
Thank you Mr. Edsall for this interesting analysis.
the difference, however, between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is not a walk across the street, but a yawning chasm.
Bernie Sanders is a person who requires that people think about power, the direction of our government and how we can work together to fix our problems. Donald Trump is a demagogue who tries to convince people that he is on their side and will lift them up all the while thinking only of his own power.
The irony for Trump and the American people is that Trump would actually diminish the personal power of people while making them feel empowered. this has been the tactic of would be tyrants down through the ages and Trump is no different.
the difference, however, between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is not a walk across the street, but a yawning chasm.
Bernie Sanders is a person who requires that people think about power, the direction of our government and how we can work together to fix our problems. Donald Trump is a demagogue who tries to convince people that he is on their side and will lift them up all the while thinking only of his own power.
The irony for Trump and the American people is that Trump would actually diminish the personal power of people while making them feel empowered. this has been the tactic of would be tyrants down through the ages and Trump is no different.
10
People who believe Trump and Sanders are populists have only read the Cliff Notes version of American history. The Populist movement was a true third party movement; the People’s Party won governorships, congressional seats and even gained control of the Kansas state legislature. Trump and Sanders don’t represent a coherent movement; they are popular demagogues riding a wave of popular discontent, both candidates have fantastical agendas.
Supporters of Sanders and Trump want to believe in fantasies, there is nothing concrete or well thought out underneath their feet. The Populists of the nineteenth century may have believed in agrarian myths but they had a real, concrete, and doable set of policies, later adopted by the Progressives, to stand on. Today the people only have their discontent and that isn’t anything you can build a movement on. Neither Trump or Sanders fit the mold of a populist movement even in the most general sense.
Moreover, even though the Populists never succeeded on the national level or in their goal of replacing one of the national parties, and faded after they endorsed William Jennings Bryan, a Democrat, for President in 1896, they succeeded in changing both political parties; they moved the agendas of both major parties toward theirs.
The question we should be asking isn’t how this is a populist moment, but how this moment differs from populist moments of the past.
Supporters of Sanders and Trump want to believe in fantasies, there is nothing concrete or well thought out underneath their feet. The Populists of the nineteenth century may have believed in agrarian myths but they had a real, concrete, and doable set of policies, later adopted by the Progressives, to stand on. Today the people only have their discontent and that isn’t anything you can build a movement on. Neither Trump or Sanders fit the mold of a populist movement even in the most general sense.
Moreover, even though the Populists never succeeded on the national level or in their goal of replacing one of the national parties, and faded after they endorsed William Jennings Bryan, a Democrat, for President in 1896, they succeeded in changing both political parties; they moved the agendas of both major parties toward theirs.
The question we should be asking isn’t how this is a populist moment, but how this moment differs from populist moments of the past.
30
"Today the people only have their discontent and that isn’t anything you can build a movement on."
What else would you build a movement on - a passion for "incremental change"?
Perhaps the populist passions of today do not have much coherency since those passions have been stifled by a two-party system for so long, but they are now awakening, and if not this election, in successive ones, will no doubt gain strength.
What else would you build a movement on - a passion for "incremental change"?
Perhaps the populist passions of today do not have much coherency since those passions have been stifled by a two-party system for so long, but they are now awakening, and if not this election, in successive ones, will no doubt gain strength.
Yes, there are similarities between Trump and Sanders, just like there were similarities between Bull Connor, George Wallace, Malcom X, and Martin Luther King (they all thought it was important to talk about race and do something about it).
Sarcasm aside, yes, Trump and Sanders say some similar things on trade deals and PACS and a few other topics, but a slight scratch beyond the surface on those issues shows the vast difference between crony capitalist Trump and the TR/FDR policies of Sanders.
But on most issues and on temperment and track record they are so starkly different that it shocks the conscience to see smart people like Mr Edsall pretend there is so much overlap.
Asking if Trump or Sanders can draw crossover voters from the opposite party is a different question.
Sarcasm aside, yes, Trump and Sanders say some similar things on trade deals and PACS and a few other topics, but a slight scratch beyond the surface on those issues shows the vast difference between crony capitalist Trump and the TR/FDR policies of Sanders.
But on most issues and on temperment and track record they are so starkly different that it shocks the conscience to see smart people like Mr Edsall pretend there is so much overlap.
Asking if Trump or Sanders can draw crossover voters from the opposite party is a different question.
1
Sitting in a blue collar restaurant, while reading this piece, it is Trump territory. Very upset about almost everything, except the social security and medicare benefits they are receiving---"I've earned these benefits." The irony of their support for Trump, is the reality, that Trump would brand all of these individuals "losers." They are not losers, but they are suckers.
6
Most people are suckers, with huge cognitive biases of one kind or another. Trump actually acts like he likes his voters and takes them seriously, whereas everyone else writes us all off as suckers. Yes, we are all suckers, and you still need to treat us seriously. See?
This analysis, and the many others like it, misses the only truly salient point.
Everything in Donald Trump's grandiosity, expressed values, political and business choices and lifestyle suggests that his populist rhetoric is insincere and opportunistic.
Everything in Bernie Sanders's life, expressed values and political choices suggests that he is absolutely sincere.
Everything in Donald Trump's grandiosity, expressed values, political and business choices and lifestyle suggests that his populist rhetoric is insincere and opportunistic.
Everything in Bernie Sanders's life, expressed values and political choices suggests that he is absolutely sincere.
15
One thing that could bring more Trump supporters to Sanders is if Bernie would go back to opposing open borders, as he did on the Vox interview, and advocate reducing the numbers of immigrants and guest workers, and ending so-called birthright citizenship and chain migration. He should also advocate immediate passage of a national, mandatory E-Verify, which would probably be more effective than Trump's wall in reducing illegal immigration. If he did all that, they would probably still support him in legalizing those now here illegally.
The Democratic Party needs to understand that ***too much*** immigration is a major factor fueling Trump.
The Democratic Party needs to understand that ***too much*** immigration is a major factor fueling Trump.
4
It strikes me that this is America's version of the Arab Spring which was also fueled by information technology.
We in the West were all supportive of Arab people striving to gain freedom from dictators and ruling elitists but obviously they were not keen on this change and clamped down and in Syria we have a civil war and a mess.
We think we are so different but observe how our ruling elitists, entrenched political parties and dictator wanna bees in this country are not keen on change either. Sanders or Trump! The horror!
The political parties and media companies are in disarray trying to maintain a hold on the status quo which is not working for millions of Americans. They should be ashamed standing in the way of the deep change that is needed.
We in the West were all supportive of Arab people striving to gain freedom from dictators and ruling elitists but obviously they were not keen on this change and clamped down and in Syria we have a civil war and a mess.
We think we are so different but observe how our ruling elitists, entrenched political parties and dictator wanna bees in this country are not keen on change either. Sanders or Trump! The horror!
The political parties and media companies are in disarray trying to maintain a hold on the status quo which is not working for millions of Americans. They should be ashamed standing in the way of the deep change that is needed.
6
As the research shows, the numbers of potential voters who would consider both Trump and Sanders is vanishingly small, despite their shared populism. The reason is that American voters are tribal by necessity. We don't have a parliament that rewards substantial minority support with representation. It's win or go home, so third party candidacies bleed support from the most aligned major party. In this country, Libertarians hurt Republicans, and Greens hurt Democrats. Anyone who cares about policy and power must align with a major party.
In our political system, victory goes to the party that delivers its voters to the polls. Most voters reliably vote. We will vote in November for whomever our party nominee happens to be. Reliable voters vote in primaries, and we usually vote for safe candidates out of a desire to appeal to the mythical up-for-grabs moderate voters. We imagine that there are voters weighing the two candidates. But research shows people outside our political tribes don't vote at all.
In reality, victory goes to the party that turns out voters who can't be relied upon to vote every time. For the Republicans, it's evangelicals and working class whites who, uninspired, stay home; for Democrats, it's urban renters, students & minorities.
In 2008, Democrats, instead of the safe candidate, picked a black man who inspired urban renters, students and minorities to vote, and won. In 2000 and 2004, Democrats went with the safe choice, and lost.
In our political system, victory goes to the party that delivers its voters to the polls. Most voters reliably vote. We will vote in November for whomever our party nominee happens to be. Reliable voters vote in primaries, and we usually vote for safe candidates out of a desire to appeal to the mythical up-for-grabs moderate voters. We imagine that there are voters weighing the two candidates. But research shows people outside our political tribes don't vote at all.
In reality, victory goes to the party that turns out voters who can't be relied upon to vote every time. For the Republicans, it's evangelicals and working class whites who, uninspired, stay home; for Democrats, it's urban renters, students & minorities.
In 2008, Democrats, instead of the safe candidate, picked a black man who inspired urban renters, students and minorities to vote, and won. In 2000 and 2004, Democrats went with the safe choice, and lost.
1
"If either Trump or Sanders loses the fight for the nomination, or if both go down to defeat, the question in November will be: Do their supporters fall in line? Do a substantial number stay home? Or will they vote for the opposition?
History would suggest the Republicans, even if they don't have the man they want will vote for anyone with an "R" after their name. Democrats are like spoiled children, especially the younger voters (or non-voters) and typically walk away, as they did in the mid-terms in my state. The fewest Dems voted in 60 years and we have the first Republican lead House in 60 years.
If the Dems lose the Presidency in 2016 how will they change? No more insiders? Only Sanders type candidates? The Dems are mainly on the right side of this, and the real patriots that actually care about 90% of the people. My fear as a 66 year old veteran is that America is heading toward fascism, extreme poverty, and death if the Republicans win this one. Just look at the economic "plans" of those clowns. No more taxes at all for the rich, that starving the beast strategy will allow them to finally eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and any program for women and the poor. And, it seems that at least 1/2 of the electorate will be fine with that. It's all up to the Democrats. If they don't vote, its' over.
History would suggest the Republicans, even if they don't have the man they want will vote for anyone with an "R" after their name. Democrats are like spoiled children, especially the younger voters (or non-voters) and typically walk away, as they did in the mid-terms in my state. The fewest Dems voted in 60 years and we have the first Republican lead House in 60 years.
If the Dems lose the Presidency in 2016 how will they change? No more insiders? Only Sanders type candidates? The Dems are mainly on the right side of this, and the real patriots that actually care about 90% of the people. My fear as a 66 year old veteran is that America is heading toward fascism, extreme poverty, and death if the Republicans win this one. Just look at the economic "plans" of those clowns. No more taxes at all for the rich, that starving the beast strategy will allow them to finally eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and any program for women and the poor. And, it seems that at least 1/2 of the electorate will be fine with that. It's all up to the Democrats. If they don't vote, its' over.
6
Interesting evolving analysis of a crisis within the U.S.'s political parties. The status quo, the outsized corrupting influence of money, the corrupted elites, divorced from their constituents, and in bed with those corporate interests supporting them, the willful ignorance of urgent problems affecting society (social, economic and racial, to name a few), have driven establishment figures out of contention; instead, anew cadre of 'evangelists' has emerged, promising 'heaven and earth' in one basket of ideals impossible to fulfill in practice. In other words, charlatans demagoguing the issues, fanning fear and anger, opportunists in a sea of unhappy campers...who forgot to bring their lunch. So much waste in time, and effort, and treasure, and nothing to show for it. A make-believe fantasy indeed. Lets hope that, after our being drunk for too long, the hangover won't last beyond redemption to save ourselves from oblivion. Let us educate ourselves of our blindspots and prejudices, and snap out of them, so reason and common sense may prevail. Or not.
I predict the greatest similarity between the two men is that if either were to be elected, his supporters would be angrier at the end of a four year term than they are now.
Trump's supporters will be angry because he will do nothing that he now promises. While he isn't really promising many specifics if you listen closely, the few specifics (taxes on Wall Street, deportation and the walled border, for instance) either won't be supported by a Republican Congress (Wall Street) or will quickly become a horror (deportation and the wall).
Sanders' supporters will become angrier simply because a Republican House and Republicans in the Senate (whether they are majority or minority) will oppose everything he proposes. Also, the mass of the people will not arise as Sanders insists to force the Republicans to change their ways.
Then again, I predict that Americans will be angry in four years if another Republican wins the presidency or if Clinton wins. We have no true historical memory. We were seldom more deeply unified than we are now. Americans like most all human beings tend to hate large portions of their fellows. Its not just race. Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion had little or no racial component.
Even before the Revolution we tended to fight each other as much as we fought mutual opponents. New England was no shinning city on a hill. Evidence suggest that settlers at Jamestown fell to cannibalism, supposedly out of necessity during famine. Supposedly!
Trump's supporters will be angry because he will do nothing that he now promises. While he isn't really promising many specifics if you listen closely, the few specifics (taxes on Wall Street, deportation and the walled border, for instance) either won't be supported by a Republican Congress (Wall Street) or will quickly become a horror (deportation and the wall).
Sanders' supporters will become angrier simply because a Republican House and Republicans in the Senate (whether they are majority or minority) will oppose everything he proposes. Also, the mass of the people will not arise as Sanders insists to force the Republicans to change their ways.
Then again, I predict that Americans will be angry in four years if another Republican wins the presidency or if Clinton wins. We have no true historical memory. We were seldom more deeply unified than we are now. Americans like most all human beings tend to hate large portions of their fellows. Its not just race. Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion had little or no racial component.
Even before the Revolution we tended to fight each other as much as we fought mutual opponents. New England was no shinning city on a hill. Evidence suggest that settlers at Jamestown fell to cannibalism, supposedly out of necessity during famine. Supposedly!
Sander's revolution is centered on a return to fairness and ethics in government and reestablishing the Democratic party as the standard bearer of those values. He taps into the frustration of voters who have lost trust in government and elected officials. Trumps campaign has nothing to do with fairness or ethics, he's merely hawking anger to people who have always been distrustful and disengaged from the political process and who blame others for their own shortcomings. This is plain to see, why the media would not articulate the differences more clearly is disheartening and rather suspect.
2
I am not a bleeding-heart liberal, nor am I young, but I believe Bernie Sanders is the only choice. If Clinton gets the nomination, thanks to her de facto coronation by the Democratic party establishment and the mainstream media, I will not vote for her in November. I will write in Sanders or vote for Jill Stein if Sanders ends up endorsing Clinton.
There is no comparison between the Sanders and McGovern candidacies: we no longer have a democracy and change is needed as never before. In fact change will happen no matter who gets elected but it will be the worst kind with either Clinton or Trump: perpetual war, growing inequalities, corruption, and climate change, possibly leading to fascism.
The increasing number of people supporting Sanders understand that he alone is focussing on the most important issue, the one that determines all the others: who is holding power.
There is no comparison between the Sanders and McGovern candidacies: we no longer have a democracy and change is needed as never before. In fact change will happen no matter who gets elected but it will be the worst kind with either Clinton or Trump: perpetual war, growing inequalities, corruption, and climate change, possibly leading to fascism.
The increasing number of people supporting Sanders understand that he alone is focussing on the most important issue, the one that determines all the others: who is holding power.
6
Exactly my feeling! Sanders is "my only hope" — quoting Princess Leia, of Star Wars fame. If he is not the candidate, I too will write in Sanders in November.
9
Both Trump and Sanders are trying to solve the same problem: why have the corporatists and the one-percent taken over the economic and political power of this country?
Corporate America, who proclaimed they were job creators, have created a subterfuge to hide the fact that they no longer have the interest of the American worker at heart. Up until the 1970s, the job creators and the workers worked together to make the nation great. Since then corporate America has taken on a new partner - the investor class - replacing the labor class. Now corporate America has to please investors, leaving labor behind.
Until the new partnership between corporate America and Wall Street is dissolved, the middle class worker will never prosper or even make a decent living wage.
It's unfortunate that the relationship between job creator and worker has changed so dramatically that the worker's interest can be totally disregarded. Example: The global economy where hundreds of thousands of American jobs have been eliminated by multinational corporations; and the revenue those jobs once produced has now been relegated to offshoring profits.
Until corporate America reengages with labor for the benefit of both, we will have a dysfunctional democracy.
Corporate America, who proclaimed they were job creators, have created a subterfuge to hide the fact that they no longer have the interest of the American worker at heart. Up until the 1970s, the job creators and the workers worked together to make the nation great. Since then corporate America has taken on a new partner - the investor class - replacing the labor class. Now corporate America has to please investors, leaving labor behind.
Until the new partnership between corporate America and Wall Street is dissolved, the middle class worker will never prosper or even make a decent living wage.
It's unfortunate that the relationship between job creator and worker has changed so dramatically that the worker's interest can be totally disregarded. Example: The global economy where hundreds of thousands of American jobs have been eliminated by multinational corporations; and the revenue those jobs once produced has now been relegated to offshoring profits.
Until corporate America reengages with labor for the benefit of both, we will have a dysfunctional democracy.
3
Your story here misses an important angle; why are so many Bernie supporters insistent upon not voting for Hillary, and/or say they will vote for Trump if Bernie is not nominated?
In my case, it is because I see both men as being scorched earth to the establishment. After watching Harry Reid run home to tip the scales in Nevada by ordering the union workers to be given a paid day off to caucus (caucuses he created over primaries, by the way), and the DNC dirty tricks and cheating this entire season via Wasserman-Shultz, I would like to see Trump get in and not only cause distress and anxiety to the Republicans via protectionism and locking out immigrants, but also administer a stern correction to the Democrats for trying to shove the anointed one down our throats, and their complicity in selling us out by the Republicans (the two parties only differ in ever-decreasing ways).
I am one of the 60% of people who call ourselves "independents"; that means I have no loyalty to either party, and indeed regard them as simply two heads of the same monster.
In my case, it is because I see both men as being scorched earth to the establishment. After watching Harry Reid run home to tip the scales in Nevada by ordering the union workers to be given a paid day off to caucus (caucuses he created over primaries, by the way), and the DNC dirty tricks and cheating this entire season via Wasserman-Shultz, I would like to see Trump get in and not only cause distress and anxiety to the Republicans via protectionism and locking out immigrants, but also administer a stern correction to the Democrats for trying to shove the anointed one down our throats, and their complicity in selling us out by the Republicans (the two parties only differ in ever-decreasing ways).
I am one of the 60% of people who call ourselves "independents"; that means I have no loyalty to either party, and indeed regard them as simply two heads of the same monster.
5
I know the Trump/Sanders equivalency rankles, and especially Sanders supporters, but Edsall has made a cogent case while also pointing out the limits. I've rankled at the unexamined Bush/Clinton equivalency that the media and Sanders fans constantly invoke.
The Bushes are among the most elite, powerful and entitled families in this country, deeply embedded in the political establishment for generations. They held national political and financial power while a teen-aged Bill Clinton was trying to protect his mother from an abusive alcoholic step-father. Hillary came from a middle class background and if she'd become a public school teacher no one would have batted an eye.
The fact is: whatever political power the Clintons have is just what they've built themselves in one generation, which you have to admit is remarkable, and much more the successful immigrant upstart stories we love in America, than the old money blue blooded "establishment" the Bushes represent.
Jeb, like his brother and father, was born on 3rd base. Except Jeb couldn't get to home plate even with 150 million outs.
The Bushes are among the most elite, powerful and entitled families in this country, deeply embedded in the political establishment for generations. They held national political and financial power while a teen-aged Bill Clinton was trying to protect his mother from an abusive alcoholic step-father. Hillary came from a middle class background and if she'd become a public school teacher no one would have batted an eye.
The fact is: whatever political power the Clintons have is just what they've built themselves in one generation, which you have to admit is remarkable, and much more the successful immigrant upstart stories we love in America, than the old money blue blooded "establishment" the Bushes represent.
Jeb, like his brother and father, was born on 3rd base. Except Jeb couldn't get to home plate even with 150 million outs.
2
The equivalence between Trump and Sanders is only that the two candidates have captured the angst of a portion of the populace, and that is where the similarities between them ends. While I greatly admire Sanders, I keep asking myself how on earth he plans to accomplish his overreaching agenda given a Republican controlled Congress? How does he plan to even get a Supreme Court Justice nominated given what the G.O.P. Congressmen announced yesterday as regards President Obama nominating an appointee? How does he push through Medicare for all? How does he get agreement to free college for all?
Yes, Hillary Clinton does face the same challenges and she is not a fresh face of the Democratic Party, but she is well qualified to be President and she has enormous political savvy from her years in the White House, as a Senator, and as a Secretary of State. Her modest progressive goals might at least stand some chance, albeit slim, of succeeding in the currently charged political atmosphere Congress is operating in.
Yes, Hillary Clinton does face the same challenges and she is not a fresh face of the Democratic Party, but she is well qualified to be President and she has enormous political savvy from her years in the White House, as a Senator, and as a Secretary of State. Her modest progressive goals might at least stand some chance, albeit slim, of succeeding in the currently charged political atmosphere Congress is operating in.
It's important not to confuse the social and economic cleavages that generate support for Trump and Sanders with the candidates themselves. Trump, in particular, practically rules himself out as a plausible American President with his bombast, combativeness, and fascistic appeals. Sanders is less obnoxious a personality than Trump, but he, too, seems an implausible choice for President. The more important long-run question is whether the political forces these men represent may form the basis for a new alignment headed by other, more plausible candidates than Trump or Sanders. We won't know the answer to that until at least 2020 and maybe beyond.
1
Forget the labels, Hillary is not a Liberal, she just talks like one. The essence of her campaign is based on is advocating 'free stuff' - social issues requiring no expense and no increased taxes. That allows her to protect her wealthy donors from increased taxes but misleads about where her 'heart' is.
That's what makes her accusations against Bernie Sanders of promising 'free stuff' so offensive. He acknowledges the real, costly needs of this country as well as the real benefits and exactly how to pay for them, but he's labeled a pie-in-the- sky socialist.
The difference is that Hillary doesn't believe in investing unless it generates private profits. She's a hard line capitalist, hence the mutual support between her and the private prison industry, defense industries, Wall Street, etc.
Bernie Sanders - 2016
For the Common Good
That's what makes her accusations against Bernie Sanders of promising 'free stuff' so offensive. He acknowledges the real, costly needs of this country as well as the real benefits and exactly how to pay for them, but he's labeled a pie-in-the- sky socialist.
The difference is that Hillary doesn't believe in investing unless it generates private profits. She's a hard line capitalist, hence the mutual support between her and the private prison industry, defense industries, Wall Street, etc.
Bernie Sanders - 2016
For the Common Good
10
The reason the white male working class is supporting Trump and rejecting the platform of the Democratic party which could improve their economic condition is the freedom they feel to express (to shout out!) entrenched bias against all those who would join them in fighting against inequality of opportunity and share in an improved economic and social status. This article danced around the meanings of shouted statements at Trump rallies that expressed anger at women, racial and religious minorities and those with sexual orientations different from theirs.
Looking at the faces, hearing the speeches, and talking with participants one understands why Trump supporters will never join in a movement with those who support Sen. Sanders.
Looking at the faces, hearing the speeches, and talking with participants one understands why Trump supporters will never join in a movement with those who support Sen. Sanders.
46
They are all hammers, anyone and everything else is a nail.
"This unrest has been unleashed, in part, by the information technology revolution of the past several decades"
Nah. It's been unleashed by the failure of the center. The establishment has been doing very well with globalization, the rest of the country not so well.
Nah. It's been unleashed by the failure of the center. The establishment has been doing very well with globalization, the rest of the country not so well.
8
If Bernie becomes president what would happen would the sky fall? No, he would have to wait till the midterm elections working for democrats to win both houses {something I never saw Obama work very hard at}. I believe he could get out the vote and yes move this country to become much fairer. People working hard with hope that their children could aspire to get out of cycles of despair. Changing this country from the broken politics of today to a new vision for tomorrow might just be done by a non secular jew from Brooklyn. He has always seen economics for the little guy as something that is transformative thus creating a land of equal opportunity. What hope do poor people have now for their KIDS!
12
The Republican House is gerrymandered for a generation. Sanders will not win back the House because he can't any more than Obama could, or any Democrat for that matter.
Nearly every Trump supporter I've spoken to believes in term limits. They profess to despise all bureaucracy, although many are recipients thereof. They think the social safety net, if they're at or near retirement, is untouchable. They vacillate greatly in any indictment of Wall Street or the banks as having any influence over their lives; one moment critical, the next dismissive as to culpability. Nearly all believe foreign policy should be conducted with threat followed by carpet bombing. The environment exists to be exploited. Global warming is a hoax. People of color are to be judged by standards they never apply to themselves.
The Sanders supporters I know, don't accept these views.
The Sanders supporters I know, don't accept these views.
17
The logical flaw underlying Edsall's argument is the assumption that Trump's appeal has to do with his government policy proposals. In fact, Trump's appeal is his profane and defiant refusal to be bound by social and political convention, including most importantly the conventions that require respect for people of different ethnic, religious, political, and cultural backgrounds.
In that, Trump has nothing in common with Sanders, so it is not at all surprising that only six percent of voters relate to both Trump and Sanders.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
In that, Trump has nothing in common with Sanders, so it is not at all surprising that only six percent of voters relate to both Trump and Sanders.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
10
Thomas Edsall is the chicken little of the punditry. The glass half empty school of change.
3
Sanders or Trump over any of the other evil clowns running.
If Hollywood had dreamed up this election, would anyone have even believed it?
If Hollywood had dreamed up this election, would anyone have even believed it?
10
There is one major problem with this analysis – Donald Trump. He does not present any coherent or consistent ideas that could be used for comparisons. He assumes that emotional, histrionic statements will be enough to garner significant support and sadly, thus far, this has been true. There is, however, a bright thread in this article-the deep American yearning for practical, problem solving, non-ideological thinking. A candidate who can embody this perspective can lead a truly “populist” wave. This candidate would, however, have to embody the charisma and public presence of Trump and Sanders in combination with clear thinking – Asking too much ? perhaps but hopefully not.
1
There are other similarities among Trump and Bernie supporters that becomes glaringly evident on social media:
- A disdain for experts (those pesky "knowledge" folks) who point out the fallacy of the candidates' promises
- Dismissal of reason and facts as being "establishment"
- Blind loyalty that accommodates the most bizarre and extreme views ("Hillary and Ted Cruz are the same!")
While some of their positions may be opposite, in reality these groups are flip sides of the same coin.
- A disdain for experts (those pesky "knowledge" folks) who point out the fallacy of the candidates' promises
- Dismissal of reason and facts as being "establishment"
- Blind loyalty that accommodates the most bizarre and extreme views ("Hillary and Ted Cruz are the same!")
While some of their positions may be opposite, in reality these groups are flip sides of the same coin.
9
Ruth, i am tired of reading such generalizations that forcefully include me in
a imaginary groups of people.
I am part of the 1 per cent, i am not fanatic, my respect to women is the one i give
and owe to any human being regardless of sex and my age group is not
anywhere near the millenniums.
Shall i return the favor and generalize on the group that has nothing else to do but criticize senator Sanders supporters?
I find them abusive, intolerant, insulting and terribly informed.
Here it is, equal at last.
a imaginary groups of people.
I am part of the 1 per cent, i am not fanatic, my respect to women is the one i give
and owe to any human being regardless of sex and my age group is not
anywhere near the millenniums.
Shall i return the favor and generalize on the group that has nothing else to do but criticize senator Sanders supporters?
I find them abusive, intolerant, insulting and terribly informed.
Here it is, equal at last.
3
No they are not the flip side of the same coin.
Don't you think the "experts" have missed the mark so far?
Haven't the current state of affairs been created by the political establishment?
If you cannot see the basic differences between Sanders and Trump supporters, you are not looking very closely and, secondly, you must feel that we should continue with business as usual.
I am a New Yorker and have had my full of Trump for 40 years or so. I wish he would go away permanently.
Don't you think the "experts" have missed the mark so far?
Haven't the current state of affairs been created by the political establishment?
If you cannot see the basic differences between Sanders and Trump supporters, you are not looking very closely and, secondly, you must feel that we should continue with business as usual.
I am a New Yorker and have had my full of Trump for 40 years or so. I wish he would go away permanently.
2
There is a big difference in the followers of Sanders and Trump. Trump supporters say "make it so simple I don't even have to think about it". Sanders supporters say "make it simple but explain to me how it works." Trump's explanations of how his policies work are convoluted and don't ever deliver a logical path to the results he promises. Sander's explanations are simple and point to Europe and many other countries as templates for how it can work. In business terms this is called "benchmarking" and is a critical part of the planning function. Trump's promises are more "bait and switch" marketing tactics. So far Trump has proven himself as better at getting his message out there while Sanders is still struggling because he is reaching for the higher fruit of people with better educations and powers of logic. Sanders needs to do a better job of showing the successes of Europe if he ever hopes to sell his vision in the general election.
58
Don -- it seems that the overwhelming fraction of Sanders supporters do not understand 8th-grade civics: no laws can be changed without majorities in Congress.
5
I believe that Trump stands a far better chance. If he were to win the majority of Republican delegates chosen by primaries and caucuses, he would become the nominee of the Republican party. If Sanders were to win the majority of Democratic delegates chosen by primaries and caucuses, but the Democratic super-delegates were to choose Hillary Clinton as the nominee, there would be a crisis within our country. Many supporters of Sanders would sit out the race, likely leading to the election of Trump as President.
7
Possibly so, but the idea that Sanders will win the elected delegates doesn't seem likely now.
The irony the Sanders folks don't appreciate is that arguably (it's a slightly tendentious argument) Hillary won the elected delegates (the messy issue is whether the caucus delegates count), and the superdelegates gave it to Obama.
I suspect that a fair fraction of the BernieBros will do as they say, go away in a huff and not vote, or vote for Trump. Maybe they will grow up some day ... maybe they won't.
The irony the Sanders folks don't appreciate is that arguably (it's a slightly tendentious argument) Hillary won the elected delegates (the messy issue is whether the caucus delegates count), and the superdelegates gave it to Obama.
I suspect that a fair fraction of the BernieBros will do as they say, go away in a huff and not vote, or vote for Trump. Maybe they will grow up some day ... maybe they won't.
1
As one astute Times reader stated recently, if it came down to that, I would "Hold my nose and vote for Hillary".
Four after that, maybe we will have a better Democratic candidate.
Four after that, maybe we will have a better Democratic candidate.
Not really, we won't seat out the race, we'll just vote for Trump instead, if Hillary gets the DNC nod. Technically speaking Sanders's edge of Trump is his decency, but otherwise the bombastic Trump stands for the same things and can even be more efficient in his immigration policy. The NYT and the DNC grossly underestimate how much the non Hillary supporters, Rs and Ds, hate her, and you need some cross over appeal to win the White House.
2
This is not just a a 'native blue-collar phenomenon'. It stretches well beyond that demographic. Keep looking for root causes of unrest and anti-establishment attitudes, and a more dimensional story unfolds.
Living life in coastal cities with a family of four is killing the middle class who struggle with real estate costs and savings for college alone. Drive anywhere and you will stumble on homeless veterans on the streets, and at stoplights. Read the news every day about companies laying off American workers to trim costs and outsource their jobs while CEO's continue to be rewarded with multi-million dollar salaries. Those workers look at a country that prioritizes millions of dollars in aid to middle eastern refugees when they feel like refugees in their own country.
It is very hard for those who have been 'successful', to understand the seismic shift that has occurred during the Bush and Obama administrations: 50 million living below poverty levels, 50k homeless vets on a given night, 2+ million homeless kids under the age of six.
We would be wise to remember the words of a founding father, Benjamin Franklin:
“The refusal of King George to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution.”
“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Living life in coastal cities with a family of four is killing the middle class who struggle with real estate costs and savings for college alone. Drive anywhere and you will stumble on homeless veterans on the streets, and at stoplights. Read the news every day about companies laying off American workers to trim costs and outsource their jobs while CEO's continue to be rewarded with multi-million dollar salaries. Those workers look at a country that prioritizes millions of dollars in aid to middle eastern refugees when they feel like refugees in their own country.
It is very hard for those who have been 'successful', to understand the seismic shift that has occurred during the Bush and Obama administrations: 50 million living below poverty levels, 50k homeless vets on a given night, 2+ million homeless kids under the age of six.
We would be wise to remember the words of a founding father, Benjamin Franklin:
“The refusal of King George to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution.”
“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
5
Successful parasites don't kill their hosts. Both political parties have sold out to monied interests and those interests no longer deliver the sort of jobs and prosperity that kept working America content. The banks no longer lend to Main Street and the banks and investment firms have proven so greedy and irresponsible as to threaten the security of the country. Something has to give.
3
Donald Trump is like "The Alien" in the eponymous movie. He's eating the GOP from the inside and will leave only a burst corpse. He's El Lider Boca Grande, peddling neo-fascism.
T'is ironic, but I think the only person who can save the conservative party now is Hillary -- if Trump is defeated, they can perhaps save a non-fascist conservative party.
Sanders won't destroy the Democratic party the way Trump is harming the Reoublicans. At worst he would suffer a McGovern-like defeat.
T'is ironic, but I think the only person who can save the conservative party now is Hillary -- if Trump is defeated, they can perhaps save a non-fascist conservative party.
Sanders won't destroy the Democratic party the way Trump is harming the Reoublicans. At worst he would suffer a McGovern-like defeat.
1
They are both favorites of the least educated. The difference: one can understand the blowhard, simplistic, racist china-shop bullishness of the Trump supporter; but truly disheartening is how the equally less-educated Sanders supporters rhetorically clothe their naiveté in a parodic populist polemic, almost willfully suppressing the obvious truth, based on the Congressional obstruction that greeted almost all of Obama's attempts over 7 years, that Senator Sanders wouldn't even be able bring a skinny little sliver of pie out of his seductive-sounding sky.
6
Then how is it that Sanders supporters are either colleges aged or college graduates?
2
It's more complicated than that, but perhaps equally sad. Bernie has fervent support from college students -- they aren't so badly educated, just young.
What is sad is that the view of a "Sanders revolution" stops with Sanders' election -- after that their ideas are a combination of handwaving, crickets, and complete irrationality. Bernie bears significant responsibility for this, because he isn't laying it out to his people, and Bernie surely knows.
To legislate anything requires getting control of congress, legislating any of Bernie's big ideas means getting a strong veto-proof majority. That's a long, long way off. No Democrat expects to get control of the house this election.
Many of Bernie's kids hate the Democratic party itself, see it as corrupt, refuse to put anything into it. This means they refuse to support Democratic Congressional candidates ... also don't give a damn about state elections.
This means they'll get nothing, even if they could elect Bernie.
Those with a more sophisticated understanding of political realities know that Bernie is copying the Obama campaigning model, and that Obama's milder insurrection against the party sowed the seeds of all of Obama's limitations after the 2010: the devastating loss of congressional seats. Obama's fund-raising starved the down-ballot Democrats. Sanders may be doing exactly the same right now. This WaPo article is worth reading:
http://tinyurl.com/gpjff6l
What is sad is that the view of a "Sanders revolution" stops with Sanders' election -- after that their ideas are a combination of handwaving, crickets, and complete irrationality. Bernie bears significant responsibility for this, because he isn't laying it out to his people, and Bernie surely knows.
To legislate anything requires getting control of congress, legislating any of Bernie's big ideas means getting a strong veto-proof majority. That's a long, long way off. No Democrat expects to get control of the house this election.
Many of Bernie's kids hate the Democratic party itself, see it as corrupt, refuse to put anything into it. This means they refuse to support Democratic Congressional candidates ... also don't give a damn about state elections.
This means they'll get nothing, even if they could elect Bernie.
Those with a more sophisticated understanding of political realities know that Bernie is copying the Obama campaigning model, and that Obama's milder insurrection against the party sowed the seeds of all of Obama's limitations after the 2010: the devastating loss of congressional seats. Obama's fund-raising starved the down-ballot Democrats. Sanders may be doing exactly the same right now. This WaPo article is worth reading:
http://tinyurl.com/gpjff6l
2
szbazag, You argue, "They are both favorites of the least educated." But the polls clearly indicate that Sanders is favored by the MOST educated (as well as by younger voters).
1
Where is either BS or DT going to find a Congress that will go along with their schemes?
2
If everyone in Florida (just Florida, mind you) who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 had voted Democratic for the Congress we would have a Democratic House, gerrymandering notwithstanding. Plus Christ for governor and a democratic legislature. Don't believe it? Do the numbers.
The democrats should do a better job of explaining this (perhaps Sanders' supporters can do it?) and getting the voters to turn out. Otherwise, don't blame the republicans. Gerrymandering, and now voter suppression laws, are just an excuse for not doing their job.
The democrats should do a better job of explaining this (perhaps Sanders' supporters can do it?) and getting the voters to turn out. Otherwise, don't blame the republicans. Gerrymandering, and now voter suppression laws, are just an excuse for not doing their job.
Sanders wants to help things get better.
Hillary wants to be President.
Republicans are clowns'
Hillary wants to be President.
Republicans are clowns'
8
Is there a Burn Bernie altar at the NYT where all NYT journalists must genuflect? False equivalence, demeaning, contradictory all come to mind when one reflects on the campaign coverage of Bernie Sanders. And now, Edsall, usually an insightful editorialist, is paying his homage at the NYT Burn Bernie altar. There is a strong sense that at NYT there is a dictum which must be obeyed by all major editorialists, even Krugman, that Sanders must be suppressed. Tell us it ain't so!
12
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes pro-Hillary Democrats refuse to take you seriously -- whiney, chip-on-the-shoulder, intentional misreading.
Nothing in this demeans Sanders. Everything Edsall points out comes from sources he identifies -- you want to argue, argue these observations.
Instead you whine that any discussion of Sanders which is less than hard-on-BernieBro allegiance amounts to "Sanders must be suppressed."
Get a grip, and hopefully a life ....
Nothing in this demeans Sanders. Everything Edsall points out comes from sources he identifies -- you want to argue, argue these observations.
Instead you whine that any discussion of Sanders which is less than hard-on-BernieBro allegiance amounts to "Sanders must be suppressed."
Get a grip, and hopefully a life ....
2
Yes, this is fantasy. It is also ludicrous. Only ignorant, low information voters would switch from Bernie to Trump. Sanders is genuinely interested in remaking this country, giving power back to the disenfranchised. Trump is a reality TV personality interested in only one thing, feeding his ego. His beliefs change with the wind and the voters' whims. Yes, there is some common ground, but who really knows what Trump believes and whether he has any clue about how to execute. While Sanders believes in a European-style social democracy, Trump believes in unfettered capitalism. The Trump voters are brain-washed Fox News viewers who have no clue that they created the current swamp in Washington.
12
I suspect that behind care, proportionality, liberty and authority are the real issues that split left and right populists: gay marriage, Reagan's welfare queen driving her Cadillac, reproductive rights, and religious freedom defined as the quest to be able to legally discriminate.
3
Painting Trump and Sanders as equally unrealistic is phony and dishonest but it serves the status quo. Trump denies global warming, while Sanders says it’s THE issue of our time. Trump lies about his bankruptcies, support for the Iraq War, Arabs and Mexicans “pouring” over the border, ad nauseum. No one calls Sanders a liar. Quite the opposite. Sure they’re both popular, but they’re hardly the same.
The fact is, Clinton, as the status quo candidate, is the unrealistic one. We lost miserably in Afghanistan and Libya, which she supported. Obamacare remains under attack because Obama welshed on single payer or public option. Those would have dodged the Right’s beef that it hurts business. The lion’s share of income still flows to the 1%, such that wealth disparity is greater than the Gilded Age. Clinton has no serious plan to rebuild the middle and working classes, challenge the oligarchy, or combat global warming.
THAT’S unrealistic. The fact is that Obama’s eight years, which Clinton represents, have left us no better off than we were. We’re sinking and we won’t be rescued by a president who negotiates secret pacts with the very bankers who dragged us under. What exactly was in her 39 speeches to the banks that were worth $17 million? Is it realistic to bail with a bucket when the Titanic’s sinking?
Sanders has his flaws but he’s no Trump by any means and it’s disingenuous to paint him as such. Try applying the same rigor to Clinton.
The fact is, Clinton, as the status quo candidate, is the unrealistic one. We lost miserably in Afghanistan and Libya, which she supported. Obamacare remains under attack because Obama welshed on single payer or public option. Those would have dodged the Right’s beef that it hurts business. The lion’s share of income still flows to the 1%, such that wealth disparity is greater than the Gilded Age. Clinton has no serious plan to rebuild the middle and working classes, challenge the oligarchy, or combat global warming.
THAT’S unrealistic. The fact is that Obama’s eight years, which Clinton represents, have left us no better off than we were. We’re sinking and we won’t be rescued by a president who negotiates secret pacts with the very bankers who dragged us under. What exactly was in her 39 speeches to the banks that were worth $17 million? Is it realistic to bail with a bucket when the Titanic’s sinking?
Sanders has his flaws but he’s no Trump by any means and it’s disingenuous to paint him as such. Try applying the same rigor to Clinton.
16
More whiney BernieBro strawmen ... nothing in Edsall's piece here makes the claims you say it does.
3
Revisionist history or just plain applesauce. "We lost miserably in Afghanistan and Libya." Really? Try again. We haven't lost in Afghanistan...and what exactly would you have done? Hmm. Nothing? Let Bin Laden run the country with the Taliban as a base for world wide terrorism? Is Hillary unrealistic...or are you? Sorry, I'll take Hillary in a heart beat. And what would you have done with Libya...let Qaddafi put down any rebellion like Assad in Syria?
Obama welshed on single payer? As if he could do it all himself. Even Bernie says he can't do it all himself...there needs to be a revolution among the citizens. YOU are as much to blame for the failure of single payer as Obama. I'm surprised you didn't blame Obama for not doing enough on Climate change...as if the republicans would be as good. Same for Clinton...following Obama is better than anything the republicans would do. Maybe Bernie would propose more, but get it through congress...how does that happen?
Obama has gotten the economy working again. At least people have jobs, if not rising wages. Obama has stopped the sinking, even if you haven't notcied. Sure, more needs to be done. What is Bernie's plan? Spend government stimulus money that a republican house won't give him?
If you have specific information about any pacts that Hillary has with the banks, lets see it. Otherwise you are hawking the same nonsense that Trump promotes. Attacks with little or no substance.
Obama welshed on single payer? As if he could do it all himself. Even Bernie says he can't do it all himself...there needs to be a revolution among the citizens. YOU are as much to blame for the failure of single payer as Obama. I'm surprised you didn't blame Obama for not doing enough on Climate change...as if the republicans would be as good. Same for Clinton...following Obama is better than anything the republicans would do. Maybe Bernie would propose more, but get it through congress...how does that happen?
Obama has gotten the economy working again. At least people have jobs, if not rising wages. Obama has stopped the sinking, even if you haven't notcied. Sure, more needs to be done. What is Bernie's plan? Spend government stimulus money that a republican house won't give him?
If you have specific information about any pacts that Hillary has with the banks, lets see it. Otherwise you are hawking the same nonsense that Trump promotes. Attacks with little or no substance.
Both make promises they can't deliver on. Perhaps that is why they are attracting the fringe from both sides of the political spectrum who feel left out of the electoral equation.
Republicans have lost their grasp on reality, by voting for a Reality TV host.
But then there's the Democrats, who should know better, who are feeling the Bern. They have climbed aboard the Bernie bandwagon, hurling down the Ethan Allen Trail from the Green Mountains. You know, that cute little New England state of less than half a million.
When Vermont recently tried to enact a single payer health care system, it was met with failure. The governor and Bernie's endorsement in one of the smallest states in the nation could not get single payer passed and yet Bernie's idealistic followers think he'll have better success than President Obama whose modestly proposal utilized the Republicans own plan, and even that was met by fierce obstruction the entire way until its passage. Fantasy Land is filled this year with polar opposites. A bi-polar political world is as untenable for any length of time as is a person affected by bi-polar disorder. Somewhere, somehow down the line something has gotta give. One doesn't want to be around when that stack blows.
DD
Manhattan
Republicans have lost their grasp on reality, by voting for a Reality TV host.
But then there's the Democrats, who should know better, who are feeling the Bern. They have climbed aboard the Bernie bandwagon, hurling down the Ethan Allen Trail from the Green Mountains. You know, that cute little New England state of less than half a million.
When Vermont recently tried to enact a single payer health care system, it was met with failure. The governor and Bernie's endorsement in one of the smallest states in the nation could not get single payer passed and yet Bernie's idealistic followers think he'll have better success than President Obama whose modestly proposal utilized the Republicans own plan, and even that was met by fierce obstruction the entire way until its passage. Fantasy Land is filled this year with polar opposites. A bi-polar political world is as untenable for any length of time as is a person affected by bi-polar disorder. Somewhere, somehow down the line something has gotta give. One doesn't want to be around when that stack blows.
DD
Manhattan
5
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump overlap in ways that attract their respective electorates.
Both candidates are old white men born in New York City who proudly strut and display their Brooklyn and Queens born body and souls.
Both candidates avoided military service and have had multiple wives.
Both candidates are consummate insiders in their chosen professions of politics and business.
Both candidates deal in cynical outrageous dog-whistle rhetorical political fantasy and fiction.
Joining the two men together would create an impossibly inhuman combination chimera and chameleon.
Both candidates are old white men born in New York City who proudly strut and display their Brooklyn and Queens born body and souls.
Both candidates avoided military service and have had multiple wives.
Both candidates are consummate insiders in their chosen professions of politics and business.
Both candidates deal in cynical outrageous dog-whistle rhetorical political fantasy and fiction.
Joining the two men together would create an impossibly inhuman combination chimera and chameleon.
2
The differences between Sanders and Trump could not be greater. Look at "Moral Values": Sanders always at the highest end of the spectrum; Trump mostly on the opposite side towards the middle.
In the same table of "Moral Values," there are more similarities between Trump and Clinton. Which shows that Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate measured by the standards of social empathy set by Democratic stalwarts, like FDR and LBJ. The general election polls show that Clinton will loose to all three Republican front-runners (Trump, Rubio and Cruz), because to independents and liberal democrats she is in fact a moderate Republican.
If this column, with its misleading headline, was meant to tow the anti-Sanders line of the NY Times, it is having the opposite effect, as shown by the comments of thoughtful and politically savy readers.
To vote, or not to vote, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles…
My apologies to The Bard for taking poetic license. My vote is for Sanders, firmly to the end.
In the same table of "Moral Values," there are more similarities between Trump and Clinton. Which shows that Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate measured by the standards of social empathy set by Democratic stalwarts, like FDR and LBJ. The general election polls show that Clinton will loose to all three Republican front-runners (Trump, Rubio and Cruz), because to independents and liberal democrats she is in fact a moderate Republican.
If this column, with its misleading headline, was meant to tow the anti-Sanders line of the NY Times, it is having the opposite effect, as shown by the comments of thoughtful and politically savy readers.
To vote, or not to vote, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles…
My apologies to The Bard for taking poetic license. My vote is for Sanders, firmly to the end.
24
I find comparisons of Trump and Sanders disturbing. Trump depends on racist, sexist, hysteria. Regardless of his positions on other issues,the man has filled the airwaves with hate speech and anyone who fails to see how dangerous he is must be blind. Why can't the media and political pundits spend a little more time on this important and scary aspect of Trump.
9
There's the jungle that Trump, Cruz, and Rubio live in, and there's the human legacy of civilization that Clinton and Sanders live in.
One view emphasizes the wanton exploitation and destruction of nature to maximize personal gain, the other emphasizes the building and balancing of a future for humanity as a whole.
Seems like a 'no brainer'!
One view emphasizes the wanton exploitation and destruction of nature to maximize personal gain, the other emphasizes the building and balancing of a future for humanity as a whole.
Seems like a 'no brainer'!
5
Reporters need to delve further, and question more. For example, while both Trump and Sanders use anger to arouse crowds, they will never be able to deliver what they promise. Columnists should be thinking this through. Sanders wants a political revolution -- when was the last time a political revolution succeeded without massive amounts of violence to enforce the revolution? If Sanders wants only a revolution in procedures, let's call it, substituting a single payer health care system for our current national health care act, that "revolution" would cause such disruption, it would sink health care. The most enduring changes are those which accrue over time. The National Health Care Act does need improvements but with the Congressional Obstructionists, otherwise known as Republicans, in charge, the incremental improvements to our health care system are not happening as they should. Sanders, as is Trump, promises what he will never make work successfully.
The major difference between Sanders and Trump is that only the former actually believes his own statements. Trump's remarks on virtually everything are liable to be radically altered or even completely reversed by the time the news cycle is played out. He's even threatened to file a law suit against Ted Cruz for his having the effrontery to reiterate his own past statements on reproductive choice and other such issues. The Donald's interest in the presidency is a matter of the exertion of power; I haven't the slightest doubt that, if elected, he'll bow to the wishes of the Republican "establishment" even while insisting that every position he takes represents his own preference. He'll be able to get away with it because no one knows what, if anything, he actually stands for- apart from disposing of undocumented aliens- and because his supporters don't even seem to care.
3
Interesting column, Mr. Edsall; however, placing any credence in the reporting skills of Mika Brzezinski, or her partner, Charles "Joe" Scarborough, is ludicrous, They are believed by many as being Trump-Cheerleaders, and a couple of TV personalities who got lost on their way to FOX "News".
I do see some similarities in their styles, but not so much in their ideological advocacy. Trump's approach is to vary his harangues, telling each audience what they want to hear. Sanders is more consistent, and generally heart-felt. Donald's hatred is in contrast to Bernie's genuine concern. Pompous versus caring.
On the three key issues, both are out-to-lunch: on their economics, neither has numbers that make sense, and balance with what is promised. "Just trust me" won't fly in the Oval Office. Both suggest that they wish to radically improve Health Care; but, in today's Congress, you build-out from where you are, and not jeopardize what you already have. And both would be lost in the National Security and Diplomacy Arena..
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
I do see some similarities in their styles, but not so much in their ideological advocacy. Trump's approach is to vary his harangues, telling each audience what they want to hear. Sanders is more consistent, and generally heart-felt. Donald's hatred is in contrast to Bernie's genuine concern. Pompous versus caring.
On the three key issues, both are out-to-lunch: on their economics, neither has numbers that make sense, and balance with what is promised. "Just trust me" won't fly in the Oval Office. Both suggest that they wish to radically improve Health Care; but, in today's Congress, you build-out from where you are, and not jeopardize what you already have. And both would be lost in the National Security and Diplomacy Arena..
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
3
Olsen's claim about two Hispanic candidates showing some conservative outreach s laughable on its face.
Cruz doesn't speak Spanish much, and Rubio goes to great lengths to deemphasize his fluency (in English too, to tell the truth). And "Hispanic" is hardly any kind of unform demographic. And Cruz and Rubio are both Cuban, long time anti communsts long ago brought into the Republican party. But the extraordinary preferential treatment offered to Cubans brings a LOT of resentment from Latinos. The idea that either could atract a surge of Hispanics to the Republican Party fails the smell test.
Is Ben Carson bringing a significant lift among blacks to the Republican Party?
Cruz doesn't speak Spanish much, and Rubio goes to great lengths to deemphasize his fluency (in English too, to tell the truth). And "Hispanic" is hardly any kind of unform demographic. And Cruz and Rubio are both Cuban, long time anti communsts long ago brought into the Republican party. But the extraordinary preferential treatment offered to Cubans brings a LOT of resentment from Latinos. The idea that either could atract a surge of Hispanics to the Republican Party fails the smell test.
Is Ben Carson bringing a significant lift among blacks to the Republican Party?
8
The chart is a wonderful insight into the public's view of candidates. It seems that Liberty, with Rand Paul as the leader by far, is not that important in 2016.
You are missing the larger point. Trump has already proved voters like him not because of his policy pronouncements but in spite of them. Saying Trump and Sanders supporters are incompatible because of their policies misses the point both are political revolutionaries and the only thing that matters is the revolution and toppling the party elites. If both win their party's nominations they should name each other as their running mates putting the final nail in the coffin of both parties.
The differences between Sanders and Trump could not be greater. Look at "Moral Values": Sanders always at the highest end of the spectrum; Trump mostly on the opposite side towards the middle.
In the same table of "Moral Values," there are more similarities between Trump and Clinton. Which shows that Hillary Clinton is weak candidate measured by the standards of social empty set by FDR and LBJ. The general election polls show that Clinton will loose to all three Republican front runners (Trump, Rubio and Cruz), because to independents and liberal democrats she is in fact a moderate Republican.
If this column, with its misleading headline, was meant to tow the anti-Sanders line of the NY Times, it is having the opposite effect, as shown by the comments of thoughtful and politically well informed readers.
To vote, or not to vote, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles…
With my apologies to The Bard for taking poetic license. My vote is for Sanders, firmly to the end.
In the same table of "Moral Values," there are more similarities between Trump and Clinton. Which shows that Hillary Clinton is weak candidate measured by the standards of social empty set by FDR and LBJ. The general election polls show that Clinton will loose to all three Republican front runners (Trump, Rubio and Cruz), because to independents and liberal democrats she is in fact a moderate Republican.
If this column, with its misleading headline, was meant to tow the anti-Sanders line of the NY Times, it is having the opposite effect, as shown by the comments of thoughtful and politically well informed readers.
To vote, or not to vote, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles…
With my apologies to The Bard for taking poetic license. My vote is for Sanders, firmly to the end.
3
You don't need to be a political pundit like Mr Edsall to recognize that Trump has greater appeal among working class voters who tend to vote Republican. And while Trump's recent fake billionaire 'populism' opportunistically focuses on issues that Sanders has worked to address during his full political life, the differences are tremendous.
Trump channels the fear and anxiety of his 'supporters' against the the usual scapegoats in US society - African-Americans and other minorities, immigrants, Muslims, 'uppity' women and more. Like his father who associated with the Ku Klux Klan, Trump's right-wing 'populism' is nothing but smoke and mirrors intended to divide US citizens along racial/ethnic, gender and religious lines.
Sanders' campaign wants to unite us to fight together for a more just and equitable future for all.
Trump channels the fear and anxiety of his 'supporters' against the the usual scapegoats in US society - African-Americans and other minorities, immigrants, Muslims, 'uppity' women and more. Like his father who associated with the Ku Klux Klan, Trump's right-wing 'populism' is nothing but smoke and mirrors intended to divide US citizens along racial/ethnic, gender and religious lines.
Sanders' campaign wants to unite us to fight together for a more just and equitable future for all.
11
excellent commentary.
the democrat party moved to the right on economic matters. Modern dem congressmen have been equivalent to moderate republicans in goldwater's day.
5
A segment of Americans are looking for someone who can "make the trains run on time". They are tired of the feeling that Washington fiddles while the country burns. Both Sanders and Trump - by ignoring the reality of the US government structure - promise to "get stuff done". That is what makes them both dangerous, but points to how much damage the Republican strategy of "one-term president" has done to the country, our Constitution, and our psychology.
5
I've come to the conclusion that at the root of our social dysfunction are the mind-numbing effects of corporate media propaganda.
11
Donald Trump has reduced the Republican Party to just a "brand" and he has successfully used that brand to win primaries. Bernie has taken a similar path if not quite as successfully with the Democratic brand. Both these candidacies point to the future - the dissolution of the traditional, centrally controlled party. Look to a future where both parties are more like the NFL - marketing organizations taking care of their brand. You'll be able to download their apps and play Fantasy Politics.
1
Sen. Bernie Sanders is the man to bring people together. He is for citizen's rights: education, healthcare, decent jobs...a future! It's no wonder that many Republicans see him as a viable choice. He is pragmatic and will work with others to steer our country back toward sanity; Trump, not so much.
9
Dear Jill:
Republicans are praying it is Sanders. They are chomping at the bit that Hillary will be indicted, convicted and hauled off to the gray bar hotel. They want Sanders to win the nomination and the moment that occurs their propaganda apparatus will kick in full gear against a candidate they have already labelled a Red Diaper Commie Pinko. That should go over well in not only Red States but Purple ones who fear the likes of a Putin surrogate becoming president. "Taint gonna happen, Jill. It will be Hillary and Trump in the Fall. In that case it is Hillary's to lose.
DD
Manhattan
Republicans are praying it is Sanders. They are chomping at the bit that Hillary will be indicted, convicted and hauled off to the gray bar hotel. They want Sanders to win the nomination and the moment that occurs their propaganda apparatus will kick in full gear against a candidate they have already labelled a Red Diaper Commie Pinko. That should go over well in not only Red States but Purple ones who fear the likes of a Putin surrogate becoming president. "Taint gonna happen, Jill. It will be Hillary and Trump in the Fall. In that case it is Hillary's to lose.
DD
Manhattan
2
Sanders is a divisive because he is an ideologue. Just listen to how he harpoons the rich, corporations, politicians, etc.
Uniting people against others is not the same as unifying them.
Uniting people against others is not the same as unifying them.
3
They agree on the problem, but disagree on the solution.
1
The article misses a big similarity about followers of both men: there is a deeply sexist streak to their followers (whether or not you think Bernie himself is sexist, the tone of his followers on blogs is very offensive). These guys seem to see themselves as the most disempowered (never mind women, minorities, the poor, or the elderly) and are willing to do major damage to the social and political fabric to achieve power for themselves, with little sensitivity to the chaos they'd inflict on the really disempowered who depend on the stability of social programs and the economy. Not a responsible gradualist or pragmatist in the lot.
6
Gloria Steinem made Sanders an "Honorary Woman" years ago. Just because he is running for President against one particular woman, it does not make him sexist. You have that incorrect.
1
A fascinating look at an evolving situation. A few years ago Ralph Nader put out a book, 'Unstoppable', stating the same general idea: More and more people are starting to realise how badly they've been served (up) by today's mess of exported jobs and policies designed to replace U.S. citizens and legal residents with temporary, easily exploitable, workers. Result: a decimated middle class resulting in an economy that's going down the drain, generating a LOT of, to put it mildly, very unhappy campers. Who VOTE.
And then then there's the fact that whether you're a Trump whose market is basically much of the public at large, or a Sanders who focuses on the functions best left to government (Quite different, of course), you're looking at a picture of things that complement each other more than they differ, as more and more of our voters - now, thanks in no small part to today's tech, are getting information and opinions from just about everywhere, start to figure things out for themselves and come to their own conclusion. It's a great trip that's just beginning.
And then then there's the fact that whether you're a Trump whose market is basically much of the public at large, or a Sanders who focuses on the functions best left to government (Quite different, of course), you're looking at a picture of things that complement each other more than they differ, as more and more of our voters - now, thanks in no small part to today's tech, are getting information and opinions from just about everywhere, start to figure things out for themselves and come to their own conclusion. It's a great trip that's just beginning.
1
What a foolish piece,I am disappointed Mr Edsall.
I will point out a couple of YUGE differences . Trump has gotten hundreds of hours of free TV coverage even by MSNBC, and meters of columns in the newspapers including NYT . Bernie was barely covered at all by either until he did well in Iowa, and when he is written about it is not fair much of the time. E.g. Charles Blow thinks that Blacks will all go for Hillary: what about Ben Jealous, Spike Lee,Cornel West, is there something wrong with them, or with Mr Blow? I have never met those esteemed men but It goes without saying that they would not support Trump. That would be a 2nd big difference.
There is no comparison between Sanders, a statesman,gentleman,who is only motivated by the desire to do right by others,even if he may have some flaws. Trump is bombastic,narcissistic, opportunistic,and we cannot believe anything he says.
I will point out a couple of YUGE differences . Trump has gotten hundreds of hours of free TV coverage even by MSNBC, and meters of columns in the newspapers including NYT . Bernie was barely covered at all by either until he did well in Iowa, and when he is written about it is not fair much of the time. E.g. Charles Blow thinks that Blacks will all go for Hillary: what about Ben Jealous, Spike Lee,Cornel West, is there something wrong with them, or with Mr Blow? I have never met those esteemed men but It goes without saying that they would not support Trump. That would be a 2nd big difference.
There is no comparison between Sanders, a statesman,gentleman,who is only motivated by the desire to do right by others,even if he may have some flaws. Trump is bombastic,narcissistic, opportunistic,and we cannot believe anything he says.
12
Sanders hasn't gotten as much media attention because he says the same thing over and over again. How many times can they report the same words? He's actually been giving the same exact speech for decades, just swapping out Roosevelt for Kochs.
After a while, he sounds like a broken record. Different questions, same responses.
After a while, he sounds like a broken record. Different questions, same responses.
2
To AACNY
I would argue that it shows Bernie's consistency of thought and character and he was ahead of his time saying these things 20 years ago. Also, when on TV he refuses to be brought into petty arguments that distract from the big picture.
Whereas Trump changes his positions daily.
As does also Hillary.by the way, eg. who had to "evolve"on acceptance of gay marriage (yeah, right), who was for for Keystone then against it, for the Iraq war then it was a mistake, etc.
I would argue that it shows Bernie's consistency of thought and character and he was ahead of his time saying these things 20 years ago. Also, when on TV he refuses to be brought into petty arguments that distract from the big picture.
Whereas Trump changes his positions daily.
As does also Hillary.by the way, eg. who had to "evolve"on acceptance of gay marriage (yeah, right), who was for for Keystone then against it, for the Iraq war then it was a mistake, etc.
Trump and Sanders are similar in two respects:
1) Both identify problems that stir peoples emotions.
2) Neither offer realistic solutions to these problems.
1) Both identify problems that stir peoples emotions.
2) Neither offer realistic solutions to these problems.
109
Sanders offers realistic solutions to problems that have long been recognized, Trump offers nothing but insults, alienation and fear of others.
2
Sanders recognizes that his audience doesn't have time for wonky policy talk. He is efficient with his messaging, especially with the youth who have grown up in an environment of brief, concise, to the point messages.
Well done, and lays the groundwork for the next candidates of change. History has shown stranger alliances when the perceived threat is as large as the corporatist threat is perceived to be to today's Middle and Lower Classes.
What we are seeing is a rising discontent of one class: the U.S. working class. The middle and capitalist classes are, OTOH, happy and content with the status quo and its overpriced iPhones and housing prices, and plan to support the "moderate Republican", either Clinton or 'not-Trump'. Clear class lines have been drawn. Get used to it.
It should not be surprising that the U.S. working class divides into a "left" and "right" wings. This is an expected effect of an anti-democratic political system founded upon White supremacy. It is one of the many ways the political system militates against any translation of the will of the majority class into effective policy.
The only solution will be a real "political revolution" to abolish the present political system. This WILL happen in the coming future; the present has become intolerable.
It should not be surprising that the U.S. working class divides into a "left" and "right" wings. This is an expected effect of an anti-democratic political system founded upon White supremacy. It is one of the many ways the political system militates against any translation of the will of the majority class into effective policy.
The only solution will be a real "political revolution" to abolish the present political system. This WILL happen in the coming future; the present has become intolerable.
1
I still don't see why those "stuck on the middle and bottom rungs of the economic ladder" think that electing a billionaire will help them. It's a mystery to me. What do Trump's supporters think he will do for them that will hike them up a rung or two? The reality is that Trump has absolutely no idea what their lives are like. He inherited millions. He's never worked at what any of his supporters would consider a real job. He lives in a marble-encrusted penthouse. The hedge-fund managers and bankers that Trump rails against are actually his peers. When he says that he's going to tax the rich, does anyone really believe that he will? Because Trump is one of those rich, and he uses all the same tax loopholes that they do.
When Trump supporters say they like him because he's not beholden to "special interests" they're forgetting one important thing. Each one of us is a special interest. Each one of us expects something from the person we elect. And, the elected person is beholden to each of us. Donald Trump knows nothing of the struggles of the people he speaks to, and what's worse, he doesn't care. To him, those people are completely forgettable. They will be sorely disappointed if they put him into office, and my guess is that their lives will only continue to deteriorate.
When Trump supporters say they like him because he's not beholden to "special interests" they're forgetting one important thing. Each one of us is a special interest. Each one of us expects something from the person we elect. And, the elected person is beholden to each of us. Donald Trump knows nothing of the struggles of the people he speaks to, and what's worse, he doesn't care. To him, those people are completely forgettable. They will be sorely disappointed if they put him into office, and my guess is that their lives will only continue to deteriorate.
147
Some fascinating insights here. While there is not a lot of overlap between the appeal of Sanders and Trump, it's conceivable that some future candidate could get his/her message well tuned enough to appeal to both sets of supporters. But for that to work, the candidate would have to have his/her own resources independent of control by party elites.
1
The people are tired of the two-party system as both parties, beholden to their powerful donors instead of the people, are interested in preserving their fiefdom than in persevering to solve the country’s problems. That accounts for the appeal for Trump and Sanders.
Take the Supreme Court vacancy, for example. The Democrats are aghast that the GOP doesn’t want to consider any nominee this year. Then it emerges that the Democrats, including Obama and Biden, have taken similar positions in the past. Can you blame the people for shunning the establishment?
For the GOP establishment to think that the voters will get behind another Bush, when the last Bush nearly bankrupt us, shows how out of touch they are. With Jeb’s exit, GOP now touts Rubio, whom Christie exposed as more robotic than one capable of independent thought and who has yet to win a primary, showing the leadership is still clueless. That may well make Trump the nominee and that’s no fantasy.
The Democratic establishment may succeed in putting their candidate, Mrs. Clinton, on the ballot. But millions find Mrs. Clinton, with her Wall St ties and Super PAC support, untrustworthy and unappealing and prefer Sanders, who is funded by the people.
If Sanders supporters stay home in Nov., Trump, the potential GOP nominee, may become the president, turning a fantasy into a nightmare for the country and the world. The two parties will have no one to blame but themselves for driving the people to make that suicidal choice.
Take the Supreme Court vacancy, for example. The Democrats are aghast that the GOP doesn’t want to consider any nominee this year. Then it emerges that the Democrats, including Obama and Biden, have taken similar positions in the past. Can you blame the people for shunning the establishment?
For the GOP establishment to think that the voters will get behind another Bush, when the last Bush nearly bankrupt us, shows how out of touch they are. With Jeb’s exit, GOP now touts Rubio, whom Christie exposed as more robotic than one capable of independent thought and who has yet to win a primary, showing the leadership is still clueless. That may well make Trump the nominee and that’s no fantasy.
The Democratic establishment may succeed in putting their candidate, Mrs. Clinton, on the ballot. But millions find Mrs. Clinton, with her Wall St ties and Super PAC support, untrustworthy and unappealing and prefer Sanders, who is funded by the people.
If Sanders supporters stay home in Nov., Trump, the potential GOP nominee, may become the president, turning a fantasy into a nightmare for the country and the world. The two parties will have no one to blame but themselves for driving the people to make that suicidal choice.
5
Trump's nationalists merged with Sanders's socialists into a single populist party. Interesting, and strangely familiar. What would we call such a merger?
How about: the Social Nationalists (Sozialnationalismus).
How about: the Social Nationalists (Sozialnationalismus).
1
The DNC establishment has profoundly failed us by creating the pseudo-coronation of Hillary Clinton. Her mendacity is now to be on full display in Federal Court, and her prevarications and evasions will appear hopelessly weak next to the wheeler-dealer braggadocio of The Donald. If she is not in jail by November, he will wipe the floor with her candidacy.
Bernie' integrity is the DNC's only hope. The sooner they realize his value, the better. Idealism can be tempered with reality, but corruption is corruption and destroys all it touches.
Bernie' integrity is the DNC's only hope. The sooner they realize his value, the better. Idealism can be tempered with reality, but corruption is corruption and destroys all it touches.
4
The 'information technology.revolution' has led the front runner of the Republican party to proclaim that he is having a 'conversation' with his supporters via Twitter.
When lashing out with his in-bread simplicity and vulgarity, he calmly says that he is only retweeting what his base, the one that loves, loves, loves him is saying.
He is using technology not to inform, but using the old Goebbles playbook of misinformation and ad infinitum repeated lies, a playbook started by the Republican party's very own Ministry of Propaganda years ago, aka Faux Noise.
And Mr. Edsell puts Sanders into the same category as Trump? The one living in a fantasy world here is the writer himself.
When lashing out with his in-bread simplicity and vulgarity, he calmly says that he is only retweeting what his base, the one that loves, loves, loves him is saying.
He is using technology not to inform, but using the old Goebbles playbook of misinformation and ad infinitum repeated lies, a playbook started by the Republican party's very own Ministry of Propaganda years ago, aka Faux Noise.
And Mr. Edsell puts Sanders into the same category as Trump? The one living in a fantasy world here is the writer himself.
2
This is what Americans want:
1. Politicians who talk to one another
2. A realistic not 'idealistic' or 'bombastic' foreign policy
3. Affordable medical care
4. Fair immigration policies and laws
5. Investment in education and infrastructure
6. Religion out of politics
7. Equality for every citizen
8. Competent policing
9. Protection from predatory financial firms and corporations
10. Legalized marijuana (put it to a vote!)
This is what will make America great again. Who will deliver us from the evil of charlatans and narcissistic blowhards?
1. Politicians who talk to one another
2. A realistic not 'idealistic' or 'bombastic' foreign policy
3. Affordable medical care
4. Fair immigration policies and laws
5. Investment in education and infrastructure
6. Religion out of politics
7. Equality for every citizen
8. Competent policing
9. Protection from predatory financial firms and corporations
10. Legalized marijuana (put it to a vote!)
This is what will make America great again. Who will deliver us from the evil of charlatans and narcissistic blowhards?
13
All politicians are liars.And if they are not in the beginning they quickly learn that they will go nowhere without learning to lie with the best of them.This is a fact of politicial life.No one person can be all things to all people.This election is chillingly reminicient of the same conditions of Germany before the terrible war that destroyed Europe.The people were just fed up with their government.They handed their country over to a total maniac and he destroyed it along with several other countries.We are headed in that same direction.
Actually Nannie, Bernie Sanders is NOT a liar.
2
The answer to transforming government into something that works for more then 1% of the population is as obvious as the nose on our faces: get the money out of politics. If you don't want monied interests to buy politicians and policy, remove the need for politicians to court those interests to get elected. Cap campaign expenditures - from all sources - at a modest level and thereby deprive corruption of the oxygen it needs to flourish.
And for all those who feel that money is speech, e.g., Citizens United, that is only one current interpretation of the Constitution. What say, having witnessed the utter dismantling of our country that this particular interpretation has engendered, we re-interpret the definition of free speech to exclude money as speech. No where in the document itself does it say that money = speech. Nine jurists decided that and they can change their minds. For the successful continuation of the Republic, they should.
Otherwise we are headed toward a third world socio-economic existence with a thin veneer of very wealthy and powerful and a great mass of poor with no hope of advancement. Killing the American Dream this way is a prescription for revolution. Especially in an America that had once known a different and more egalitarian way.
And for all those who feel that money is speech, e.g., Citizens United, that is only one current interpretation of the Constitution. What say, having witnessed the utter dismantling of our country that this particular interpretation has engendered, we re-interpret the definition of free speech to exclude money as speech. No where in the document itself does it say that money = speech. Nine jurists decided that and they can change their minds. For the successful continuation of the Republic, they should.
Otherwise we are headed toward a third world socio-economic existence with a thin veneer of very wealthy and powerful and a great mass of poor with no hope of advancement. Killing the American Dream this way is a prescription for revolution. Especially in an America that had once known a different and more egalitarian way.
2
A Trump vs. Bern matchup would be hilarious. One blunt instrument against another. But I'd question if Bernie would be capable of matching Donald's expert manipulation of the media, despite a fiercely devoted grassroots following.
I think Hill could beat Donald in a cakewalk. She presents herself as the adult in the room, and the campaign practically runs itself. The danger is that she might be tempted to phone it in.
I think Hill could beat Donald in a cakewalk. She presents herself as the adult in the room, and the campaign practically runs itself. The danger is that she might be tempted to phone it in.
1
Each passing year since Reagan's presidency has seen the atmosphere in Washington, DC become more toxic and acidic. It has finally reach 0.01 on the pH scale. There is no known vessel that will contain this brew. It dissolves everything it touches. It's fumes are foul indeed.
Putting Trump or Sanders in the White House will not prevent this poison stew from dropping even closer to absolute zero than it already is. The only way to reverse the toxin and its effects is to sweep out the halls of Congress and the Senate. The United States started from scratch once before, in 1789. It is time to do it again
It's not the President who is the real danger to this country, nor can only one man or woman be its savior. Today the responsibility is more and more spread evenly over 535 others who need to be sent home forthwith, told to find real jobs, and see just how long they last before they find themselves fired for tardyism, incompetence or insubordination.
The only way to reverse this toxin and its effects is to sweep out the halls of Congress and the Senate, and forbid any current member from holding office for at least 8 years. In 1789, the United States started from scratch. Let's do it again.
Putting Trump or Sanders in the White House will not prevent this poison stew from dropping even closer to absolute zero than it already is. The only way to reverse the toxin and its effects is to sweep out the halls of Congress and the Senate. The United States started from scratch once before, in 1789. It is time to do it again
It's not the President who is the real danger to this country, nor can only one man or woman be its savior. Today the responsibility is more and more spread evenly over 535 others who need to be sent home forthwith, told to find real jobs, and see just how long they last before they find themselves fired for tardyism, incompetence or insubordination.
The only way to reverse this toxin and its effects is to sweep out the halls of Congress and the Senate, and forbid any current member from holding office for at least 8 years. In 1789, the United States started from scratch. Let's do it again.
126
Unfortunately, the politicians you want deposed have been elected by a significant number that continue to buy in to the rhetoric of us against them and the media certainly does not help.
1
I grant you Deus02, that is definitely a problem.
I don't know if 8 years is long enough. all of these people are junkies hooked on perks and power. If you are familiar with recidivism amongst drug addicts you will know that at best 10% will not revert to their old habits.
Ah, the new cocktail-hour card game ... equating the Northeastern Leftie Sanders with the Bully Trump. But look at the charts (thank you for those charts). Sanders and his supporters value empathy. Trump and his supporters value authority. In fact, Trump also sports with belligerent misogyny, racism, and a hatred of immigrants ... just for fun, to get the crowds excited. These are not equal candidates, not compatible camps. Sorry. (The main point of Jill Lapore's New Yorker article is not to equate the Left and Right, but to show us how the American party system has evolved, through painful disruptions, over the last centuries, as a result of technological innovations in communication ... and warn us that we're headed for yet another round of chaos ... OK).
Yes, Donald Trump without appeals to hate and racism may be close to Bernie Sanders. But that's like saying that in 1933 you asked which leader of a country sought massive government spending to draw his country out of the depression and to expand social programs you could be describing Hitler or FDR. The difference became very clear when you threw in which one spewed racist venom.
And the two parties went in very different directions after the 1964 and 1972 losses. The Republicans went more to the right including on social issues such as abortion (when he was governor of California, Reagan signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country) while the Democrats went more toward the center. That Bernie Sanders calling for a national healthcare plan which Senator Robert Wagner proposed back in the 1930s is still considered radical shows just how far to the right the party has gone.
And the two parties went in very different directions after the 1964 and 1972 losses. The Republicans went more to the right including on social issues such as abortion (when he was governor of California, Reagan signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country) while the Democrats went more toward the center. That Bernie Sanders calling for a national healthcare plan which Senator Robert Wagner proposed back in the 1930s is still considered radical shows just how far to the right the party has gone.
2
It's astounding to me how Clinton supporters, including writers in this newspaper, feel free to insult me, a Sanders supporter, at will, calling me everything from naive, uninformed, a teapartier (says Bill Clinton), just looking for boys (Gloria Steinem) and a Bernie bro (Paul Krugman). Yet you still hope and even expect that we will turn out in mass to vote for Clinton in the general election. Actually, as the article below quite eloquently explains, in a match-up between Clinton and Trump, Clinton will be trounced whereas in a match-up between Sanders and Trump, Sanders would win. It is the Clinton supporters who are the unrealistic voters to expect that such a flawed candidate would win. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-san...
4
Dear Miriam:
There are no polls which you can cite which proves your prediction because it is too early to assess the race and no polls, only opinions, have been published putting forth numerous scenarios. At present, it is Hillary's and Trump's nomination to lose. Those are, in your case, the sad facts.
As for NY, Hillary should beat Trump easily, which means she will not need your vote per se but that is no cause to wish she loses to Trump. I'm sure if you consider the alternative you would not want a Trump presidency. But the choice is yours to make entirely. If you choose to abstain from the General that won't prevent the process from proceeding forward without you.
Be of good cheer and take solace that you can't always get what you want but sometimes you get what you can at least tolerate, Such is life,
DD
Manhattan
There are no polls which you can cite which proves your prediction because it is too early to assess the race and no polls, only opinions, have been published putting forth numerous scenarios. At present, it is Hillary's and Trump's nomination to lose. Those are, in your case, the sad facts.
As for NY, Hillary should beat Trump easily, which means she will not need your vote per se but that is no cause to wish she loses to Trump. I'm sure if you consider the alternative you would not want a Trump presidency. But the choice is yours to make entirely. If you choose to abstain from the General that won't prevent the process from proceeding forward without you.
Be of good cheer and take solace that you can't always get what you want but sometimes you get what you can at least tolerate, Such is life,
DD
Manhattan
5
Hillary can't beat Trump, because half of the Democrats and all Independents hate her, while Trump has Democrats and Independent supporters.
1
Apparently you didn't even bother reading the link I posted. This is a thoughtful eloquent article which clearly explains why Sanders has a better chance of beating Trump. All you can do is smugly state that I should just tow the line and vote for Clinton. She is going to need more than my vote to win, and as this article articulates she is not going to get it. But of course you Clinton supporters can't be bothered to read anything that doesn't conform to your "facts." It's just easier for you to just criticize anyone who disagrees with what you believe.
1
So, in other words, or rather looking solely at the numbers presented, the candidate most in the mainstream/midstream is Donald Trump.
1
A false equivalency of monumental proportions. Trump's statements prove him to be racist, inflammatory, and a deep threat to the common good. Sanders supports equality, tolerance, and progressive solutions to economic and social problems. What equivalency?
1
Analysts and pundits miss the big picture because it requires seeing the electorate through a different lens. It's this simple: the vast majority of "Independent voters" are not in the middle between a Democratic left and a Republican right; they are to the left of a Democratic Party that has lurched right over the last 25 years (starting with Bill Clinton). The vast majority of people who call themselves "independent" are lapsed Democrats who grew disconnected with the party as the party abandoned tradition Democratic family oriented economic priorities of fair compensation, educational opportunity, and concern for oneself and one's neighbors through a societal safety net available to the old, sick, young, and the poor.
The fact that an exploding number of Democrats insist on calling themselves Progressive-Democrats, together with the success of candidates who call themselves Progressives and the waning support for candidates who are "blue-dog" Democrats, represent a warning flag to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party of the last two decades, lead by DLC/Trilateralist/neo-liberal policies is a party that working people no longer support.
The fact that an exploding number of Democrats insist on calling themselves Progressive-Democrats, together with the success of candidates who call themselves Progressives and the waning support for candidates who are "blue-dog" Democrats, represent a warning flag to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party of the last two decades, lead by DLC/Trilateralist/neo-liberal policies is a party that working people no longer support.
Of course it's not a war of ideas it's a war on personalities. Talk to some one from the right or left and if they start detecting even the slightest deviation from the party line theres nothing can said after that. For instance if someone said Ihe didn't mind if a class room in a public school was to be used for bible classes how would you react? Agree to disagree or go medival them? If the discussion ever lived on to social security and, Madre Dios , you agree one hundred percent with the the bible thumper would you be able to admit it?
Communist and fascist of the last century had a lot of great ideas what kept them from get from implementing their best ideas was the we're not only to political but their prsonalites
Communist and fascist of the last century had a lot of great ideas what kept them from get from implementing their best ideas was the we're not only to political but their prsonalites
The present campaigns are a battle for the soul of democracy. We have two starkly different views. The right, represented admirably by the Kochs - now funding Rubio - divides, demonizes immigrants, and cares nothing for human suffering. They lean towards despotism. It is the ugly face of repression in which government exists to serve the needs of the most powerful. Their economic model is winner take all.
Bernie believes government exists to serve the needs of the people. Security is a far broader definition than keeping out "others" and wars of aggression to protect corporate interest. This definition of "security" includes individual welfare through opportunity for the young in access to higher education and for the vulnerable through universal access to health care and social support that strengthen the country by promoting the common good.
In this vision of government, the common good is served by protecting liberty of thought and belief and the ideals of America. The country is strongest when its members are not living in want, when they are educated, sheltered, productive, healthy, living in safe communities, when it cares for the young by supporting family leave and child care to produce the next generation raised securely and able to reach their full human potential.
Finally, a fair economy serves everyone, not just the most ruthless, through regulation protecting the environment and community from exploitation.
Bernie believes government exists to serve the needs of the people. Security is a far broader definition than keeping out "others" and wars of aggression to protect corporate interest. This definition of "security" includes individual welfare through opportunity for the young in access to higher education and for the vulnerable through universal access to health care and social support that strengthen the country by promoting the common good.
In this vision of government, the common good is served by protecting liberty of thought and belief and the ideals of America. The country is strongest when its members are not living in want, when they are educated, sheltered, productive, healthy, living in safe communities, when it cares for the young by supporting family leave and child care to produce the next generation raised securely and able to reach their full human potential.
Finally, a fair economy serves everyone, not just the most ruthless, through regulation protecting the environment and community from exploitation.
Ralph Nader has been making the same arguments for a few years now, and says that the one thing that the elites in Congress fear is just such a union of the left and right under populist values.
This discussion brings up the name of a qualified Democrat, Senator Sherrod Brown, who would be attractive to much of the Democratic Party base if the elite, corporate fix were not already in for Hillary Clinton. Such a large party would seem to have many attractive and qualified candidates, and yet, they have settled on the unethical Wall Street owned oligarch who is least liked by much of the country. I call it "suicide by Hillary" as I believe that many, like myself, will not vote for her if she wins the primary via super delegates, under any circumstances.
I now believe that OUR votes (not owned by either of the party powerful) are the last best option to prevent a potentially widespread violent backlash (call it revolution) against the elites running the country for themselves, and crushing the 99% under their heels. It is important that we not let the Democratic Party overturn democracy the way the Supreme Court did in the 2000 election (no it was not Nader's fault Dims). And no, Clinton will not be much better than the worst the Republicans can elect. She will also be a disaster for the 99% and has the record to prove it.
This discussion brings up the name of a qualified Democrat, Senator Sherrod Brown, who would be attractive to much of the Democratic Party base if the elite, corporate fix were not already in for Hillary Clinton. Such a large party would seem to have many attractive and qualified candidates, and yet, they have settled on the unethical Wall Street owned oligarch who is least liked by much of the country. I call it "suicide by Hillary" as I believe that many, like myself, will not vote for her if she wins the primary via super delegates, under any circumstances.
I now believe that OUR votes (not owned by either of the party powerful) are the last best option to prevent a potentially widespread violent backlash (call it revolution) against the elites running the country for themselves, and crushing the 99% under their heels. It is important that we not let the Democratic Party overturn democracy the way the Supreme Court did in the 2000 election (no it was not Nader's fault Dims). And no, Clinton will not be much better than the worst the Republicans can elect. She will also be a disaster for the 99% and has the record to prove it.
1
Trump is rich and always was. Bernie isn't and never was. The only similarity between the two is that they don't take money from super-pacs. That's because Trump is rich and Bernie has deep-seated integrity. Bernie has been fighting the fight for the rights of women, blacks and the poor for about fifty years. He has always been consistent....all these decades. He is authentic and non-corporate-funded. If Sanders wins the working class and poor will at least have an advocate. Clinton represents the interests of Wall Street and the war profiteers. And we have no idea what Trump stands for..none at all...except building some wall. Secretary Clinton did NOT do a great job as Secretary of State and I fear she will get us into more wars. She's a hawk. Go Bernie!
5
Dear Bev:
I appreciate your optimism and wish you well. But eventually reality will set in for Bernie's supporters as the campaign expands to the South and Midwest. If Bernie is still in the running by April our primary on the 19th along with the large delegates-rich states already favoring Hillary will be recording their results. I hope your nasty words toward Hillary does not prevent you from voting for her. She should beat Trump easily in NY but that doesn't mean she would not want your vote. Think about it, you've still got time before Bernie becomes a fading dream.
DD
Manhattan
I appreciate your optimism and wish you well. But eventually reality will set in for Bernie's supporters as the campaign expands to the South and Midwest. If Bernie is still in the running by April our primary on the 19th along with the large delegates-rich states already favoring Hillary will be recording their results. I hope your nasty words toward Hillary does not prevent you from voting for her. She should beat Trump easily in NY but that doesn't mean she would not want your vote. Think about it, you've still got time before Bernie becomes a fading dream.
DD
Manhattan
1
I'll vote and will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee - (if it is close in New York.) She would certainly be preferable to Trump. I just don't trust her. I don't hate her..just think she is in the pocket of our owners. And I don't think it's "nasty" to point out that she wasn't a great SOS.. Kerry has been better.
2
Dear Bev:
And as a lifelong Democrat I will vote for Bernie if somehow he pulls the Upset. As a native New Yorker I have seen enough of Trump to last a lifetime. His buildings are the most garish examples of architecture, his name plastered on everyone of them. He is the quintessential New Yorker, from Queens, every one outside of NYC used to say they hated because they were so arrogant, boorish, rude and just plain impolite. And now he may be the GOP's nominee? They must truly be crazy and desperate indeed.
Add the obstructionist Republicans continuing to deny our President due process with a nomination to the Supreme Court you've got Dems riled up. Republicans understand nothing after these seven years. They're going to need eight more years of Democratic rule before this sinks into their thick skulls.
Vote Dem this FALL.
DD
Manhattan
And as a lifelong Democrat I will vote for Bernie if somehow he pulls the Upset. As a native New Yorker I have seen enough of Trump to last a lifetime. His buildings are the most garish examples of architecture, his name plastered on everyone of them. He is the quintessential New Yorker, from Queens, every one outside of NYC used to say they hated because they were so arrogant, boorish, rude and just plain impolite. And now he may be the GOP's nominee? They must truly be crazy and desperate indeed.
Add the obstructionist Republicans continuing to deny our President due process with a nomination to the Supreme Court you've got Dems riled up. Republicans understand nothing after these seven years. They're going to need eight more years of Democratic rule before this sinks into their thick skulls.
Vote Dem this FALL.
DD
Manhattan
Here's another way Trump and Sanders are alike: the insecurity and defensiveness of their supporters.
5
I like Bernie Saunders. I like his policies. I even like him personally. But if he is the democratic nominee democrats will lose. The fight in a presidential election is for the independent voter. Democrats vote democrat, republicans vote republican. If Bernie gets the nomination we are going to hear the word socialist so often we will hate it more than the phrase "job creators." There was a poll done recently that said this country would elect an atheist before a socialist. I guarantee that by the time November rolls around people will be thinking socialism is the devil.
Bernie has done his job. He has pushed Clinton to the left and he will have a stronger voice if Clinton takes the white house. If Cruz, Rubio or Trump wins we are, to use a phrase I heard in the last election, "in for a thousand years of darkness."
Bernie has done his job. He has pushed Clinton to the left and he will have a stronger voice if Clinton takes the white house. If Cruz, Rubio or Trump wins we are, to use a phrase I heard in the last election, "in for a thousand years of darkness."
6
The populist factions represented by Sanders and Trump are not like oil and water; they're like nitro and glycerin, a combination guaranteed to violently explode if mixed and shaken.
Both are populist reactions against their respective party establishments, but in completely opposite directions, as the moral values survey demonstrates. I can think of no two groups more diametrically opposed.
Both are populist reactions against their respective party establishments, but in completely opposite directions, as the moral values survey demonstrates. I can think of no two groups more diametrically opposed.
3
I'm sure Bernie Sanders knows a thing or two about discrimination.
7
If Sanders becomes President, there is no way he will have a Democratic Socialist Congress to work with. All of his great ideas will go nowhere.
If Trump is elected, there is no way he will turn America into a win win win Country since we are now a hopelessly divided people with diverse and conflicting wants and needs.
As usual, we will all lose, no matter who our next President is.
Only in America.
If Trump is elected, there is no way he will turn America into a win win win Country since we are now a hopelessly divided people with diverse and conflicting wants and needs.
As usual, we will all lose, no matter who our next President is.
Only in America.
2
Yep. You have to change Congress and you have to change the faces in our state houses. Who is President matters the most in terms of SCOTUS appointments. Well that, and nuclear war (Ted Cruz-Armageddon).
This is a typical NYT subliminal promotion for Hillary Clinton - no more no less
Every article on the editorial or news page needs to be studied - the game continues - they never stop
Every article on the editorial or news page needs to be studied - the game continues - they never stop
6
There's also the teeny consideration of whether Sanders and Trump would consent to run together. I think the obvious answer is no.
2
I see greater similarity between Hillary and Trump than between Bernie and Trump.
1. Hillary changes what she says to reflect the latest popular position, then changes again if necessary. Trump publicly support Democrats and gave money to support liberal candidates and now denies it !.
2. Hillary and Trump value money and it's acquisition over anything else including honesty and integrity.
3. Hillary and Trump have stashed money out of the country to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
4. Both speak positively only when they use the pronoun "I"; "we" has been erased from their vocabularies; "they" is for finger-pointing excoriation of others.
5. Both represent the 1% and have no comprehension what it means to be ordinary people or real compassion for us.
1. Hillary changes what she says to reflect the latest popular position, then changes again if necessary. Trump publicly support Democrats and gave money to support liberal candidates and now denies it !.
2. Hillary and Trump value money and it's acquisition over anything else including honesty and integrity.
3. Hillary and Trump have stashed money out of the country to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
4. Both speak positively only when they use the pronoun "I"; "we" has been erased from their vocabularies; "they" is for finger-pointing excoriation of others.
5. Both represent the 1% and have no comprehension what it means to be ordinary people or real compassion for us.
5
If you combined the Trump and Sanders voting blocs (oh, and every other "historic Democratic base constituency") you would get something that, if you squint hard enough, resembles the New Deal coalition. The same New Deal coalition that split apart at the seams when the Democratic Party moved firmly away from herrenvolk democracy and tentatively towards the Civil Rights movement.
The Democratic Party gave up on explicitly racist voters in the 1960s, at which time the Republicans gleefully welcomed them into their fold. The Dems won't bring those people back into their tent unless the party also gives up on any plan or hope for racial equity. I rather lose with honor than win with the support of, and debts owed to, that slice of the electorate. And I am pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters AND Sanders supporters would agree.
Denouncing Wall Street and denouncing immigrants do not magically turn into the same thing, nor do their respective denouncers magically turn into allies, became the media decides to call both "populism."
The Democratic Party gave up on explicitly racist voters in the 1960s, at which time the Republicans gleefully welcomed them into their fold. The Dems won't bring those people back into their tent unless the party also gives up on any plan or hope for racial equity. I rather lose with honor than win with the support of, and debts owed to, that slice of the electorate. And I am pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters AND Sanders supporters would agree.
Denouncing Wall Street and denouncing immigrants do not magically turn into the same thing, nor do their respective denouncers magically turn into allies, became the media decides to call both "populism."
2
We need a third party. Call them the Center Party. There's nowhere left for us Blue Dog Democrats to go, if Clinton loses. Liberal on social issues, conservative on paying the bills. Who is a person like that supposed to vote for this year?
Bernie's liberal, but we can't afford him. Some of the Republicans still at least pay lip service to getting the debt under control, but they're way too up in my personal business for my taste.
Isn't anybody anywhere MODERATE anymore?
Bernie's liberal, but we can't afford him. Some of the Republicans still at least pay lip service to getting the debt under control, but they're way too up in my personal business for my taste.
Isn't anybody anywhere MODERATE anymore?
2
If you start that party, I'll join!
I find it amazing the article didn't mention what is perhaps the biggest difference between the Sander/Trump base: immigration and race. These issues go the heart of the American experience and historical divide.
6
With Sanders, America has its first real occasion to understand what “government by people for people”. With Trump, it will understand what monarchy was all about.
1
Trump is the anti-Obama.
Sanders is the Obama Republicans fear.
Some one like Hillary needs to reach across this divide of fear and hatred and restore order.
Sanders is the Obama Republicans fear.
Some one like Hillary needs to reach across this divide of fear and hatred and restore order.
6
Don't get your hope up. Hillary is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman-Sachs.
2
Edsall manages to skirt the real problem until the third-from-last paragraph. The reason that there is no single populist candidate is that racism, particularly in the South, prevents many people who are now Republicans from voting for their own material benefit. The South was definitely progressive economically before the Civil Rights Era - many prominent New Dealers were Southerners and the most popular politician in in the South at that time, Huey Long, had the slogan "Share our Wealth". In some ways Trump promises to be like Long and other Southern politicians of that time, although his tax plan belies any such promise.
Can the plutocratic wing of the Republican party continue to count on racism to get support for its real objectives? Neither Trump nor Sanders is likely to overturn the current structure, but maybe some more universally attractive candidate or movement will be able to do it in the future.
Can the plutocratic wing of the Republican party continue to count on racism to get support for its real objectives? Neither Trump nor Sanders is likely to overturn the current structure, but maybe some more universally attractive candidate or movement will be able to do it in the future.
2
UPDATE
NO CONTEST
Bernie versus Donald, the difference stealth
Is the equitable distribution of America's wealth.
Bernie will make us all equally poor
Donald promises us gilded grandeur.
Bernie's chances to win are one in a million
Even Bernie would choose his very own billion.
NO CONTEST
Bernie versus Donald, the difference stealth
Is the equitable distribution of America's wealth.
Bernie will make us all equally poor
Donald promises us gilded grandeur.
Bernie's chances to win are one in a million
Even Bernie would choose his very own billion.
2
Trumps best ally is the media, trying to dis credit him every minute of every day. Both the beltway and the media, are too far removed from the anger that exist. First Trump supporters were classified as white unemployed un-educated men. That is really not the case if one gets out into America and listens to folks. Bernie is a backlash to the fear of the Clintons. Their background speaks for itself. The media always sights acedemics and their opinions . They too are a comfortable secure lot, not struggling with wages stagnated. The so called insiders live in the beltway womb.
1
As you said, Goldwater and McGovern were similar movements, just not in the same year. So this isn't quite as revolutionary as some pundits breathlessly pretend.
You should also add in the Ron/Rand Paul supporters. They belong in the same genre.
Trump isn't a great example of anything, since he denies his own statements so often. And both Pauls were anti-choice and dog-whistle Southern racists. Not great qualities for coalition building.
So what you're left with is that Sanders, Feingold, Warren, and Brown would make great candidates if they could get about half the Trump and Paul supporters to cross party lines in a general election.
You should also add in the Ron/Rand Paul supporters. They belong in the same genre.
Trump isn't a great example of anything, since he denies his own statements so often. And both Pauls were anti-choice and dog-whistle Southern racists. Not great qualities for coalition building.
So what you're left with is that Sanders, Feingold, Warren, and Brown would make great candidates if they could get about half the Trump and Paul supporters to cross party lines in a general election.
1
Thanks for the examination of background data, quotations from political science PhD's and the balanced reporting of an increasingly overt phenomenon. I learned from this piece that both populists are detached critics, neither putting their weight behind comity or collective action, only screaming loudly that someone else did not measure up to their lofty goals that neither lifts a pinkie to make happen.....one while employed in the government for 4 decades. Both are elderly angry white detached critics, raging against "the machine" while doing nothing to keep the country running well for the majority of us that do not want to throw out the baby, the bathwater, the bathtub and rip out our only rest room. What I learned for the comments is that one of the candidate's supporters are completely lost in their own self-righteous dogma, blinded to anything but loud righteous praise for their particular flavor of demagogue. A HUGE "no thank you very much" to both angry screeching borderline hysterical red faced crazy men from NYC.
5
I'm an Independent who voted for Hillary in her 2000 senate race against Rick Lazio.
Here is why I will never vote for her again:
In early 2011, Hillary built a case for overthrowing Qaddafi.
Some of Hillary's recently released emails contain congratulations for convincing Obama to remove Qaddafi.
The mainstream media has continued to push the narrative that Libya had degenerated into civil war and the U.S. was simply trying to stabilize the region.
I bought that story, until I started reading foreign policy journals. The truth is that, from the first sign of protest within Libya, Hillary arranged for Qatar and the UAE to airlift an endless supply of weapons to the rebels to foment the unrest into an all out war.
She then spread the false story that Qaddafi was getting ready to commit genocide against his own people.
Only problem with that story is that no one in America's vast intelligence apparatus had any evidence of that, nor did Human Rights Watch (HRW) or Amnesty International.
After Qaddafi was sodomized with a bayonet and murdered, Hillary did a little victory lap for the media: "We came, we saw, he died," while laughing uproariously, so impressed was she with her own wit.
Qaddafi was removed based on Hillary's lies.
Today, Libya is a failed state and a humanitarian catastrophe, and an ISIS stronghold.
I'm an educated, middle-aged, comfortable white woman who will proudly cast a ballot for Bernie. And I will proudly vote for Trump over the murderous Hillary.
Here is why I will never vote for her again:
In early 2011, Hillary built a case for overthrowing Qaddafi.
Some of Hillary's recently released emails contain congratulations for convincing Obama to remove Qaddafi.
The mainstream media has continued to push the narrative that Libya had degenerated into civil war and the U.S. was simply trying to stabilize the region.
I bought that story, until I started reading foreign policy journals. The truth is that, from the first sign of protest within Libya, Hillary arranged for Qatar and the UAE to airlift an endless supply of weapons to the rebels to foment the unrest into an all out war.
She then spread the false story that Qaddafi was getting ready to commit genocide against his own people.
Only problem with that story is that no one in America's vast intelligence apparatus had any evidence of that, nor did Human Rights Watch (HRW) or Amnesty International.
After Qaddafi was sodomized with a bayonet and murdered, Hillary did a little victory lap for the media: "We came, we saw, he died," while laughing uproariously, so impressed was she with her own wit.
Qaddafi was removed based on Hillary's lies.
Today, Libya is a failed state and a humanitarian catastrophe, and an ISIS stronghold.
I'm an educated, middle-aged, comfortable white woman who will proudly cast a ballot for Bernie. And I will proudly vote for Trump over the murderous Hillary.
8
Wow. A deeply weird, confused interpretation of recent events. Ms. Clinton's supporters are beginning to sound panic-y.
8
My impression from reading the online comments from NYTimes articles, opinion pieces (including this one), and Paul Krugman's op-ed pieces regarding Bernie Sanders' run for the presidency, that NYTimes readers and editorial board are not on the same page. I think most of your readers prefer Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, and would prefer that you stop trying to nudge your readers towards Hillary while pushing Bernie out as pure fantasy. It turns out that NYTimes readers are independent thinkers after all and not beholden to the corporate moneyed interests.
8
Typical Bernie-side whining. Every article, editorial and op/ed has been well reasoned. In other words, to Bernie supporters, it just doesn't compute. Must be that conspiracy-thing again.
Here's a question for the pollsters. "my party has moved away from my views' We have heard many prominent Republican say just that.
Conversely, my Republican friend retorted, "Well, nobody knows what the Democrats stand for anyway"
Is the rise of the 'unenrolled due to apathy or 'a pox on both their houses'?
So far, the greater than expected turnouts in the early contests seem to support the later.
Conversely, my Republican friend retorted, "Well, nobody knows what the Democrats stand for anyway"
Is the rise of the 'unenrolled due to apathy or 'a pox on both their houses'?
So far, the greater than expected turnouts in the early contests seem to support the later.
2
McConnell has demonstrated again his hate for Obama. He wants politics to be destructive power in Washington, passive-aggressive power, how annoying. The Republican party has spent a lot of effort "fooling" its junior partners in the coalition into support for dubious policies for all but the Hedge Fund managers, bankers and the 1% aka: the senior partners. Abortion, guns, terrorism, non-Christians have dominated their rhetoric, while the juniors suffer family breakdown, poor wage growth, drug addiction, violence in cities etc. What incredibly "BAD" men. So here comes Trump, splitting up the junior partners from the senior partners. I am Shocked, I tell you.
The virtuous Democrats are much better! So why is Sanders splitting off the junior partners in his campaign? Someone ought to get serious about how seriously we need honest deep political discussion. Read or listen to the pundits about the current campaign and you hear a discussion about the parochial tactics in a fantasy Survivor episode. Politics may be entertaining, but it should not be entertainment. We have serious problems and we need to be able to trust the so called "leaders".
The virtuous Democrats are much better! So why is Sanders splitting off the junior partners in his campaign? Someone ought to get serious about how seriously we need honest deep political discussion. Read or listen to the pundits about the current campaign and you hear a discussion about the parochial tactics in a fantasy Survivor episode. Politics may be entertaining, but it should not be entertainment. We have serious problems and we need to be able to trust the so called "leaders".
2
It is amazing the differences and the similarities between the fanatics who follow The Donald and the Merry Pranksters who are feeling the Bern. Neither seems aware of the realty of politics in America. They are so blinded by anger frustration and fear these folks will resort to extremes, to the Right and the Left.
Trump and Sanders provide simplistic answers to disillusioned voters looking for a miracle, that dream candidate, hoping against hope America is really going to revolt and elect either one of the two stubbornly naive men. They are the hope and change crowd who have become embittered with a snail-like process. Well, that's democracy folks. As Rummy said about Iraq, which applies in spade to America, "It's messy, folks".
It sure is and will continue to be. Things change, but over long time frames, not in one or two or three election cycles. Those growing up in this microwave generation expect things to occur too quick. If they remain this way, they will be constantly disappointed their entire lives. 'Taint gonna happen.
DD
Manhattan
Trump and Sanders provide simplistic answers to disillusioned voters looking for a miracle, that dream candidate, hoping against hope America is really going to revolt and elect either one of the two stubbornly naive men. They are the hope and change crowd who have become embittered with a snail-like process. Well, that's democracy folks. As Rummy said about Iraq, which applies in spade to America, "It's messy, folks".
It sure is and will continue to be. Things change, but over long time frames, not in one or two or three election cycles. Those growing up in this microwave generation expect things to occur too quick. If they remain this way, they will be constantly disappointed their entire lives. 'Taint gonna happen.
DD
Manhattan
9
What our fellow citizens desire above all else is to the removal of money from politics.
Which candidates offer this as a possibility?
Which candidates offer this as a possibility?
3
The idea of a Sanders Trump "collaboration" is a really far out fantasy of yours-- no one else's.
The only thing Trump and Sanders really have in common is their independence of super pacs. This is the one good thing about the current electorate; it is overturning the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United.
Actually, Trump has much more in common with Clinton. They are both for the super rich and they are both very rich themselves.
The only thing Trump and Sanders really have in common is their independence of super pacs. This is the one good thing about the current electorate; it is overturning the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United.
Actually, Trump has much more in common with Clinton. They are both for the super rich and they are both very rich themselves.
8
Yes, and while Trump has the great wall against immigration, Clinton, though she plays it down, proposes the great fence against immigration.
1
Sanders has picked up the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" thread of his fellow Vermonter Howard Dean – who was also met with eye-rolling by the mainstream media, and even more so by the party establishment, because he wasn't "electable." Instead we got what we were given: the "electable" but uninspiring John Kerry. Despite Bush Jr.'s plummeting approval ratings, he managed to retain his seat.
Eight years on, the GOP establishment came up with Mitt Romney – also known as John Kerry plus a gallon of Grecian Formula: another Massachusetts moderate with a patrician bearing, who was so "electable" that people couldn't care less about electing him. Despite Obama's plummeting approval ratings, he, too, was able to win re-election decisively.
Does anyone notice a pattern here? You can even go back to 2000 and Al "Electability" Gore. It's not hard to imagine whichever party settles for an "electable" candidate getting torched in November, and that's particularly troubling because if current trends continue, that will yield us a Trump presidency.
Eight years on, the GOP establishment came up with Mitt Romney – also known as John Kerry plus a gallon of Grecian Formula: another Massachusetts moderate with a patrician bearing, who was so "electable" that people couldn't care less about electing him. Despite Obama's plummeting approval ratings, he, too, was able to win re-election decisively.
Does anyone notice a pattern here? You can even go back to 2000 and Al "Electability" Gore. It's not hard to imagine whichever party settles for an "electable" candidate getting torched in November, and that's particularly troubling because if current trends continue, that will yield us a Trump presidency.
2
Mr. Edsall poses the rhetorical question of what voters would do if Trump or Sanders don't make the finals. I'm a Sanders supporter, and won't vote for either Clinton or Trump. From exasperation I'd most likely waste my vote, write in Karl Marx or Mickey Mouse.
5
Amazing that you would admit that in public.
1
Both Sanders and Trump metaphorically want to break the idols in the temple, but there the similarities stop.
Trump wants to "make this country great again" by doubling down on some of the stupidest ideas in American history. He'll build a wall across the Mexican border, answer any threat with war war war, leave diplomacy on the shelf, and probably replace the smashed idols in the temple with one of himself. Not to mention that he speaks to his supporters at a fourth-grade level. No thanks.
Sanders isn't running on a platform, he's running on a couple of planks. We get that he wants free college, Medicare for all, reorganization of Wall Street, and infrastructure repair. I need to hear more about who is going to be in a Sanders cabinet. I need to hear more about foreign policy. And in the extremely unlikely event that Trump and Sanders might form an outlier-third-party ticket and run against the status quo, I'll be paying attention.
Trump wants to "make this country great again" by doubling down on some of the stupidest ideas in American history. He'll build a wall across the Mexican border, answer any threat with war war war, leave diplomacy on the shelf, and probably replace the smashed idols in the temple with one of himself. Not to mention that he speaks to his supporters at a fourth-grade level. No thanks.
Sanders isn't running on a platform, he's running on a couple of planks. We get that he wants free college, Medicare for all, reorganization of Wall Street, and infrastructure repair. I need to hear more about who is going to be in a Sanders cabinet. I need to hear more about foreign policy. And in the extremely unlikely event that Trump and Sanders might form an outlier-third-party ticket and run against the status quo, I'll be paying attention.
3
As a somewhat cynical realist, I'm inclined to support Hillary, with all her faults. That said, Bernie has unquestionably gotten short shrift by The Times. On the other hand, one might think that Trump was the publisher of the paper, so much has his coverage been favored. Perhaps its just that he's the better entertainer. Bread and circuses!
7
In the end it is all Theater anyway. Nothing changes but the weather and even changes in that are denied. The system is run for certain people and even when they screw up, there is media spin to correct perception. This was clearly demonstrated with the 2008 market meltdown.
3
When are we going to stop quoting Jonathan Haidt as a source of wisdom? He's built a career on the naturalist fallacy--that people's deep biological orientations predispose them to certain political states--and has used that fallacy to back up the moral righteousness of the hierarchy and domination (much to the delight of his business school overlords). The cognitive studies in which he energizes his "political science" are also suspiciously organized and controlled.
Oh, and I'm considering Bernie Sanders, although he's a little moderate for my taste. But I'm not "bleeding heart liberal." Like many other people. I'm someone who knows that capitalism cannot function as a social policy, and that it should be submitted to the will of the populace. And I resent anyone who says that this is an "emotional" position to hold. The evidence for the failure of capital is all around us. But we can't say that to the patricians who sign Haidt's paychecks.
Oh, and I'm considering Bernie Sanders, although he's a little moderate for my taste. But I'm not "bleeding heart liberal." Like many other people. I'm someone who knows that capitalism cannot function as a social policy, and that it should be submitted to the will of the populace. And I resent anyone who says that this is an "emotional" position to hold. The evidence for the failure of capital is all around us. But we can't say that to the patricians who sign Haidt's paychecks.
7
If Trump wins the nomination and republicans and independents leaning to the right recover from that realization by this Fall, he will be guaranteed close to 47% of the vote in a divided country where last minute voters will be swayed by negative advertising.
With Clinton being targeted as the ultimate insider who can't be trusted and Sanders being the outsider socialist( 'socialist' being viewed as less favorable by Americans than 'Muslim') the prospects for Donald J. Trump to be the 45th president takes on a new dimension.
This is a sobering prospect for our country, allowing low information voters to be swayed by a political ad in September or October in a close election between Trump and Sanders or Clinton.
With Clinton being targeted as the ultimate insider who can't be trusted and Sanders being the outsider socialist( 'socialist' being viewed as less favorable by Americans than 'Muslim') the prospects for Donald J. Trump to be the 45th president takes on a new dimension.
This is a sobering prospect for our country, allowing low information voters to be swayed by a political ad in September or October in a close election between Trump and Sanders or Clinton.
Too bad that most of those, who rely on calling Sanders a socialist, are also relying on the fact that most people may have heard of socialism, but don't actually know what it is, and don't realize that all of our social safety net programs are socialist, that is, our wage structure, work week standards, child labor bans, safety requirements, etc. They hope that the uninformed will pile communism, fascism, and socialism all into the same heap. Many thanks to our fine educational system for that.
2
You have presented an impressive (albeit discouraging) overview of the pre-election frou-frou. I am reading your column after digesting today's "Upshot" and "Bruni" which took to task Trump and Cruz. Now I am balancing the pros and cons of Trump and Sanders.
I am saying to myself, "God help America" all the while wondering if He would even try.
Your column comes down to this paragraph which truly summarizes our political future. I used to think that whoever was elected President would end up being guided by an "America comes first" Congress, but we know where that stands. You wrote, "If either Trump or Sanders loses the fight for the nomination, or if both go down to defeat, the question in November will be: Do their supporters fall in line? Do a substantial number stay home? Or will they vote for the opposition?"
This is the future in a nut shell.
I am saying to myself, "God help America" all the while wondering if He would even try.
Your column comes down to this paragraph which truly summarizes our political future. I used to think that whoever was elected President would end up being guided by an "America comes first" Congress, but we know where that stands. You wrote, "If either Trump or Sanders loses the fight for the nomination, or if both go down to defeat, the question in November will be: Do their supporters fall in line? Do a substantial number stay home? Or will they vote for the opposition?"
This is the future in a nut shell.
4
Yes both Trump and Sanders followers are disgusted with the status quo; many are suffering economic dislocation and see no change from the bought DC politicians. We pay taxes but get crumbs while corporations pay little and have no allegiance to the nation. This has been going on too long.
But the big difference is Trump uses racism and misogyny to attract followers and he has NO governing experience. Sanders appeals to fairness and human dignity, and has decades of governing experience.
Trump was given a silver spoon, Bernie is self-made. That's the irony.
But the big difference is Trump uses racism and misogyny to attract followers and he has NO governing experience. Sanders appeals to fairness and human dignity, and has decades of governing experience.
Trump was given a silver spoon, Bernie is self-made. That's the irony.
3
Despite all of the “cheap and easy” comparisons that pundits love to make, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are NOT two sides of the same coin. Where Sanders espouses ideas about hope, fairness, and inclusion, Trump espouses ideas about fear, unfairness, and exclusion. There are definitely some angry voters out there who are voicing frustration with both political parties but superficial comparisons completely obfuscate the deep divisions between self-described Democrats and Republicans as well as the partisan reasons for their frustrations. Bernie Sanders has tapped into a vein of liberal belief in a government and a process in which everyone can have “more.” Trump has tapped into a vein of conservative belief in which only businesses get things done and where lots of people better get used to subsidiary positions where they will have “less.” Those two men could not be more different and pundits do them and us a disservice when they try and paint them the same color.
2
The number crunching guru Nate Silver went on national tv last October and gave Trump a 5% chance to win the GOP nom. If you believe in this sort of numerical analysis I have a bridge to sell you.
Unfortunately Sanders is a one trick pony. If we could put him and his passion into fixing the banking system and nothing else it would be great but he doesn't have the range of skills for POTUS.
Trump has a massive range of skills. NYT has been preaching to its choir of readers months of slurs and invective against Trump. If you care about the country you should go elsewhere. Trump gets things done, politicians don't. Trump is self funded politicians are beholden to donors. Trump eviscerates the media policiticans pander to it. Trump is a free thinking independent running as a
Republican. If you want to see a problem solved, actually fixed, by the next POTUS Trump is your guy.
Unfortunately Sanders is a one trick pony. If we could put him and his passion into fixing the banking system and nothing else it would be great but he doesn't have the range of skills for POTUS.
Trump has a massive range of skills. NYT has been preaching to its choir of readers months of slurs and invective against Trump. If you care about the country you should go elsewhere. Trump gets things done, politicians don't. Trump is self funded politicians are beholden to donors. Trump eviscerates the media policiticans pander to it. Trump is a free thinking independent running as a
Republican. If you want to see a problem solved, actually fixed, by the next POTUS Trump is your guy.
1
I think you should do some actual research and reading on the business and leadership "skills" of Donald Trump rather than looking towards his natural ability as a conman who has spent his years practicing the main tenets of sales, marketing and advertising. Whether that be a class action lawsuit over his Trump University which was forced to close due to the pyramid scheme-like structure behind it, or the fact that banks won't lend him money because they've lost millions he never paid back, and that he doesn't even make the list of the top 25 real estate moguls in NYC. Doesn't look he knows how to get anything done except run for President because he has nothing else left to do since his business is a brand name, a empty house built on sand and he cant keep spending "his own money" on failure.
Perhaps, both Trump and Sanders will make the largest and most important contribution to our future political process......the formation of two minority parties.....till, one day, they merge.
With a smaller population in Canada and Europe, we have 3 or 4 parties, who fight to advance their ideas.....different and various ideas to the benefit of all. And, they are not controlled by big, big money.
With a smaller population in Canada and Europe, we have 3 or 4 parties, who fight to advance their ideas.....different and various ideas to the benefit of all. And, they are not controlled by big, big money.
While they do share similar views on Wall Street and trade, it takes more than talk to make things happen. Trump is the fusion candidate, based on his history of accomplishment. Sanders is a failed career politicians, with only 3 pieces of successful legislation under his belt - and two of those were bills naming post offices. He's never even had a job outside of government. If you want rhetoric, vote for Sanders. You'll get that - and nothing else - in spades. If you want results, vote Trump and we'll make America great again.
2
Another tired Op-Ed piece about politics, when we desperately need good ones about governance.
NY Times, how about bringing some of your "expert" "authorities" together and have them create two Op-Ed pieces ("What We Would Do") that describe sets of policies for the post election federal government to implement.
One team would hold your progressive experts and the other your regressive ones. The teams would spell out the 1, 2 and 4 year goals (outcomes) and the ways these goals would be achieved (policies including source of funding).
These might serve as an eye-opening and really, really useful guide for voters and enhance the Times' reputation!
Go for it!
NY Times, how about bringing some of your "expert" "authorities" together and have them create two Op-Ed pieces ("What We Would Do") that describe sets of policies for the post election federal government to implement.
One team would hold your progressive experts and the other your regressive ones. The teams would spell out the 1, 2 and 4 year goals (outcomes) and the ways these goals would be achieved (policies including source of funding).
These might serve as an eye-opening and really, really useful guide for voters and enhance the Times' reputation!
Go for it!
1
I don't think Sanders would align himself with someone who, like Hitler, advocates marginalizing certain groups, and using heavy-handed tactics to keep citizens in line, i.e. punching a protester and shooting someone on Fifth avenue.
That's my guess, anyway.
That's my guess, anyway.
1
If you look beyond your borders you will see the world largely fears Trump and Clinton as presidents. In fact some have made noises about banning Trump. Clinton is seen as a moderate Republican in Democrat clothes. Sanders is your best bet by far.
For those who want to support Hillary, all you are doing is setting the stage for Trump to rule because if it came to race between the two of them Hillary has far more targets on her back making it easy to discredit her. Sanders is still your best bet by far.
For those who want to support Hillary, all you are doing is setting the stage for Trump to rule because if it came to race between the two of them Hillary has far more targets on her back making it easy to discredit her. Sanders is still your best bet by far.
2
The ending stats have the same voodo stink of those personality tests now fashionable when applying for low wage jobs forcing responses to ridiculous dichotomies for which the only reasonable but not provided answer is "It Depends". Questions like "if you see someone doing something wrong, you will report it"
The so called moral traits determined by similar black and white questions at the end of the article are equally bogus, and the proportionalism questions is a good example. No one believes a person who does absolutely nothing deserves the rewards of those who do, Those who answer reflecting leaning toward Sanders are as equally betrayed by the question as Trump leaning ones but more than anything betray EVERYONE who knows the world is not depicted accurately or fairly in the notion of the world the statement assumes. That world does not exist and "It depends", is how most people think and feel.
I'm tired of pundits putting words in my mouth. The only reason the electorate looks so strident and extremist is because the electorate is depicted in the language of stupid questions that depict NOONE!
The so called moral traits determined by similar black and white questions at the end of the article are equally bogus, and the proportionalism questions is a good example. No one believes a person who does absolutely nothing deserves the rewards of those who do, Those who answer reflecting leaning toward Sanders are as equally betrayed by the question as Trump leaning ones but more than anything betray EVERYONE who knows the world is not depicted accurately or fairly in the notion of the world the statement assumes. That world does not exist and "It depends", is how most people think and feel.
I'm tired of pundits putting words in my mouth. The only reason the electorate looks so strident and extremist is because the electorate is depicted in the language of stupid questions that depict NOONE!
2
This is an interesting article Mr. Edsall but the basic issue is not addressed. It's a number - 535, our elected representatives and senators. Those who the American people have elected have, in many cases, simply failed to try and govern based on partisanship or ideologies. Until many of those folks who are failing to work for the good of the country are removed from office, neither Trump nor Sanders would be effective. I fear we will continue to have the same dysfunctional government. As an Independent moderate, one of a dying breed, I really have no one to vote for.
103
Sorry, Tom, there is no good, moderate choice, because moderates will do nothing to fix this country, and they would allow it to continue in the pocket of the monied interests, which is exactly what Hillary intends, she'll just be smoothing the sheets and tucking in the corners while wreaking havoc in the world for the bosses with her soldier toys. Trump? He's spread himself all over the map, and is allowed to do 180's with impunity. In most regards, he's been a liberal his whole life, albeit, an egomaniacal one much more interested in himself and only very mildly interested in the greater good. I support Sanders, but if Hillary is nominated, I will seriously research what Trump is really likely to do in office. One thing I feel confident of, he will be less likely to engage in military or black ops adventures than will Hillary, Kissinger protege, and un-professed Neocon.
Moderates are only a dying breed because the problems of an oligarchy denying climate change, human numbers and the 6th mass extinction--are not moderate problems.
Tom, when the Republican party mantra is government does not work shouldn't you consider that Republican obstructionism is a strategy that is utilized to build their brand? How better to prove that government doesn't work than to pull the rug out from under it!
Lots of similarities between the two constituencies, sure, but only if you overlook that whole kissing up/kicking down thing, not to mention the appeal to mob violence (the ritual expulsions of "protestors" that are an integral and planned part of any Trump rally) and, well, that turns out to be an awful lot to overlook. There's no equivalent to that on the Sanders side--it's just not where the emotional appeal is for his supporters. And despite all the attempts to impose a false equivalency on the two (this article being more nuanced, at least, than most), that just is a big, irreconcilable difference.
1
The one characteristic that both Trump and Sanders' supporters both share is that they consist of predominantly white men. It seems like non-whites, Hispanics and women prefer to use the existing political system to enact change. Their campaigns are a sign that white men are becoming isolated from the rest of the electorate.
2
What are talking about? Have you seen Bernie's audiences all over the country? He attracts young and old of all stripes, colors, religions, orientations.
2
Another observation: if you identify Cruz and Rubio as "religious conservative" candidates, together they earn fewer votes than Trump. In other words, Trump is breaking apart the hold that religious-conservatives have had on elections for the last decades.
"Elites are corrupt"
Hardly a unique unifying basis for defining appeal. I doubt anyone who wasn't an elite themselves would disagree.
The mistake here is in thinking the rest of us are perfectly happy when in reality it's simply a matter of burning down the country to achieve nothing versus the pull of people who have something to lose on that path to change.
Come up with something reasonable to take back the country for the people and you'd have a huge winner.
Of course that kind of negates the reason all of these people are running for President in the first place, doesn't it?
Hardly a unique unifying basis for defining appeal. I doubt anyone who wasn't an elite themselves would disagree.
The mistake here is in thinking the rest of us are perfectly happy when in reality it's simply a matter of burning down the country to achieve nothing versus the pull of people who have something to lose on that path to change.
Come up with something reasonable to take back the country for the people and you'd have a huge winner.
Of course that kind of negates the reason all of these people are running for President in the first place, doesn't it?
Thank you for an interesting analysis. The You.gov poll results are particularly illuminating.
It's a bit surprising to see that, among the Republicans, Trump is almost a moderate.
While Rubio is almost as extreme as Cruz.
It's a bit surprising to see that, among the Republicans, Trump is almost a moderate.
While Rubio is almost as extreme as Cruz.
2
OK. Trump didn't say he wouldn't run in the Democratic party. He can run as Bernie's VP. So, it's Sanders/Trump vs. Rubio/Palin. Vice-President Trump has a nice, benign ring to it. He can go to funerals. His office in the White House basement can have TRUMP in 'very large' letters. He'd be 'enormously' popular; he'd be happy, we'd be happy......the world won't end with a bang or a whimper--it's jokes we're making as the earth goes down the toilet.
The data T.E. presents confirms everyone's first impression of a Trump-Sanders ticket: much more a chimera than a winning combo.
However, the data do suggest some challenging times for Bernie's people if/once he's elected and if/when he's able to push through his core proposals like free college education and Medicare for all.
Bernie's supporters highly favor "free to do as they choose" and they also rank high as anti-authority, which includes placing loyalty as a not-so-important priority.
The problem for Bernie's supporters is that socialistic programs require a huge degree of loyalty to the state, especially in terms of commitment to the principle of everyone getting a fair shake even if not everyone is contributing in equal measure to create a fairer and more just society.
The flag waving, country-first loyalty of a Trump supporter is easily manifested but the loyalty required to enact and sustain Bernie's equal opportunity/Medicare-for-all social programs will be tested in the most obvious and personal way: where principle meets pocketbook.
A Bernie supporter, I am not so naive to think that taxes will not increase — even Bernie says they will. My current pay stub shows me contributing more to FICA than federal income taxes. That gap will likely rise even more.
It will take real loyalty to honorable social causes to implement Bernie's vision. Being free to do as one chooses and also “care and protect the vulnerable” creates an inherent conflict.
However, the data do suggest some challenging times for Bernie's people if/once he's elected and if/when he's able to push through his core proposals like free college education and Medicare for all.
Bernie's supporters highly favor "free to do as they choose" and they also rank high as anti-authority, which includes placing loyalty as a not-so-important priority.
The problem for Bernie's supporters is that socialistic programs require a huge degree of loyalty to the state, especially in terms of commitment to the principle of everyone getting a fair shake even if not everyone is contributing in equal measure to create a fairer and more just society.
The flag waving, country-first loyalty of a Trump supporter is easily manifested but the loyalty required to enact and sustain Bernie's equal opportunity/Medicare-for-all social programs will be tested in the most obvious and personal way: where principle meets pocketbook.
A Bernie supporter, I am not so naive to think that taxes will not increase — even Bernie says they will. My current pay stub shows me contributing more to FICA than federal income taxes. That gap will likely rise even more.
It will take real loyalty to honorable social causes to implement Bernie's vision. Being free to do as one chooses and also “care and protect the vulnerable” creates an inherent conflict.
48
The conflict is exacerbated by bigotry, racism, misogyny and also, fear of science and education, all of which are being exploited by the Right to keep taxes unnaturally low.
"The State," in an evolutionary, democratic state, including socialist states, is "The People."
But if large swathes of "the people," including women, blacks, Mexicans, non-Christians, LGBT, "elites," people with "New York values," etc, are considered "other," dangerous, or inferior, then it's darn near impossible to see the state as "us."
That's the crux of the problem. Trump is revealing it in spades. I hate the guy but he's performing a valuable service in a sense: he's showing us the dark side of the American experience, and one which has been ruthlessly exploited by right wing rich people: turn poor and working class people against each other.
We need to deal with these issues if we want to forge the more perfect union that will enable us to progress.
I think, when President Obama was elected, many people felt we were there already. Obviously, the opposite is true. Same thing with feminism - clearly this is a work in progress, with women under attack from the Right. Gay rights cannot be taken for granted. The environment, public lands, it's all up for grabs if the GOP succeeds.
So, the Sanders campaign and the rest of us Democrats, and others, must face the fact that our problems aren't just economic.
"The State," in an evolutionary, democratic state, including socialist states, is "The People."
But if large swathes of "the people," including women, blacks, Mexicans, non-Christians, LGBT, "elites," people with "New York values," etc, are considered "other," dangerous, or inferior, then it's darn near impossible to see the state as "us."
That's the crux of the problem. Trump is revealing it in spades. I hate the guy but he's performing a valuable service in a sense: he's showing us the dark side of the American experience, and one which has been ruthlessly exploited by right wing rich people: turn poor and working class people against each other.
We need to deal with these issues if we want to forge the more perfect union that will enable us to progress.
I think, when President Obama was elected, many people felt we were there already. Obviously, the opposite is true. Same thing with feminism - clearly this is a work in progress, with women under attack from the Right. Gay rights cannot be taken for granted. The environment, public lands, it's all up for grabs if the GOP succeeds.
So, the Sanders campaign and the rest of us Democrats, and others, must face the fact that our problems aren't just economic.
1
You make a good point. It is interesting to note that on Care and Proportionality, Clinton and Sanders' supporters are similar, with Sanders' somewhat more extreme. Both are the opposite of Rand Paul's libertarian supporters, particularly on Care with Paul, Christie, Rubio and Cruz supporters all vying to be the most concerned that people get their just desserts). However, on the other two dimensions, Sanders' supporters and Paul's supporters are paired at one extreme of the spectrum. One response could be to suggest that Sanders' supporters are simply confused, social democrats in terms of Care and Proportionality, libertarians in terms of Liberty and Authority. Alternately, perhaps they do see the future. The left-right value structure that dominates are political discourse may itself be an artifact of the capitalist system, and as that system adjusts to the Third Industrial Revolution and the Internet of Things (cf. Jeremy Rifkin) it may be that those poles are about to be realigned. Perhaps, Sanders's values do represent one of those poles, and Trump's supporters the other.
2
I don't think anyone envisions a Trump/Sanders or Sanders/Trump ticket. As a Bernie supporter, I know for sure that he would never countenance that. He would, however, like to woo angry, alienated Trump supporters away from a politics of racism and division in favor of a politics of solidarity and anti-racism.
1
The comment thread here is very funny. All the Sanders fans in a state of shock that their hero should be characterized as peddling essentially the same sort of empty fantasies as their bête noir the Donald. It's entirely true of course. In fact a defense of Sanders (and an attack on some of his left wing critics like Krugman) a couple of days ago essentially admitted Sanders was doing this but said it didn't matter because all presidential campaigns engage in inflated rhetoric that is never going to happen. The problem with this approach is it validates all the Republican lies about supply side, global warming, etc. etc. etc. A race to the bottom in who can sell the most outrageous departures from reality. This is a real problem for Democrats who are supposed to be the party of reality, competence, pragmatism and good government.
8
Democrats have only themselves to blame for losing ''Reagan Democrats'' and failing to win them back.
This should have been a top priority for President Clinton who instead went into the whole ''triangulation'' thing. Al Gore, near the very end of his 2000 run was beginning to sound the right notes, but it was too little, too late.
So, for more than a generation, the working people who were such an important part of the FDR New Deal coalition were fed Republican propaganda that convinced them to vote against their own economic interests. Once such views are set, it is virtually impossible to modify them through any rational argument.
Trump has laid bare the five decade Republican strategy of dividing the country by saying out loud (even flamboyantly) what they have been whispering for years. The Republican Establishment is stunned that people are so angry, but they have created a monster they now cannot control.
Sanders has said that his Medicare for all plan requires raising $1.38 trillion in new taxes, a 40% increase in federal taxes above the current $3.5 trillion (less than a fifth comes from higher taxes on the 1%.) It may be a better bargain than our current system when it all nets out, but it is hard to see how such a large tax increase and expensive program can be sold to the general electorate, especially after decades of divisive, anti-government Republican propaganda.
So how is a broad coalition assembled from these pieces?
This should have been a top priority for President Clinton who instead went into the whole ''triangulation'' thing. Al Gore, near the very end of his 2000 run was beginning to sound the right notes, but it was too little, too late.
So, for more than a generation, the working people who were such an important part of the FDR New Deal coalition were fed Republican propaganda that convinced them to vote against their own economic interests. Once such views are set, it is virtually impossible to modify them through any rational argument.
Trump has laid bare the five decade Republican strategy of dividing the country by saying out loud (even flamboyantly) what they have been whispering for years. The Republican Establishment is stunned that people are so angry, but they have created a monster they now cannot control.
Sanders has said that his Medicare for all plan requires raising $1.38 trillion in new taxes, a 40% increase in federal taxes above the current $3.5 trillion (less than a fifth comes from higher taxes on the 1%.) It may be a better bargain than our current system when it all nets out, but it is hard to see how such a large tax increase and expensive program can be sold to the general electorate, especially after decades of divisive, anti-government Republican propaganda.
So how is a broad coalition assembled from these pieces?
9
First, I have to stop laughing.
Trump supporters generally are racist, xenophobic, simple-minded, poorly informed, and, more than anything else, gullible.
Sanders supporters generally are not.
Trump supporters generally are racist, xenophobic, simple-minded, poorly informed, and, more than anything else, gullible.
Sanders supporters generally are not.
36
@Bookmanjb
Munich
Stop laughing. You're completely missing the point. They are totally different but they're both engaged in peddling fantasies and thus to use your word gullible.
Munich
Stop laughing. You're completely missing the point. They are totally different but they're both engaged in peddling fantasies and thus to use your word gullible.
6
I would say that Sanders' supporters are just as gullible as Trumps.
1
How nice of you to broad brush ALL of Trump's supporters... The Democrats have utter contempt for working & middle class whites, and, act as if Blacks, Latinos, Gays are the only people worth caring for (phony care) in the country, pandering to all three as usual with false platitudes. Until they change this perception, the media will be writing about Trump Democrats for years to come. By the way, gay Latino here.
1
It seems to me that a joint populist movement is truly fantasy. The devil is in the details. While it is unclear where Trump himself is on many issues, his supporters are clearly anti-choice, pro-gun, anti-LGBT rights etc. It is very hard indeed to imagine those folks voting for Bernie Sanders for anything. If one thinks of a joint ticket, I cannot imagine either of those two willing to play second fiddle to the other.
8
Tom
You're not the only one with that fantasy. I think that tandem would really save America from itself, from its mindless pursuit of diversity, alternative sex validation, endless and pointless racial blame game, moronic behavior abroad, lack of quality and common sense in every facet of American life, sickening wealth gap and insecurity of the bottom 80% of the population, etc.
Hillary? Well, we know that both, she and Bill, ae pure political animals. Just as Bill moved the Dems to the center in the 1990s, she'll move them back to the left edge, toward the so-called progressives (who're increasingly acting like the bolsheviks). Nah, thanks.
You're not the only one with that fantasy. I think that tandem would really save America from itself, from its mindless pursuit of diversity, alternative sex validation, endless and pointless racial blame game, moronic behavior abroad, lack of quality and common sense in every facet of American life, sickening wealth gap and insecurity of the bottom 80% of the population, etc.
Hillary? Well, we know that both, she and Bill, ae pure political animals. Just as Bill moved the Dems to the center in the 1990s, she'll move them back to the left edge, toward the so-called progressives (who're increasingly acting like the bolsheviks). Nah, thanks.
Hillary will move things in whatever direction her corporate owners tell her to.
1
You make an implicitly very strong case why Bernie Sanders voters like me may, after much soul-searching, decide to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. If you think Wall Street should be paying higher taxes as both Bernie and The Donald do, but Hillary can't be trusted to do, then Trump is your choice. If you're against the TPP trade agreement as both Bernie and The Donald are, but Hillary is for, then again Trump is your choice. If you're against the influence of money in politics as both Bernie and The Donald are, but Hillary clearly isn't with her SuperPAC and Wall Street "dark money," then you should vote for Trump. When it comes down to all the "pluses and minuses," a lifelong liberal Democrat like me may have to "hold his nose" and vote for The Donald over the untrustworthy, business-as-usual Hillary. It's not the choice I want, but I feel that establishment politics that the Clintons preach and practice have led us into the black hole of economic inequality and despair. In desperate times one must often summon the courage to make a desperate choice that may seem counter-intuitive, but just might actually work.
17
As a left wing progressive I'm with you Paul and rather vote for Trump. Economic issues and the fight against Wall Street oligachy are the priority and cultural differences of the poorer classes are just a diversion to keep us devided and allow the 1% to keep controlling us. Also both Sanders and Trump are more secular types and don't mix politics with religion.
Hillary has said she is against the TPP trade agreement.
You will no longer be a life-long liberal Dem if you vote for Trump. If he has his way & a Rep congress supports him welcome back to racism, sexism, and phobias of all kinds directed at people all around the globe. Both Sanders & Trump need to get off their high horses, quit waving their fingers at me, stop implying that America is screwed up beyond repair, and most important stop their passive aggressive behavior telling me what's good for me, that's more typical of a dictator than a populist (although maybe not so much).
Both men are passionate about their cause. Americans have had it with politicians and a continuous biased media who constantly pushes polls and other data nonesense. Change is in the air from this point in time and onward.
7
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I my perception, the Trump and Sanders populist campaigns has been very similar. They both exploit fears and they both promise thing without explaining how they will do it or how they will pay for it or how they will govern without the Congress. They just say what angry ignorant people want to hear. Nobody is stopping Trump because Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio egos are almost as immense as Trump’s.
The least of the problems is to have any of them being elected. The biggest problem is how to pick up the pieces of the Country once they are done with us…. History repeats itself and, the most developed economy in the world in not immune to self-destruction. Just look around…. Ignorance is not a bliss.. Ignorance can put one of these two populist in the White House. Maybe Hillary will stop Sanders. Hopefully.
The least of the problems is to have any of them being elected. The biggest problem is how to pick up the pieces of the Country once they are done with us…. History repeats itself and, the most developed economy in the world in not immune to self-destruction. Just look around…. Ignorance is not a bliss.. Ignorance can put one of these two populist in the White House. Maybe Hillary will stop Sanders. Hopefully.
120
If we're lucky, dear Aurace, MAYBE, just maybe, James Comey will stop Hillary. HOPEFULLY.
Yeah, Hillary will save the oligarchy.
Unfortunately, that's the problem.
Unfortunately, that's the problem.
Miami Beach is a very expensive place to live. I can't even afford to buy gas there, as the price is about double that on the mainland. There's a lot of working people being displaced from MB as we speak; gentrification gone wild on steroids. One Canadian developer who just bought about a dozen older apt. bldgs with below average rents that are filled with people who work in the restaurants, clubs, and service industries that serve the rich folk, says he will be upgrading these buildings and raising rents to attract folks, and I quote, "who drive Porsches." The workers...hard to say where they will go now, or if they will be able to keep working in South Beach. I just point this out, because I see you live on Miami Beach. So, either you are a service worker who is feeling the pressure of gentrification, or you are one of the gentry. I know some working class folk do support Hillary, and some of them are very afraid of Bernie. So, I'm not going to try to guess if you are Miami Beach gentry, or MB service worker. But if I had to bet...well, let's just say I'd want some very good odds on a bet that you are in the struggling class, and also supporting Hillary.
1
Thomas Edsall has written a lengthy column, looking at two outsider candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, based on a strained premise that the candidates are similar. Mr. Edsall ends with a conclusion which should have been obvious at a glance: Trump and Sanders are totally different in everything which matters.
The only thing Trump and Sanders really have in common is the fact that their candidacies upset and annoy the leaders of their parties. Unfortunately, among the stark differences between the two men is the fact that Donald Trump is electable, but Bernie Sanders is not.
The only thing Trump and Sanders really have in common is the fact that their candidacies upset and annoy the leaders of their parties. Unfortunately, among the stark differences between the two men is the fact that Donald Trump is electable, but Bernie Sanders is not.
2
If you scratch the surface of this column's Trump-Sanders comparison and obvious conclusion that they are very different, the truly interesting point I believe Mr. Edsall is making is that both parties are imploding -Sanders and Trump being just the tip of the iceberg- and America's future depends on their remaking. I agree with this creative destruction thesis and truly hope that innovation permeates the political system in America, beyond just creating new products, i.e. candidates.
It takes quite a bit of talent to write an article like this without mentioning the word "racism", but Mr. Edsall has managed to do it. Quite an accomplishment.
12
Sanders, if president, will never achieve any of his goals. Trump might destroy our form of government in order to achieve his.
8
Excellent summary, kamdog.
1
Our traditional form of government has been destroyd already by a new corporatist form of Plutocracy and Oligarchy dominated by the financial industry.
So many assertions about Sanders and Trump commonality.
Here's two glaring differences that nullify the likeness:
1. Life Trajectory. Trump born into wealth dedicates his life to luxury and catering to the privileged, self promotion is the mechanism of choice. Sanders born into modesty dedicates his life to fighting for those you have less of voice, inclusion is the mechanism. Past behavior is still the best indicator of future behavior.
2. Consistency. Trump plays 'scratch card' politics...you never know what his beleifs are or what type of policy he might employ, it seems people will buy an instant win card because it says 'win, win, win'. Sanders has been consistent and unbending in his political posture and willingless to speak truth to power, when you buy a Sanders ticket, it's for a ride to an inclusive democracy.
Cheering, enthusiasm and a motivated crowd that 'beleives' in a message occurred at Nazi rallies and Martin Luther King speeches--it doesn't represent likeness, it demonstrates the magnitude of the differences.
Here's two glaring differences that nullify the likeness:
1. Life Trajectory. Trump born into wealth dedicates his life to luxury and catering to the privileged, self promotion is the mechanism of choice. Sanders born into modesty dedicates his life to fighting for those you have less of voice, inclusion is the mechanism. Past behavior is still the best indicator of future behavior.
2. Consistency. Trump plays 'scratch card' politics...you never know what his beleifs are or what type of policy he might employ, it seems people will buy an instant win card because it says 'win, win, win'. Sanders has been consistent and unbending in his political posture and willingless to speak truth to power, when you buy a Sanders ticket, it's for a ride to an inclusive democracy.
Cheering, enthusiasm and a motivated crowd that 'beleives' in a message occurred at Nazi rallies and Martin Luther King speeches--it doesn't represent likeness, it demonstrates the magnitude of the differences.
17
to take their positions on taxing hedge fund managers,for one - Trump taketh with one hand and giveth with another. He wants to cut their tax break but lower their other tax rate so they actually come out ahead. Sanders actually wants to increase their contribution to our government. Let's make America great again. Get everyone to pay their fair share and let's fix our infrastructure, help the poor out of poverty, and improve education.
13
Stop right there. Bernie Sanders is a self realized person. He is way way ahead of his times. His realizations that we are all in this together is the essence, the crux and the core of all spirituality and religions of humanity. In his mind it is not just s theory, it is a self realization. Goodness people spend lifetimes trying to achieve this, we are so blind if we haven't noticed yet. This silver haired pol is actually a sage http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-religion_us_56cd8ad7e...
21
You think the Trump movement is not about belonging for his supporters? It's not about being part of something bigger than yourself?
1
Trump has adeptly become "severely conservative" to get the GOP nomination the same as Romney did in 2012. There are indications as noted here that this is a charade to mask a moderate agenda. He could grab Bernie voters if Hillary gets the nomination and her legal troubles escalate. A lot depends on a federal judge now faced with deciding in a civil suit if Hillary has to turn over all her personal e-mails as well as her aide, Houma including ones with the Clinton Foundation. Depositions could follow which as her husband learned, can be very damaging. The conservative groups bringing the civil suit could very well determine the outcome of the election. I believe Trump knows this which leads to his arrogance and lack of concern about his gaffes and missteps.
4
If Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were truly honest with the American people, they would run together for the White House as the single independent ticket. It made sense to run as a democrat and a republican to exploit the partisan infrastructure and get free publicity, but it’s the long overdue moment to finally speak the truth.
If both of them are running against the status quo and corrupt system that betrayed the fellow Americans, then they are actually running not against George W. Bush or Obama Barack but against the GOP and the Democratic Party.
The worst tyrants of the 21st century are not Osama bin Laden and al-Baghdadi but Bush, Obama, Putin, Netanyahu, the Saudi King, and the Ayatollahs.
How to prove it?
If Hitler managed to wage the WWII for two decades, then the worst Nazis would have been Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill. Why? If the WWII lasted for two decades, it means there would have been four sides in the conflict: Germany, America, Great Britain and USSR simultaneously fighting each other and everybody else.
Under those conditions it would be obvious that none of them considered the Nazism to be the problem.
You either fix the problem or you are a part of it.
If the world spent 15 years and several trillion dollars on fighting Al Qaeda only to upgrade it to the ISIS, then the world is the problem.
Don’t blame a few thousand terrorists from the Afghan caves in 2001 for the current crisis.
Simply said, they had no power at all to create it.
If both of them are running against the status quo and corrupt system that betrayed the fellow Americans, then they are actually running not against George W. Bush or Obama Barack but against the GOP and the Democratic Party.
The worst tyrants of the 21st century are not Osama bin Laden and al-Baghdadi but Bush, Obama, Putin, Netanyahu, the Saudi King, and the Ayatollahs.
How to prove it?
If Hitler managed to wage the WWII for two decades, then the worst Nazis would have been Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill. Why? If the WWII lasted for two decades, it means there would have been four sides in the conflict: Germany, America, Great Britain and USSR simultaneously fighting each other and everybody else.
Under those conditions it would be obvious that none of them considered the Nazism to be the problem.
You either fix the problem or you are a part of it.
If the world spent 15 years and several trillion dollars on fighting Al Qaeda only to upgrade it to the ISIS, then the world is the problem.
Don’t blame a few thousand terrorists from the Afghan caves in 2001 for the current crisis.
Simply said, they had no power at all to create it.
2
The word "fantasy" to depict a Trump-Sanders affinity is well put. In the real world, the distinction is as simple as the difference between idealism and anger. Trump taps fear and bigotry; Sanders speaks to optimism and hope. Trump is all about vengeance; Sanders is about justice and equity.
Yes, the two campaigns are anti-established but one bestows light and the other smothers with darkness. Never the twain shall meet.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Yes, the two campaigns are anti-established but one bestows light and the other smothers with darkness. Never the twain shall meet.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
215
I will just say that if looking to the hope, optimism, community, and restoration of citizen control of our government that Bernie Sanders is campaigning for is fantasy -- then God help us! We are lost.
1
If Donald Trump weren't such a vulgar, narcissistic, mendacious, bigoted and sexist man, his relatively moderate positions on many of the issues of the day (but certainly not on taxes!) wouldn't be viewed by many moderately inclined voters as Professor Harold Hill's evil twin. If...
1
This false and often repeated attempt at equivalency between Sanford and Trump is a canard indeed, and is a slap across the face to Mr. Sanders and his supporters, those who abhor the amorality and immorality of Mr. Trump and the atrocities that come out of his mouth and that he says he will take as President.
Everything can be compared - and contrasted - a rock and a puppy. But the comparison serves no useful purpose.
I suppose FDR and Hitler could be compared - if you failed to contrast. Both were leaders of countries that were main players in a World War. Both were "populists" in the sense that they appealed to the hopes - or fears - of the people they led. Both had grand - almost superhuman - ideas that they could win this larger than life struggle. One thought he could take over the world with his military might, the number of his troups and with his "fate". The other thought he could stop him, could lead a country with almost no military might to win on multiple world fronts against the huge, monstrous war machine with will, grit, American know-how and with "right" on his side. If he won, one wanted to cleanse the earth of "inferiors" and let superior races rule unfettered by the poor, the disabled, the different. If he won, the other wanted to help the countries wounded by war get their lives back, to heal the wounds at home, to rebuild America, to get back to making things fair, and safe and American for ALL citizens of the country he led.
Just the same.
Everything can be compared - and contrasted - a rock and a puppy. But the comparison serves no useful purpose.
I suppose FDR and Hitler could be compared - if you failed to contrast. Both were leaders of countries that were main players in a World War. Both were "populists" in the sense that they appealed to the hopes - or fears - of the people they led. Both had grand - almost superhuman - ideas that they could win this larger than life struggle. One thought he could take over the world with his military might, the number of his troups and with his "fate". The other thought he could stop him, could lead a country with almost no military might to win on multiple world fronts against the huge, monstrous war machine with will, grit, American know-how and with "right" on his side. If he won, one wanted to cleanse the earth of "inferiors" and let superior races rule unfettered by the poor, the disabled, the different. If he won, the other wanted to help the countries wounded by war get their lives back, to heal the wounds at home, to rebuild America, to get back to making things fair, and safe and American for ALL citizens of the country he led.
Just the same.
13
Why can't the NY Times get over the fact that we Americans are DONE with entrenched status quo politicians? I am not a blue collar, working class, white American. We are sick and tired of having our country run by politicians, wealthy Americans and Corporate America. We aren't going to take it anymore and the Senate and House are next! Trump clearly will be the nomination. He'll run against HRC and easily beat her for the reasons mentioned above.
16
The NYT and many of it's readers live in a bubble and view the world as their distorted reflection.. Most of the rest of the country agrees with you Anita. Sure, we recognize that Trump can be rude, arrogant and obnoxious. Look where he was raised. But we also are sick and tired of being lied to and told how to think by incompetents like Obama and will give Trump a chance to bring some semblance of balance back to our beloved Republic. We survived (barely) Obama for eight years, we can survive Trump for four. But to bring in Hillary now would be an absolute disaster. How anyone can support that woman is beyond me.
3
If Americans are so DONE with entrenched status quo politicians, how come Mitch McConnell just got re-elected in Kentucky?
If Trump wins and is successful, look for career politicians to go down on both sides of the aisle. Also look for term limits to be enacted. They are long overdue and would solve a plethora of problems. America needs to start taking care of business here, at home. We are an exceptional country, no matter what our current president says!
2
More than 6% of Sanders supporters will vote fTrump over Clinton.
These are the gamblers that would roll the dice rather than support Hillary who have had enough of and don't like or trust.
In addition, the DNC and the press are doing everything then can to turn the Sanders supporters in to the "angry" electorate by rigging the democratic primaries. Many will swing to Trump. 6% is absurdly low.
We may need 2 walls. Mexico will pay for one. Canada may have to build the one too. To keep out the US citizens trying to escape.
These are the gamblers that would roll the dice rather than support Hillary who have had enough of and don't like or trust.
In addition, the DNC and the press are doing everything then can to turn the Sanders supporters in to the "angry" electorate by rigging the democratic primaries. Many will swing to Trump. 6% is absurdly low.
We may need 2 walls. Mexico will pay for one. Canada may have to build the one too. To keep out the US citizens trying to escape.
12
That great Australian intellectual and Poet Clive James once did a TV program called fame. It was all about that very thing, and how most politicians were at heart actors on a world stage. In this program he commented in the similarity between Churchill and Hitler and the way they spoke and evoked support. Unfortunately for Hitler, he mused Churchill had arrived with a better script. It was of course all tongue in cheek, but the real problem as we have found out through history is that the ludicrous becomes reality. The question is now between all these seemingly cartoon characters who does have the better script?
4
I just realized, this fight is Party vs. the Federal Government. The "elites" want to save their party no matter what happens to the US and its citizens. Trump and Sanders, nominally running in those parties, are, rhetorically at least, placing the people above the parties.
Maybe it's the one thing neither the Dem or Repub party owners thought could happen. Their own "firewall" was the two party system, perhaps about to be torn asunder.
Maybe it's the one thing neither the Dem or Repub party owners thought could happen. Their own "firewall" was the two party system, perhaps about to be torn asunder.
12
Because in essence the two parties are acting as one party when it comes to the corporate rule Wall Street. There is no difference to a dictatorship when it comes to tackle this fundamental systemic flaw of the current state of capitalism and we have no real choice to change things unless we start acting against both parties now.
NO CONTEST
Bernie versus Donald, the difference stealth
Is the equitable distribution of America's wealth.
Bernie will make us all equally poor
Donald promises us gilded grandeur.
3
Punchline addition:
NO CONTEST
Bernie versus Donald, the difference stealth
Is the equitable distribution of America's wealth.
Bernie will make us all equally poor
Donald promises us gilded grandeur.
Bernie's chances to win are one in a million
Even Bernie would choose his very own billion.
NO CONTEST
Bernie versus Donald, the difference stealth
Is the equitable distribution of America's wealth.
Bernie will make us all equally poor
Donald promises us gilded grandeur.
Bernie's chances to win are one in a million
Even Bernie would choose his very own billion.
1
If you look at the core of Sanders actual supporters, they are not lower and middle-class at all. They are affluent professionals and their college-attending children. People in the bottom half of the income distribution are far more strongly attracted to Trump.
9
I want to know WHO at the NYTimes thought to tar Sanders early on.. and why? I think we the people deserve an explanation. That siad whose brilliant idea was it to state that Bernie is nice but only the (0ver-the) Hillary can get things done. I want to know why the juveniles who write for the paper forgot that Obamacare is simply a version of ROMNEYcare. I want to know why people are shouting from the rooftops that the good old Clintons (and who would not want to spend 16 years of their lives living in the
White House certainly beats a farmhouse in Chappaqua if the Clintons actually do live there) are so fair... and practical. Good old Bill got rid of a major source for tax dollars by eliminating the luxury goods that which Geor H Bush had reinstituted. (I wonder what theTimes now thinks about the tax policies of Eisenhower --luxury tax and 95 bracket, the Great Society of Johnson (Medicare and medicaid) and even of Ford.....) Is it possible to write something clear and unbiased.. and exactly why is the Time so enamoured of the Clintonette? Pray explain. Hillary began life as a corporate lawyer, created a huge mess of a healthcare bill-pandering to insurance companies which Obamacare continues to do. What was her first Lady platform except to act as a member of the Cabinet. Comes to NYS at an opportune moment, D'Amato had just died, elected senator, did not serve a term, because someone wants Clinton back in the white House (I want to live there as well)? Explain.
White House certainly beats a farmhouse in Chappaqua if the Clintons actually do live there) are so fair... and practical. Good old Bill got rid of a major source for tax dollars by eliminating the luxury goods that which Geor H Bush had reinstituted. (I wonder what theTimes now thinks about the tax policies of Eisenhower --luxury tax and 95 bracket, the Great Society of Johnson (Medicare and medicaid) and even of Ford.....) Is it possible to write something clear and unbiased.. and exactly why is the Time so enamoured of the Clintonette? Pray explain. Hillary began life as a corporate lawyer, created a huge mess of a healthcare bill-pandering to insurance companies which Obamacare continues to do. What was her first Lady platform except to act as a member of the Cabinet. Comes to NYS at an opportune moment, D'Amato had just died, elected senator, did not serve a term, because someone wants Clinton back in the white House (I want to live there as well)? Explain.
13
There is a difference between McGovern and Goldwater losing their respective elections and Trump and Sanders simply failing to be nominated. But let's carry this thought experiment further. Goldwater represented the extreme right, which the Republican party has since become. Yet Trump is a stranger combination of factors as Edsall shows. So just how would the Republicans react following a Trump election loss? Very hard to say. They might insist on being more purely rightist, like Cruz, or they might return to some degree of common sense, which seems unlikely given how extreme their views have become. Or the party might blow up completely and we could have the beginning of a three party system, again unlikely given American political history.
What about the Democrats? A Sanders election loss would probably lead to an attempted revival of something like the New Democrats, the last thing that this country needs. A Clinton loss would prove that we need to build on the Sanders revolution, just as the Republicans did after Goldwater. Chances are, though, that these things won't happen. Both Hillary and Bernie are capable of destroying Trump, Cruz, Rubio in an epic battle.
What about the Democrats? A Sanders election loss would probably lead to an attempted revival of something like the New Democrats, the last thing that this country needs. A Clinton loss would prove that we need to build on the Sanders revolution, just as the Republicans did after Goldwater. Chances are, though, that these things won't happen. Both Hillary and Bernie are capable of destroying Trump, Cruz, Rubio in an epic battle.
4
Their constituencies are totally different but both Trump and Sanders are essentially flim flam men selling fantasies.
7
Of course the two could never come together. They both speak to folks who want 100% agreement with their ideals. Veer from their ideals just once and you are part of the establishment. When did we become a country which doesn't respect the ideas others or expect 100% agreement. Just sad. The baby boomers have raised a lot of "me me me" children.
91
It's the "me, me, me" millennials who support Bernie.
2
I see no reason to respect the ideas of a nativist bigotted rabble rouser who threatens to punch people who disagree with him. Donald Trump skills are those of a reality TV star and his followers are those who think reality TV is the same thing as actual reality.
You could be right. And I can't help observing that most of the "me me me" children are Republicans! And many of them are in Congress. Juveniles throwing temper tantrums, e.g., Mitch McConnell refusing to consider Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
2
As usual, Mr. Edsall writes an extremely long article, uses all kinds of intellectual gymnastics to try to prove an obscure point, and misses the obvious. As several commenters have pointed out the KEY difference between Trump and Sanders comes down to one thing:
Racism.
Trump is a bigot, in his views on Black, Brown, and Asian Americans. He is anti-Semitic, and misogynistic as well.
Sanders is none of those.
As long as Donald Trump keeps appealing to and maintaining a base of the Southern segregationists and tne Northern Archie Bunkers, a 21st century rebirth of the late 19th century Populist movement and party will be impossible.
Thomas Edsall confuses the points that allow a coalition with the foundation for a common movement. As an example of the difference: in Florida, disparate groups are working side-by-side against FPL's attempts to virtually outlaw solar power as has happened in Nevada already (by taxing it and making owners pay "YUGE" user fees). Who are these disparate groups working together? On the one side, the usual Progressive/Green orgs. On the other, their partner against FPL? The Tea Party! Yes, that's right! The Tea Party sees FPL as attacking private enterprise and entrepreneurship and so is with the green groups to block FPL. THAT is what a coalition is: Parallel interests on a few issues.
Racism.
Trump is a bigot, in his views on Black, Brown, and Asian Americans. He is anti-Semitic, and misogynistic as well.
Sanders is none of those.
As long as Donald Trump keeps appealing to and maintaining a base of the Southern segregationists and tne Northern Archie Bunkers, a 21st century rebirth of the late 19th century Populist movement and party will be impossible.
Thomas Edsall confuses the points that allow a coalition with the foundation for a common movement. As an example of the difference: in Florida, disparate groups are working side-by-side against FPL's attempts to virtually outlaw solar power as has happened in Nevada already (by taxing it and making owners pay "YUGE" user fees). Who are these disparate groups working together? On the one side, the usual Progressive/Green orgs. On the other, their partner against FPL? The Tea Party! Yes, that's right! The Tea Party sees FPL as attacking private enterprise and entrepreneurship and so is with the green groups to block FPL. THAT is what a coalition is: Parallel interests on a few issues.
8
The comments I've read here reveal a shocking lack of critical thinking. No wonder so many people are supporting populists demagogues of the right and the left. New York Times readers show that they don't actually, you know, read the newspaper when they make such ignorant, thoughtless remarks; they will lead the United States into disaster along with all the other know-nothings.
6
The question these polls and analyses fail to answer is what happens if either Trump or Sanders actually wins the Presidency? Unless there is dramatic upheaval "down the ticket" in Congressional races, neither man will be able to pass a legislative program reflecting his views. One could reasonably guess that partisan and ideological gridlock will not only continue, but also grow worse, resulting in, at best, a still borne "revolution."
2
Bernie Sanders is "what you see is what you get."
Donald Trump is "who knows what you will gwt."
Donald Trump is "who knows what you will gwt."
6
It is clear that Sanders and Trump represent the extremes of the two parties. I am glad that Bloomberg has declared that he will run for President if these two are the candidates. We live in a tumultuous world with serious issues to be decided and the US cannot afford to have a pair of clowns represent our position. Senator Sanders projected increase in the debt is over 18 trillion dollars and Mr Trump's number of over 12 trillion is the highest of any GOP candidate. It is time for some fiscal realism to occur.
5
There there is a huge difference between trump and sanders. Trump will most likely win the nomination, sanders never had a chance.
3
It appears that Mr. Trump is a gonzo Democrat, running as a Republican, well, because Republican voters have been programmed to be gullible. Sen. Sanders is as he looks, a socialist, and when most politicians seem to care more about the employment of their Communist Chinese partners than they do about the people of America, people turn to alternatives.
2
It's somewhat a truism that both ends of a spectrum are more alike than is either end to points along a spectrum. Yes, there are some similarities between Sanders and Trump (whom, I note, the NYT has quietly begun to often label "Donald J. Trump" as if using his middle initial somehow makes him more legitimate). I think one of the similarities between the two would be on glorious display during the general election: Sanders knows how to fight, and fight furiously and effectively. Trump, who would likely stick to his superficial schtick of innuendo and crowd-baiting. is likely to be on the receiving end for a change.
4
Sorry, there's no way that a populist movement, left or right, steamrolls the tried-and-true political machines. The system is rigged, to use Bernie's phrase. It's rigged not just by the "billionaires" on our metaphorical "wall streets" but by the very political structure that would seemingly support a populist movement. The tried and true machines (the two parties) are supported by a system (no term limits, endless campaigns, limitless campaign contributions, career politicians, cottage industries dedicated solely to American politics) that will not vanish simply because a populist wants it to go away. No matter how charismatic the individual populist, he or she will almost always be defeated by the institution. The only way for the populist to win is to co-opt (deceive) the institution into thinking that he or she is not a threat. The Dems long ago saw Bernie as a threat, and began closing ranks. The Republicans have been too stupid to see Trump as a threat, and their party may in fact implode. But I tend to doubt that -- Ironically, the person who could end up preventing the implosion of the Republican party is Hillary Clinton. The party implodes only if Trump wins, and I don't see that happening.
May be there are a few similarities between Senator Sanders and Mr. Trump in that both seek to attain a measure of social and economic justice for the less fortunate in America, but the measure Senator Sanders seeks to attain is both more comprehensive and more inclusive.
More significantly, while Mr. Trump seeks to address the immigration problem by building a wall "for which Mexico will pay the financing," and by deporting nearly eleven million Mexican immigrants with their families back to Mexico, Senator Sanders seeks to address this difficult issue more rationally and more humanely.
Additionally, while Mr. Trump wants to bar hundreds of millions of Muslims from entering the United States "temporarily," thereby alienating nearly two billion Muslims and jeopardizing America's economic, political and military interests in many vital parts of the world, an insane undertaking that should disqualify Mr. Trump from holding the most important position or occupying the most important office in the world, Senator Sanders condemns such a measure.
Finally, in his campaign, Mr. Trump has been relying on insult and on curse. On the other hand, Senator Sanders' campaign has been one of dignity and of grace.
The differences between Senator Sanders and Mr. Trump couldn't be more profound.
Those who try to equate the two do not only do Senator Sanders a grave injustice, they more importantly do a great disservice to the American voters.
More significantly, while Mr. Trump seeks to address the immigration problem by building a wall "for which Mexico will pay the financing," and by deporting nearly eleven million Mexican immigrants with their families back to Mexico, Senator Sanders seeks to address this difficult issue more rationally and more humanely.
Additionally, while Mr. Trump wants to bar hundreds of millions of Muslims from entering the United States "temporarily," thereby alienating nearly two billion Muslims and jeopardizing America's economic, political and military interests in many vital parts of the world, an insane undertaking that should disqualify Mr. Trump from holding the most important position or occupying the most important office in the world, Senator Sanders condemns such a measure.
Finally, in his campaign, Mr. Trump has been relying on insult and on curse. On the other hand, Senator Sanders' campaign has been one of dignity and of grace.
The differences between Senator Sanders and Mr. Trump couldn't be more profound.
Those who try to equate the two do not only do Senator Sanders a grave injustice, they more importantly do a great disservice to the American voters.
17
Why not draw a comparison between Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz? They, too, have a few traits in common, most notably the public perception of their untrustworthiness.
That would at least be more novel for the NYT than yet another article on the alleged similarities between Trump and Sanders in what is a thinly veiled attempt to diminish the credibility of Sanders.
That would at least be more novel for the NYT than yet another article on the alleged similarities between Trump and Sanders in what is a thinly veiled attempt to diminish the credibility of Sanders.
27
@Cassowary
Australia
Why? Because there is no comparison between Cruz and Clinton. How about a comparison between Cruz and FDR who was notoriously economical with the truth. LOL.
Australia
Why? Because there is no comparison between Cruz and Clinton. How about a comparison between Cruz and FDR who was notoriously economical with the truth. LOL.
2
John, Clinton and Cruz do actually have a few things in common. Both have been enriched by Goldman Sachs, for instance. Both have problems getting the public to trust them. Both have flaunted a love of hunting to get elected (Clinton did that in 2008). Both have disparaged Obama in a bid to get elected (again, that was Clinton's tune in 2008). Both would be considered conservatives in any other country.
Let's put it this way, a comparison of Clinton and Cruz is no more ridiculous than the NYT comparing Trump to Sanders.
Let's put it this way, a comparison of Clinton and Cruz is no more ridiculous than the NYT comparing Trump to Sanders.
1
So far Donald Trump is three for three in primary victories and he did it without even breaking into a sweat. Bernie Sanders, by comparison, only won the New Hampshire primary which he was expected to take because it's in his own backyard. Outside of New England, Sanders has been struggling and he lost a couple of squeakers in Iowa and Nevada to Hillary Clinton. I agree with Edsall's headline--Trump- Sanders Fantasy. That's all a hypothetical match up between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders will ever be--a fantasy. A more realistic headline some time in later this year is going to read The Trump-Clinton Reality.
2
Sharon5101:
Perhaps you should re-read the article.
The focus of Mr. Edsall's article was about the possibility of a marriage between the Sanders and Trump organizations as part of a general election strategy. Something, because of the broad differences between each candidate's supporter, is not likely to happen.
Perhaps you should re-read the article.
The focus of Mr. Edsall's article was about the possibility of a marriage between the Sanders and Trump organizations as part of a general election strategy. Something, because of the broad differences between each candidate's supporter, is not likely to happen.
Not a very nuanced read if you don't mind me saying so. I believe the author's point was a potential joint ticket run and the likelihood of that ever coming to fruition. Not a Sanders v Trump election.
Anger is the common fuel to both the republican circus and Bernie Sanders. That said, the prospects for an alliance of everyday people who believe they've been ignored by their government to coalesce behind either Trump or Sanders is not likely. Sanders' supporters are for the most part well educated and idealistic. Trump's supporters are not.
While Trump may be leading the parade of republicans at this point, the cabal still standing are variations of a republican party theme to strengthen states' rights and regional oligarchies. The vision for the US in republican dogma is an alliance of sovereign states, banded together only for purposes of common defense and tariff - free trade within the alliance. For republicans, the civil war solved nothing.
The republican party runs the risk of going down in history as the political organization that undermined the United States. Ronald Reagan set the party and the nation down the path of mediocrity and divisiveness when he infamously declared the federal government to be the problem in our country.
Lest people forget, Reagan chose this path because the federal government tore down the institutions of segregation and Reagan saw political opportunity to capture southern and western states electorally. That's it.
There simply is no analog to the republican party sedition on the democratic side. Yes, the democratic south did secede, but the treasonous people who did so were the ancestors to today's republicans.
While Trump may be leading the parade of republicans at this point, the cabal still standing are variations of a republican party theme to strengthen states' rights and regional oligarchies. The vision for the US in republican dogma is an alliance of sovereign states, banded together only for purposes of common defense and tariff - free trade within the alliance. For republicans, the civil war solved nothing.
The republican party runs the risk of going down in history as the political organization that undermined the United States. Ronald Reagan set the party and the nation down the path of mediocrity and divisiveness when he infamously declared the federal government to be the problem in our country.
Lest people forget, Reagan chose this path because the federal government tore down the institutions of segregation and Reagan saw political opportunity to capture southern and western states electorally. That's it.
There simply is no analog to the republican party sedition on the democratic side. Yes, the democratic south did secede, but the treasonous people who did so were the ancestors to today's republicans.
7
Do those who see the possibility of convergence between the two movements really fail to recognize the difference between Sanders' "democratic socialism" and Trump's "national socialism?"
2
The Edsall-Douthat Fantasy ...
See, two can play that game ...
See, two can play that game ...
6
I used to think that one key difference is that the supporters of Trump are frequently nasty, crude, and cruel about Trump's opponents, but, while Bernie himself always takes the high road (unlike Trump, who has never met an insult that he didn't love to repeat), sadly Bernie's supporters frequently make nasty personal comments about Hillary that make them sound more like Trump supporters than their own candidate.
10
At the end of this interesting piece Edsall speculates about a completely new political system not based on two parties.
Here in California we have already done it.
There is one big primary for everyone and all parties. The two top dogs become the general election candidates.
We also do redistricting by a committee of nonpartisan judges, which almost eliminates gerrymandering.
These two steps have virtually eliminated the Tea Party in California.
Two issues that are among the most important were not incuded in Edsall's discussion.
Those are inheritance and taxes on the rich. Almost all wealth in America is inherited. Six of the ten richest Americans inherited over a billion dollars each.
To end the power of non-self-made people like the Koch brothers, inheritance must be limited. Jefferson did it when governor of Virginia, and we should too.
This is the dimension which separates Trump and Sanders followers from each other.
Other items at Comedy Party Platform and Benton-Comedy2 on YouTube, under 3 min each. Send a buck to Bernie Sanders, invite me to speak. Thanks.
Here in California we have already done it.
There is one big primary for everyone and all parties. The two top dogs become the general election candidates.
We also do redistricting by a committee of nonpartisan judges, which almost eliminates gerrymandering.
These two steps have virtually eliminated the Tea Party in California.
Two issues that are among the most important were not incuded in Edsall's discussion.
Those are inheritance and taxes on the rich. Almost all wealth in America is inherited. Six of the ten richest Americans inherited over a billion dollars each.
To end the power of non-self-made people like the Koch brothers, inheritance must be limited. Jefferson did it when governor of Virginia, and we should too.
This is the dimension which separates Trump and Sanders followers from each other.
Other items at Comedy Party Platform and Benton-Comedy2 on YouTube, under 3 min each. Send a buck to Bernie Sanders, invite me to speak. Thanks.
7
Trump and Sanders represent a much needed political enema for the United States.
Hopefully the real result of the 2016 election will be that the Democratic and Republican parties will stop taking their constituencies for granted.
Hopefully the real result of the 2016 election will be that the Democratic and Republican parties will stop taking their constituencies for granted.
1
The biggest difference between Trump and Sanders is their approach to reality.
Sanders regards reality as real. as something that must be approached, studied and analyzed. His proposals are consistent. They bristle with data and statistics. They make use of historical results. Thet make use of experts in the field.
Trump regards reality as what he wants it to be, like in a movie or TV show. Like a TV show, he feels no need to say on Tuesday what he said on Monday. Data, statistics, and history are malleable. He has no use for experts. He is not unset by proofs that he is wrong.
Just compare what PoliFact and FactCheckSay about them. While they sometimes say that Sanders exaggerates and sometimes find ways to interpret his statements to be slightly off, in general, they rate his statements as true or mostly true. They have a field day on Trump. Statement after statement is rated "pants on fire" or given a slew of Pinocchios.
Unfortunately all of the Republican candidates have little contact with reality. For example, they all support a balanced budget amendment. I bet that none would admit the historical fact that in all of US history every period of longer than 3 years of balanced budgets has led to a depression.
Sanders regards reality as real. as something that must be approached, studied and analyzed. His proposals are consistent. They bristle with data and statistics. They make use of historical results. Thet make use of experts in the field.
Trump regards reality as what he wants it to be, like in a movie or TV show. Like a TV show, he feels no need to say on Tuesday what he said on Monday. Data, statistics, and history are malleable. He has no use for experts. He is not unset by proofs that he is wrong.
Just compare what PoliFact and FactCheckSay about them. While they sometimes say that Sanders exaggerates and sometimes find ways to interpret his statements to be slightly off, in general, they rate his statements as true or mostly true. They have a field day on Trump. Statement after statement is rated "pants on fire" or given a slew of Pinocchios.
Unfortunately all of the Republican candidates have little contact with reality. For example, they all support a balanced budget amendment. I bet that none would admit the historical fact that in all of US history every period of longer than 3 years of balanced budgets has led to a depression.
10
Excuse me Sanders is not Trump so don't lump them into the same category. Sanders has 20 plus years in the government and has been trying to work within the system. That is what I call an insider. Trump is not an insider.
2
Maro & Walter have it right. What we the middle class working stiffs of both genders and all races and ethnicities are up against is a well educated well funded, racist and sexist oligopoly. These are the folks who seek to divide men and women, the races and people of differing ethnicities and national origins and set them against each other to enhance their own profits and protect their own power.
Make no mistake about it this is why the oligopoly is making it so that college puts the educated middle class in debt for life, minorities poorly or uneducated and religion and the promis of "pie in the sky by and by" is promoted.
The establishment in both parties want control and want to preserve the status quo of increasing inequity in education health care and information technology and health care. Oh yes and the oligopoly favors gun control and back doors for government survailence into information technology least the middle class eventually wake up and use these tools to change the the system.
Make no mistake about it this is why the oligopoly is making it so that college puts the educated middle class in debt for life, minorities poorly or uneducated and religion and the promis of "pie in the sky by and by" is promoted.
The establishment in both parties want control and want to preserve the status quo of increasing inequity in education health care and information technology and health care. Oh yes and the oligopoly favors gun control and back doors for government survailence into information technology least the middle class eventually wake up and use these tools to change the the system.
1
This daily equating of Trump and Sanders* led me to file a comment over at Frank Bruni posing this rhetorical question: If the USA had a multiparty system such as Sweden's (choose your favorite) for what parties would Trump, Rubio, and Cruz become standard bearers?
Answer: None, even the Swedish SD party does not (publicly) express thoughts at the level where the trio functions.
So here I take that further, using Professor Jill Lepore's thought that the (American) party system is struggling to survive.
I invite anyone familiar with a multiparty system to speculate about the new America where each of the present figures would become party leader.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
* Richard Luettgen, Verified takes this to an unfortunate extreme at Frank Bruni today
Answer: None, even the Swedish SD party does not (publicly) express thoughts at the level where the trio functions.
So here I take that further, using Professor Jill Lepore's thought that the (American) party system is struggling to survive.
I invite anyone familiar with a multiparty system to speculate about the new America where each of the present figures would become party leader.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
* Richard Luettgen, Verified takes this to an unfortunate extreme at Frank Bruni today
3
The deep difference between Trump and Sanders is that Trump is using fear and loathing of the "others" to get support and generate enthusiasm. Sanders is appealing to our better nature, no deporting of illegal immigrants, no demonizing of Muslims. How anyone supporting Sanders could consider supporting Trump (or viceversa) is not really listening to the messages of either candidate. The ones who consider voting for either candidate are more interested in raising a middle finger to the "establishment" than in having a well governed country, a very destructive attitude which bodes ill for the future of the US if it ever predominates.
9
Right, I cannot see any way that Sanders, or his supporters, would consider associating, or any sort of union with Trump. But Hillary? Let's see, oligarch, came into her money in questionable ways, changes positions for convenience, corporate shill, unethical. Yes, I could see Hillary joining up with Trump. Not voting for either of them......
1
I keep hearing about 1972. How about '68?
The sitting Democratic president (Johnson/Obama) is not running. The party supports a candidate from his administration (Humphrey/Clinton). But an insurgent (McCarthy/Sanders) with a "single issue" (Viet Nam/ Wall Street) energizes young voters--but the establishment candidate prevails at the convention...you know the rest.
Look,I don't even like this kind of analogizing, but this is more apt than comparing McGovern to Sanders.
The sitting Democratic president (Johnson/Obama) is not running. The party supports a candidate from his administration (Humphrey/Clinton). But an insurgent (McCarthy/Sanders) with a "single issue" (Viet Nam/ Wall Street) energizes young voters--but the establishment candidate prevails at the convention...you know the rest.
Look,I don't even like this kind of analogizing, but this is more apt than comparing McGovern to Sanders.
7
Paul,
It's always useful, IMHO, to contrast today's election circumstances with others in the modern era. But I view the difference between 1968 and today differently than you do.
In 1968, Nixon would have won big regardless of who the Ds put up against him for at least two reasons. First, people all over the nation were shell-shocked by the assassinations, the riots (maybe especially those at the Chicago Democratic convention!), and other lawlessness. Nixon was by far the most credible "law and order" campaigner.
Second, the nation had become weary of Vietnam, and Nixon/Kissinger nailed in their campaigns what every traditionally patriotic American wanted - "peace with honor." (Don't get me started on that.)
For those reasons and others, Nixon's landslide had nothing to do with whether the D candidate was "the establishment" candidate or not.
This year, again IMHO, Hillary has a very good chance against the likes of Trump or some other Cruzy Rube, while Bernie would be flattened. See my other comment here for how I think it would go for Bernie.
I'll have to write another one on another day about how/why Hillary's chances are much better.
It's always useful, IMHO, to contrast today's election circumstances with others in the modern era. But I view the difference between 1968 and today differently than you do.
In 1968, Nixon would have won big regardless of who the Ds put up against him for at least two reasons. First, people all over the nation were shell-shocked by the assassinations, the riots (maybe especially those at the Chicago Democratic convention!), and other lawlessness. Nixon was by far the most credible "law and order" campaigner.
Second, the nation had become weary of Vietnam, and Nixon/Kissinger nailed in their campaigns what every traditionally patriotic American wanted - "peace with honor." (Don't get me started on that.)
For those reasons and others, Nixon's landslide had nothing to do with whether the D candidate was "the establishment" candidate or not.
This year, again IMHO, Hillary has a very good chance against the likes of Trump or some other Cruzy Rube, while Bernie would be flattened. See my other comment here for how I think it would go for Bernie.
I'll have to write another one on another day about how/why Hillary's chances are much better.
To the extent that blue collar Democrats view Trump as the second coming of Reagan it is plausible that there could be a large cross over of this group in his direction. That is the demographic to watch closely should the Republicans choose Trump which seems ever more likely. Now that Clinton's path to the nomination seems more assured, she would be wise to counter this threat on the horizon by selecting the aforementioned pro union and anti trade Senator from Ohio Sherrod Brown. Politics in America has become so tribal and so uncompromising that it appears almost impossible, excluding that group, to imagine any populist insurgency having any chance of success.
5
Babel's comment makes a good point.
Mr. Edsall's column cites Sean Trende, senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, as saying that if on the right end of the political spectrum a “more politically savvy version of Trump emerges, we could see our politics upended [with the emergence] of a ‘real’ European-style right candidate."
This makes no sense. How many states does Mr. Trump have to win before he's considered "politically savvy"?
It's not Mr. Trump for whom Mr. Trende's advice is relevant: it is, or was, Strom Thurmond, Barry Goldwater, and George Wallace. And guess what? The politicos got the message, the result being the Presidencies of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan -- the same policy directions in a savvier package. Mr. Trump shows plenty of political savvy by following in their footsteps.
Mr. Edsall's column cites Sean Trende, senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, as saying that if on the right end of the political spectrum a “more politically savvy version of Trump emerges, we could see our politics upended [with the emergence] of a ‘real’ European-style right candidate."
This makes no sense. How many states does Mr. Trump have to win before he's considered "politically savvy"?
It's not Mr. Trump for whom Mr. Trende's advice is relevant: it is, or was, Strom Thurmond, Barry Goldwater, and George Wallace. And guess what? The politicos got the message, the result being the Presidencies of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan -- the same policy directions in a savvier package. Mr. Trump shows plenty of political savvy by following in their footsteps.
People fit their opinions into the narratives provided. The policies that fit under the heading of, say, "self-reliance" or "providing a safety net" can shift 180 degrees. If any of today's Republicans were running in 1980, their economic policies would have been defined simply as theft. If 1980's Reagan, or 1968's Nixon, were running today, they'd be to the left of Clinton on economic issues.
My point is that pollsters ask people their opinions, and pundits fit the results into a narrative, as if different questions wouldn't elicit different opinions, and as if the terms were stable in meaning. This seems more like a means of shaping opinion than observing it.
In both parties the leadership's economic interests are pitted against the public's. So the leadership & the media stage partisan fights about other issues. We won't be talking about how to improve or replace Obamacare, or about how to restore progressive taxation, raise wages, make education affordable or clean up politics. Instead we'll argue about an empty court seat, about who's a Christian or an American, & who should bake gay wedding cakes. These are not inconsequential questions, but they will be framed unproductively. The argument will be intense, and it will serve only to divide left from right in ways that are profitable for the politicians & the media. Uniting left & right is a fantasy not because of public opinion, but because the division is too profitable for those in power.
My point is that pollsters ask people their opinions, and pundits fit the results into a narrative, as if different questions wouldn't elicit different opinions, and as if the terms were stable in meaning. This seems more like a means of shaping opinion than observing it.
In both parties the leadership's economic interests are pitted against the public's. So the leadership & the media stage partisan fights about other issues. We won't be talking about how to improve or replace Obamacare, or about how to restore progressive taxation, raise wages, make education affordable or clean up politics. Instead we'll argue about an empty court seat, about who's a Christian or an American, & who should bake gay wedding cakes. These are not inconsequential questions, but they will be framed unproductively. The argument will be intense, and it will serve only to divide left from right in ways that are profitable for the politicians & the media. Uniting left & right is a fantasy not because of public opinion, but because the division is too profitable for those in power.
8
You have correctly identified what is going on, and your ideas are represented well in the time worn phrase: Follow the money. The parties are going to lose with populism. But will the people?
1
Good comment, Martin.
In Paddy Chaefsky's "Network," encouraged by a news anchor who has lost his grip, people all over New York City open their apartment windows, lean over their sills, and yell, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!"
No one would suggest that, notwithstanding the unanimity of the message, those shouting that mantra agreed in any way on the source of their anger.
Consider that Bernie's message adheres closely to the liberal boilerplate that Democrats often espouse but then betray, while Trump's is not in the same area code as the usual GOP meme of lower taxes and fewer regulations and Jesus Christ, CEO.
So, real Democrats are responding to a message that represents their core beliefs: Protect the environment, make Wall Street three-card-Monte dealers earn a living, raise taxes on the uber-wealthy who seem hell bent on buying elections, while Donald's Republicans seem to have doubled down on a dream of America as a police state that doesn't hassle armed white people. Trump supporters show scant enthusiasm for the standard GOP message that Koch Industries is America and cares about little you.
Admit it, Tom: When Sanders and Trump first announced their candidacies, which press release generated a bigger laugh? And now we get to peruse the tired opinions of the tired pundits who had Bernie and The Donald dead and buried six months ago.
Spike Lee's excellent 60-second radio spot supporting Bernie. Worth a listen.
https://soundcloud.com/bernie_sanders/wake-up
No one would suggest that, notwithstanding the unanimity of the message, those shouting that mantra agreed in any way on the source of their anger.
Consider that Bernie's message adheres closely to the liberal boilerplate that Democrats often espouse but then betray, while Trump's is not in the same area code as the usual GOP meme of lower taxes and fewer regulations and Jesus Christ, CEO.
So, real Democrats are responding to a message that represents their core beliefs: Protect the environment, make Wall Street three-card-Monte dealers earn a living, raise taxes on the uber-wealthy who seem hell bent on buying elections, while Donald's Republicans seem to have doubled down on a dream of America as a police state that doesn't hassle armed white people. Trump supporters show scant enthusiasm for the standard GOP message that Koch Industries is America and cares about little you.
Admit it, Tom: When Sanders and Trump first announced their candidacies, which press release generated a bigger laugh? And now we get to peruse the tired opinions of the tired pundits who had Bernie and The Donald dead and buried six months ago.
Spike Lee's excellent 60-second radio spot supporting Bernie. Worth a listen.
https://soundcloud.com/bernie_sanders/wake-up
20
Spike Lee and Bernie Sanders - two one note fellows from Brooklyn with an exceedingly high opinion of themselves - a natural union.
1
The first and largest part of this column seems like the author was stretching for things to say, in comparing the types of voters who support Trump and Sanders. Other than the Populists component and the passion of the supporters I see very little that would bring a trump and a Sanders together on one ticket. First I think that men dislike each other intensely, which I guess in politics sometimes doesn't matter, but even though they're drawing on the same themes, politically they are polar opposites.
It is a very odd political season and certainly one of the people but I very much doubt that following the election, which could possibly bring a huge lopsided result depending on who are the final candidates, there will be a major realignment.
And I think the main reason is this: the very same forces driving this election, the growing wealth gap and the many injustice is that still permeate our society aren't going away. The battles over religion in secular life, abortion, gay marriage, racial discrimination, guns, climate change, equal pay for equal work, military spending, the role of America in today's world, education reform immigration reform - the list is endless and if you scratch under the surface of the anger propelling Sanders and Trump in these primaries, you will understand how hard it will be to make progress on all of the above.
It is a very odd political season and certainly one of the people but I very much doubt that following the election, which could possibly bring a huge lopsided result depending on who are the final candidates, there will be a major realignment.
And I think the main reason is this: the very same forces driving this election, the growing wealth gap and the many injustice is that still permeate our society aren't going away. The battles over religion in secular life, abortion, gay marriage, racial discrimination, guns, climate change, equal pay for equal work, military spending, the role of America in today's world, education reform immigration reform - the list is endless and if you scratch under the surface of the anger propelling Sanders and Trump in these primaries, you will understand how hard it will be to make progress on all of the above.
5
The similarities are that both are outsiders that speak truth to power. The differences are that Sanders does not have real world experience outside of politics and that Trump has built a company and has considerable experience dealing with political and other business issues.
However, the main driver for many voters is that the current establishment appointed candidates are defeated. It's that simple. Voters don't want more of the same. And then they want to pick who is the best of what is lest.
However, the main driver for many voters is that the current establishment appointed candidates are defeated. It's that simple. Voters don't want more of the same. And then they want to pick who is the best of what is lest.
2
It's a misleading to call the TPP a "trade" deal. As Dean Baker has pointed out, the trade barriers between the countries involved are already very low.
The deal was negotiated secretly by representatives of large corporations to establish a way to circumvent national governments that might wish to protect their workers, environment, etc. from multinational corporate depredations.
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-tpp-and-nonsense-on-trade
~
The deal was negotiated secretly by representatives of large corporations to establish a way to circumvent national governments that might wish to protect their workers, environment, etc. from multinational corporate depredations.
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-tpp-and-nonsense-on-trade
~
4
The Trump-Sanders Fantasy has a great solution: Bloomberg.
2
Does that mean we can't order a super size coke anymore??
3
Sure -
If you want a billionaire who thinks that the will of the NYC, who voted twice for terms limits for their politicians doesn't apply to him, and bullied and bought his third term.
if you want an authoritarian know-it-all that, is going to put bike lanes in instead of dealing with traffic problems as a whole, ignore the reality that gun ownership is in the constitutional right, tell you what to eat and drink - and what size, bully everyone that doesn't agree with him - including using his own money to do what he can't as a politician, and so on.
He's typical of the attitude of many 1% liberals that want you to be unarmed and traveling on the subway while he rides in an SUV with armed guards, or takes his private plane for weekend getaways while the rest of us suffer in the TSA lines. It's what he thinks is right against the democracy and free markets.
He'll end up being like Merkel who makes disastrous decisions because he thinks he has a moral right.
Many people have had enough of this paternalistic garbage and aren't looking for this. Let him stay happy that he accomplished a fair amount of good things in NYC, and then ruined it with his 3rd term decisions.
If you want a billionaire who thinks that the will of the NYC, who voted twice for terms limits for their politicians doesn't apply to him, and bullied and bought his third term.
if you want an authoritarian know-it-all that, is going to put bike lanes in instead of dealing with traffic problems as a whole, ignore the reality that gun ownership is in the constitutional right, tell you what to eat and drink - and what size, bully everyone that doesn't agree with him - including using his own money to do what he can't as a politician, and so on.
He's typical of the attitude of many 1% liberals that want you to be unarmed and traveling on the subway while he rides in an SUV with armed guards, or takes his private plane for weekend getaways while the rest of us suffer in the TSA lines. It's what he thinks is right against the democracy and free markets.
He'll end up being like Merkel who makes disastrous decisions because he thinks he has a moral right.
Many people have had enough of this paternalistic garbage and aren't looking for this. Let him stay happy that he accomplished a fair amount of good things in NYC, and then ruined it with his 3rd term decisions.
2
Seriously? You want to take a gun on the subway? Open carry, I assume.
1
Sanders and Trump can both be described as populists. Beyond that superficial similarity there is the essential difference that Sanders is a humanitarian while Trump is a prey upon humanity.
Supporters of Sanders and supporters of Trump share outrage over our economic condition, but a vast difference is Sanders supporters want self-less economic fairness for all Americans, while Trump's supporters want a bigger slice of the pie for themselves.
There is also a fundamental difference in their supporters' motivation regarding American society: Sanders' supporters are motivated by enthusiasm for positive inclusive social change; Trump's supporters are motivated by anger at any social change from the Archie Bunker era--in their minds, "Those were the days."
Supporters of Sanders and supporters of Trump share outrage over our economic condition, but a vast difference is Sanders supporters want self-less economic fairness for all Americans, while Trump's supporters want a bigger slice of the pie for themselves.
There is also a fundamental difference in their supporters' motivation regarding American society: Sanders' supporters are motivated by enthusiasm for positive inclusive social change; Trump's supporters are motivated by anger at any social change from the Archie Bunker era--in their minds, "Those were the days."
1
OI...Occupy Imagination. Trump Democrats and Sanders Republicans are a reality to contend with for the Clinton Dynasty as they proved to be for the Bushes. People are protesting against a stagnated state of the State, as much as the progress of an inequality on steroids. Politicians have sold out to monied interests and the voters are angry and restless. The center cannot hold, because it no longer exists.
2
Reading the headline, I thought "oh no here we go again, more unsupported punditry on the anger driving Trump and Sanders voters". But actually the question being asked - could a coalition of these voters unite behind and possibly elect a candidate - was intriguing. I do struggle to fully nderstand the appeal of Trump and suspect had he been running against no more than 2 other candidates of the more mainstream variety, he wouldn't be winning primaries. The widely split field is allowing him to be the front runner despite mostly attracting only 1/3 of the hard core Republicans who vote in the primaries.
the polling on the core values of voters supporting the various candidates was illuminating and one would hope ( although certainly not expect) stop the lumping together of Bernie and Trump supporters.
What's particularly interesting is how strongly Bernie supporters score on those values - care for others with a strong libertarian bent. these are not "angry" voters flailing about with no organizing core but ones motivated by particular moral values. And if the electability question surrounding Bernie were removed from the equation, would be supported by a majority of Democratic voters. the real revolt in the Democratic Party is against the party leaders who determined that electability could only be assured by offering up Republican light and climbing into bed with Corporate interests.
the polling on the core values of voters supporting the various candidates was illuminating and one would hope ( although certainly not expect) stop the lumping together of Bernie and Trump supporters.
What's particularly interesting is how strongly Bernie supporters score on those values - care for others with a strong libertarian bent. these are not "angry" voters flailing about with no organizing core but ones motivated by particular moral values. And if the electability question surrounding Bernie were removed from the equation, would be supported by a majority of Democratic voters. the real revolt in the Democratic Party is against the party leaders who determined that electability could only be assured by offering up Republican light and climbing into bed with Corporate interests.
2
I doubt many people need Jonathan Haidt to know that Trump and Sanders supporters are mutually incompatible, though as always, I appreciate Mr. Edsall’s work.
For now most important question is what will happen on election day should Sanders and Trump be the nominees? Any long-time political observer will verify that surveys taken now will mean nothing in six months.
I think Bernie would win the New England states, New York, the West Coast, and a few other states like Minnesota. These are states where majorities are smart enough to see through Trump and/or will be sufficiently offended by him to vote against him.
The R campaign apparatus, doubled in strength by the efforts of wacky plutocrats including Mr. T himself, will easily and effectively paint Sanders as a commie nebbish who will raise everyone’s taxes, open the borders to job-stealing immigrants and terrorists, who has no significant record of leadership, and who thinks more government is the answer to everything.
Trump will be ceaselessly portrayed as the hero of freedom and security, a proven empire builder who can “Make America Great Again,” ala Reagan’s “Morning in America.” That story will win over enough self-interested, fearful, and not-terribly bright “swing voters” in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and maybe Pennsylvania for Trump to easily win the election. The Midwest, South, and other bright red states like Utah and Wyoming will look pretty much like the map of Nevada from the R caucuses yesterday.
For now most important question is what will happen on election day should Sanders and Trump be the nominees? Any long-time political observer will verify that surveys taken now will mean nothing in six months.
I think Bernie would win the New England states, New York, the West Coast, and a few other states like Minnesota. These are states where majorities are smart enough to see through Trump and/or will be sufficiently offended by him to vote against him.
The R campaign apparatus, doubled in strength by the efforts of wacky plutocrats including Mr. T himself, will easily and effectively paint Sanders as a commie nebbish who will raise everyone’s taxes, open the borders to job-stealing immigrants and terrorists, who has no significant record of leadership, and who thinks more government is the answer to everything.
Trump will be ceaselessly portrayed as the hero of freedom and security, a proven empire builder who can “Make America Great Again,” ala Reagan’s “Morning in America.” That story will win over enough self-interested, fearful, and not-terribly bright “swing voters” in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and maybe Pennsylvania for Trump to easily win the election. The Midwest, South, and other bright red states like Utah and Wyoming will look pretty much like the map of Nevada from the R caucuses yesterday.
Polls produce momentary pictures revealing facial expressions, providing useful clues for prognostication. So, if you build an argument on these polls you will get superficial short-term predictions.
Political campaigning plays largely to emotion revealed by these pictures. Sanders and Trump successfully pull at these emotional strings, albeit in very different ways.
If we put this surface analysis aside, we might begin to see what is happening. Inequality has always been around, but not to the extent that is seen now, and it is beginning to shake us. The post-WWII order that unraveled in 1989 is unraveling further and faster-- the disintegration of the Middle East's political structure, Europe's great centrifugal activity, China's loss of ideological motivation. The glue holding things in place has finally become too brittle to last much longer.
What Sanders and Trump have in common is their call to wake up. Sanders says wake up, open your eyes, and think. Trump says wake up and start fighting.
Cruz and Rubio say we can lie our way through this problem and hope that god will perform a miracle.
Meanwhile, Hillary says stay cool. We can hold this together for a while longer and try to patch the cracks in the glue.
The change taking place is beyond some simple plan. The question then is not who has the "reasonable" practical answer, but rather who can get us turning in the right direction and lead us to open our eyes and think hard.
Political campaigning plays largely to emotion revealed by these pictures. Sanders and Trump successfully pull at these emotional strings, albeit in very different ways.
If we put this surface analysis aside, we might begin to see what is happening. Inequality has always been around, but not to the extent that is seen now, and it is beginning to shake us. The post-WWII order that unraveled in 1989 is unraveling further and faster-- the disintegration of the Middle East's political structure, Europe's great centrifugal activity, China's loss of ideological motivation. The glue holding things in place has finally become too brittle to last much longer.
What Sanders and Trump have in common is their call to wake up. Sanders says wake up, open your eyes, and think. Trump says wake up and start fighting.
Cruz and Rubio say we can lie our way through this problem and hope that god will perform a miracle.
Meanwhile, Hillary says stay cool. We can hold this together for a while longer and try to patch the cracks in the glue.
The change taking place is beyond some simple plan. The question then is not who has the "reasonable" practical answer, but rather who can get us turning in the right direction and lead us to open our eyes and think hard.
7
I am a Sanders supporter and I could actually vote for Donald Trump--on the issues of trade, Social Security and on campaign finance reform. Unfortunately the rest of the package, the bigotry, the misogyny, the crass showmanship is deeply repellent as is the fact that Trump's tax plain would bankrupt the country and would funnel even more money in the direction of the rich.
Nice try though.
Nice try though.
2
This editorial is all over the place- full of "ifs" "ands" and "buts." This can be a useful exercise in stretching conventional thinking- except that its arguments are rooted in poll data and the opinions of experts who may lack credibility. Both Sanders and Trump, more than the other candidates are tapping in to wells of frustration and alienation. Both falsely claim they are anti-establishment (stretching the uncertain definition of what that actually means). Neither has the ability to build broad based coalitions- & each has enough insularity and insanity to believe that THEY are right and that most Americans would understand and accept this if they knew the "truth" that the media and their opponents obscure. However, both are at opposite ends of the political and moral spectrum. While Sander's appeal is fundamentally moral, just, principled and caring- Trump's is fundamentally hateful, misogynist and destructive. One seeks to elevate the common people- the other seeks to lead them to an abyss for self aggrandizement. Neither candidate offers revolution or hope for anything more than gridlock in the case of Sanders and war and economic ruin in the case of the reckless Trump. It may be possible at some point to unite elements of both sides of the political spectrum from the well spring of dissatisfaction and anger. However negative emotions, while powerful- rarely have beneficial effect- and neither Trump or Sanders have the ability or temperament to do so in my opinion.
1
Fantasy? Don't be silly Tom. It is stupidness, pure and simple. The electorate has always been fools, voting for 'hope and change', etc., etc. Why would sanity suddenly appear? You get the government you deserve. Feel good, stay home in November.
1
If you close your eyes you can hear the very same sentiment from both Trump and Sanders, but that is where it all ends. Edsall has completely missed the point.
Sanders is a big government partisan hack. The man has been deeply entrenched in government for way too many years. His followers believe more government is the answer to bad policies. He refuses to attack his opponent or even the current office holder. He believes everyone is a "nice person", but has no ability to negotiate. Even his own party believes he has been an outlier.
Trump is a private sector guy who believes government is big enough already, and the solutions to bad policy lies in less intrusion. He believes only the private sector creates jobs, not the government. He is willing to attack anyone at anytime that is stealing his cookie. And he will do the same for American. He believes he can be everyone's friend, yet use that to his advantage. He is a master negotiator.
He is a pit bull on a three foot leash. Sanders is just a less qualified version of what we already have.
Sanders is a big government partisan hack. The man has been deeply entrenched in government for way too many years. His followers believe more government is the answer to bad policies. He refuses to attack his opponent or even the current office holder. He believes everyone is a "nice person", but has no ability to negotiate. Even his own party believes he has been an outlier.
Trump is a private sector guy who believes government is big enough already, and the solutions to bad policy lies in less intrusion. He believes only the private sector creates jobs, not the government. He is willing to attack anyone at anytime that is stealing his cookie. And he will do the same for American. He believes he can be everyone's friend, yet use that to his advantage. He is a master negotiator.
He is a pit bull on a three foot leash. Sanders is just a less qualified version of what we already have.
4
We are the parties, Republican and Democrat. A 300,000 pound godzilla is sitting between us. Neither of us can make it just go away. We can't even work together to make it go away. If we can enlist the support of all or friends and neighbors maybe, just maybe, we can make it go away.
No, I'm not talking about populist rage, I'm talking about big money dominating politics.
The Trump Republicans and the Sanders Democrats have only one thing in common. They have seen the big money godzilla chew up relatives, friends and neighbors. They actually are willing to call it a monster. The establishment in both parties is willing to pretend that the godzilla doesn't exist and carry on in the hope that the godzilla will satisfy its appetite by devouring the other party and then their candidate can be persuade the godzilla to turn vegan.
No, I'm not talking about populist rage, I'm talking about big money dominating politics.
The Trump Republicans and the Sanders Democrats have only one thing in common. They have seen the big money godzilla chew up relatives, friends and neighbors. They actually are willing to call it a monster. The establishment in both parties is willing to pretend that the godzilla doesn't exist and carry on in the hope that the godzilla will satisfy its appetite by devouring the other party and then their candidate can be persuade the godzilla to turn vegan.
187
If the Supreme Court had not decided Citizens United the way it did, would our political system be as broken as it is today? Were we headed in this direction already and Citizens United only hastened the smash-up? Or was there some little hope that the system would not have been as direly wrecked if Citizens United had been decided the other way? Ordinarily not a pessimist or cynical, I have the creepy feeling the US is not going to survive this ruined political system much longer. Is it so far-fetched to imagine we could collapse into another civil war--with the same adversaries as 1861? Maybe a very good question to ask in the coming few years is, "Where does the military stand?"
We are divided by those who live in fear and dream of the past and those who live for hope and dream of a future. We, Americans, must change.
Refer to:
Jeff Daniels' Why American isn't the greatest anymore.
https://www.google.com/search?q=jeff+daniels+why+america+isn%27t+the+gre...
Refer to:
Jeff Daniels' Why American isn't the greatest anymore.
https://www.google.com/search?q=jeff+daniels+why+america+isn%27t+the+gre...
The problem with this comparison is that it attempts to analyze Mr. Trump's supposed political viewpoints and policies, when he actually doesn't have any. He has virtually no qualifications to be president of anything except a reality TV show. Obviously there is no comparison with Senator Sanders, who has been serving admirably in the House and then the Senate for many years. Mr. Sanders' viewpoints and policies are well-known to anyone who has paid attention to politics for the last few years, and he is remarkably consistent in his beliefs and actions. No wonder the young folks love him. If there is some overlap between the people who support Bernie and those who support Trump, beyond the pure economic populists, I would say it's pretty clear that those people have no idea what either of them stands for.
1
There may be something to this on the Sanders side where he wanted to run a primary against President Obama, where he reached out to evangelical Liberty University, where he was endorsed by ultra conservative Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), where supporters believe the government had something to do with 9/11, where his supporters believe everything their told, where he blames the press for his woes, where he does not believe in compromise and where he sells a disproved economic theory.
2
False equivalence, even when details are similar, is still false.
What Trump and Sanders have in common does not touch what separates them. Like the old trick "both sides are guilty" employed by Republicans we are not taken by this equation. Trump evokes our worst emotions misogyny, racism, xenophobia, religious bigotry, and hatred of the weak-losers. Fascism is not comparable with liberalism. The goals of fascists are power. The means to power defrauds voters and victimizes them when achieved. Inclusion, fairness, equality cannot be confused with fascists except to deceive.
What Trump and Sanders have in common does not touch what separates them. Like the old trick "both sides are guilty" employed by Republicans we are not taken by this equation. Trump evokes our worst emotions misogyny, racism, xenophobia, religious bigotry, and hatred of the weak-losers. Fascism is not comparable with liberalism. The goals of fascists are power. The means to power defrauds voters and victimizes them when achieved. Inclusion, fairness, equality cannot be confused with fascists except to deceive.
2
It isn't false equivalency to compare Trump and Sanders. Both are tapping into anger over a system that clearly is not serving a huge swath of Americans. Both appeal to people who feel that the establishment is crushing the nation.
What is false is assuming that the populists Trump and Sanders appeal to are the same crowd, or in look at the problem the same way. Anger and frustration are widespread, but the populists are no more a monolithic crowd than any group of Americans in politics.
Sanders appeals to the more outward looking crowd, who see the failure of the systems and look for community and social solutions. They would, literally, spread the wealth.
Trump appeals to the inward looking crowd who feel that the everyone else is a taker, out to squeeze more from them.
Which explains why Trump's populist rhetoric looks for scapegoats both from Wall Street and the Mexican border, and Sanders focuses on the rich and powerful. Both have very simple answers, for the people that they are addressing.
What is false is assuming that the populists Trump and Sanders appeal to are the same crowd, or in look at the problem the same way. Anger and frustration are widespread, but the populists are no more a monolithic crowd than any group of Americans in politics.
Sanders appeals to the more outward looking crowd, who see the failure of the systems and look for community and social solutions. They would, literally, spread the wealth.
Trump appeals to the inward looking crowd who feel that the everyone else is a taker, out to squeeze more from them.
Which explains why Trump's populist rhetoric looks for scapegoats both from Wall Street and the Mexican border, and Sanders focuses on the rich and powerful. Both have very simple answers, for the people that they are addressing.
175
Could that be why only one of the major banks in NYC will still lend to Trump. Most of the others are averse to being railroaded or stiffed yet again.
He couldn't get elected to mayor of NYC or Governor of NY, so he decided to use bluster to run for President.
He couldn't get elected to mayor of NYC or Governor of NY, so he decided to use bluster to run for President.
The comparison with McGovern and Goldwater misses the point. In both cases it was one of the parties that was pulled to the extreme side. Now both parties are affected.
The present situation has more in common with the 1930s. The same phenomena happens in both Europe and the US: the people are tiring from mainstream politics and many consider the formerly mainstream right- and leftwing parties as equally disgusting.
Wages are stagnating. Politics is corrupt. Politicians with ideals are rare - for most it is just a career and they are prepared to say anything to advance. Special interests are very influential. No wonder the voters are disgusted.
Yet there is no clear solution. And so we see new parties rising left, right and even in the center. Orban, Le Pen and Syriza have little in common except for addressing the same feeling that something is wrong. Some become mainstream as soon as they come to power. Others keep stressing their eccentricities and stay on the margin even when they win elections.
This is what populism is about - catching that discontent for which there is no clear cut obvious solution. Trump's solutions are very different from Sanders'. and so he appeals to different voters.
What is disappointing about this article is that it clings so closely to the establishment and that it fails to analyze that discontent and come with its own solutions.
The present situation has more in common with the 1930s. The same phenomena happens in both Europe and the US: the people are tiring from mainstream politics and many consider the formerly mainstream right- and leftwing parties as equally disgusting.
Wages are stagnating. Politics is corrupt. Politicians with ideals are rare - for most it is just a career and they are prepared to say anything to advance. Special interests are very influential. No wonder the voters are disgusted.
Yet there is no clear solution. And so we see new parties rising left, right and even in the center. Orban, Le Pen and Syriza have little in common except for addressing the same feeling that something is wrong. Some become mainstream as soon as they come to power. Others keep stressing their eccentricities and stay on the margin even when they win elections.
This is what populism is about - catching that discontent for which there is no clear cut obvious solution. Trump's solutions are very different from Sanders'. and so he appeals to different voters.
What is disappointing about this article is that it clings so closely to the establishment and that it fails to analyze that discontent and come with its own solutions.
1
WimR....Depends on how to define left wing. Sanders and other progressives don't want a takeover of private property. They want capitalism but regulated. So there's no equiv betw right/left wing here.
It is not left wing to return to the policies we had during Gop Ike's term and after, of fair taxes, regulations on business, jobs still here, education subsidies, and union support. These were centrist then, and are now in most other democracies.
Sanders would be centrist abroad. He just sounds 'left wing' here since so many Gop ideas have become mainstream. And the media is dragged along with them, not to stick their necks out.
It is not left wing to return to the policies we had during Gop Ike's term and after, of fair taxes, regulations on business, jobs still here, education subsidies, and union support. These were centrist then, and are now in most other democracies.
Sanders would be centrist abroad. He just sounds 'left wing' here since so many Gop ideas have become mainstream. And the media is dragged along with them, not to stick their necks out.
As a friend of Senator Brown, all I can say is " We should be so lucky", as to have him as President. I'm still waiting for the "unimagined political system" you close with.
2
Donald Trump is becoming a cultural, social influence on the American people if he wins or looses. Trump's attitude is enabling and is transferable to people who agree and support him. I was recently traveling in Florida, and a truck pulled beside my Prius, the white man rolled his window down and began a tirade, cussing, yelling, go back where you come from. My license plate was Maine. I was shaken, and wondered what caused such a out burst. My wife said there has always been people like that, But I couldn't help think that maybe Trump was behind this and Trump would enable a lot more in many avenues of our lives, social and political. Win or loose. Yes there have always been people like this, but now they have a leader. If Trump wins, what kind of country will we become or have we already become it?
8
As social scientists poll, parse and dissect the American voter psyche they keep building a false model of the average man/woman. People are complex. Regional differences compound opinion polls. Mobility promotes dilution of the regional orthodoxy. Which one dominates? A muddle in the puddle of what we call society. What seems to be a real trend is the "establishments" fetish of saying Sanders is some kind of latter day Don Quixote. Maybe, but there has to be a reason, besides being mad, why people, young and old show up and donate. Maybe that is the next in-depth study all the establishment shills poll on.
The sad thing is that elections occur every 2 years to elect the Representatives and 1/3rd Senate. I wish people have this enthusiasm continuing every 2 years. The establishment against whom Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump are railing about will always have the last laugh! That the establishment is still tone deaf is frightening for the long run. As Mary Antoinette allegedly said "Let them eat Cake" is equally applicable to the "Establishment" for either party.
1
I think you meant Sanders-Trump and yes that is a fantasy.
Edsall excels in his analysis of the factors that unite the campaigns of Sanders and Trump. Both agree that elites have hijacked federal power to serve their own interests at the expense of the majority. In more concrete terms, they favor social spending to benefit the working class and embrace an economic nationalism that rejects trade treaties. This limited consensus can inspire a common insurgency but not an effective alliance built around a positive agenda for the use of federal authority.
But a more thorough understanding of the two campaigns requires a better analysis of the factors that divide Sanders and Trump. The latter's reliance on personal invective reflects a tendency to envision government in personal terms, as a group of individuals who have betrayed the public trust. Thus the achievement of Trump's goals requires the replacement of those unworthy officials with Trump and his subordinates. Trump personally will restore American greatness by building a wall, expelling illegal immigrants and intimidating foreign adversaries. This emphasis on the personal dimension brands Trump as a demagogue.
Sanders, on the other hand, focuses on the failure of institutions. Thus he wants Congress to reform the programs that provide health care and federal aid to higher education. Sanders' emphasis on institutions as the key to progress, rather than on his personal power, marks him as a democratic politician.
No starker choice could confront the American people.
But a more thorough understanding of the two campaigns requires a better analysis of the factors that divide Sanders and Trump. The latter's reliance on personal invective reflects a tendency to envision government in personal terms, as a group of individuals who have betrayed the public trust. Thus the achievement of Trump's goals requires the replacement of those unworthy officials with Trump and his subordinates. Trump personally will restore American greatness by building a wall, expelling illegal immigrants and intimidating foreign adversaries. This emphasis on the personal dimension brands Trump as a demagogue.
Sanders, on the other hand, focuses on the failure of institutions. Thus he wants Congress to reform the programs that provide health care and federal aid to higher education. Sanders' emphasis on institutions as the key to progress, rather than on his personal power, marks him as a democratic politician.
No starker choice could confront the American people.
5
Well, not so fast there---These two are so far apart in personality; Trump's "I'm gonna punch him in the face then build a wall with [slave labor] then make them happy to pay for it" appeals to that base that moved across the repub/dem divide in previous campaigns because the Democratic party was getting a bit to 'tanned' for their liking. The votes were nice to depend on but now the centrist Republicans have to contend with a low-rent mentality and how to tell them that they have to dress and speak decently when they come to this party. That these individuals would align with those of Sanders' beliefs is wishful thinking. Racism and anti-semitism run very deep in that other crowd. I would vote Sanders but I certainly wouldn't align with anyone from Trump's camp. Yes, things have to change but one doesn't have to give in to the baser instincts of our culture by punching everyone we don't like in the face. Trump's popularity runs on pure emotion: anger. A democracy works on solid ideas that come thoughtful expression. Emotion does not qualify as thought. Now, congress is a hot emotional mess as the senate tries to justify its pathological (emotional) hatred for a thoughtful president. Our democracy is broken and will be put back together with ideas -- not the pure white-hot anger of Trumpsters.
2
I believe most of the democratic presidential candidates of the past several decades, after losing their presidential primary would cross the aisle and vote for a republican in the general election if their Democrat presidential candidant was a racist, xenophobic, angry, consistently failing demagogue and the Republican candidate was not. If Trump is the nominee the interesting question is would so called "moderate" republicans such as Jeb Bush and John Kasich support putting 30,000 nuclear warheads in the hands of Donald Trump? What will it take for Republicans to do what is best for the country and choose the middle ground? i fear nothing.
2
Is it possible for Mr. Edsall to write an opinion piece without referencing other sources. It would be fresh to read an entire article of his without the references. Its clear that he has the experience and capability to do so.
The last candidate who brought togrther minorities and the white working class was Robert Kennedy. Alas.
3
Hint: Robert Kennedy did not go around calling average American voters "stupid" or "low information" or "rednecks" or "trailer park trash" or tell them they were bitter and that's why they cling to guns and religion.
1
"the hope that the two constituencies could be joined to create a genuine left-right populist alliance"
It is not a hope, it is a fear. The fear comes into play if only one of the parties runs its populist candidate.
The fear is that if the Democrats run their original Establishment favorite, than the entire populist movement could coalesce around Trump, and he'd win. The Republicans have the opposite fear, that Rubio could face a united populist revolt under Sanders.
There is no doubt that Trump and Sanders would split that vote. It would not possibly join to create any alliance.
What the Parties still hope to do is run an Establishment-owned candidate for both. Rubio vs Hillary. Two candidates could not be more owned.
Only some are wise enough to fear what that would do to American politics in the next election. The Donald would seem like a sweet memory as we face another Huey Long. That would be a unity to fear.
It is not a hope, it is a fear. The fear comes into play if only one of the parties runs its populist candidate.
The fear is that if the Democrats run their original Establishment favorite, than the entire populist movement could coalesce around Trump, and he'd win. The Republicans have the opposite fear, that Rubio could face a united populist revolt under Sanders.
There is no doubt that Trump and Sanders would split that vote. It would not possibly join to create any alliance.
What the Parties still hope to do is run an Establishment-owned candidate for both. Rubio vs Hillary. Two candidates could not be more owned.
Only some are wise enough to fear what that would do to American politics in the next election. The Donald would seem like a sweet memory as we face another Huey Long. That would be a unity to fear.
19
America has been stuck in a right-wing riptide since its three great liberal lions JFK, MLK and RFK were all coincidentally slaughtered in the 1960's.
JFK's 1963 American University Peace speech outraged CIA and right-wing war-hawks and was silenced and replaced by a massive military-industrial-effort in Vietnam nightmare.
MLK's pleas for racial and economic justice and RFK's calls for compassion and human decency were both silenced and replaced with the right-wing Southern Strategy sensibility of 'segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever' and the right-wing's pronounced plutocratic preference for plantation economics.
Bernie Sanders candidacy is a direct Democratic descendant of FDR-JFK-MLK-RFK's progressive liberalism and human decency for all - a tradition most Americans still agree with but which has been masterfully propagandized and character-assassinated by the Grand Old Pirates.
Donald Trump's Republican candidacy is unique in that he tells the truth to GOP voters, but his appeal is still baked in a misanthropic crockpot of anti-Mexican-Muslim deportation fascism wrapped in a naive nostalgic plea to Make It The 1950's Again...not to mention that his candidacy is a celebrity candidacy highly predicated on his nonsensical 'Terrific Doctrine' of public policy and his inimitable megalomania.
If America was able to turn off its Fox News and hate radios, Bernie Sanders' New Deal would win in a landslide over Donald Trump's Mr. Terrific platform.
JFK's 1963 American University Peace speech outraged CIA and right-wing war-hawks and was silenced and replaced by a massive military-industrial-effort in Vietnam nightmare.
MLK's pleas for racial and economic justice and RFK's calls for compassion and human decency were both silenced and replaced with the right-wing Southern Strategy sensibility of 'segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever' and the right-wing's pronounced plutocratic preference for plantation economics.
Bernie Sanders candidacy is a direct Democratic descendant of FDR-JFK-MLK-RFK's progressive liberalism and human decency for all - a tradition most Americans still agree with but which has been masterfully propagandized and character-assassinated by the Grand Old Pirates.
Donald Trump's Republican candidacy is unique in that he tells the truth to GOP voters, but his appeal is still baked in a misanthropic crockpot of anti-Mexican-Muslim deportation fascism wrapped in a naive nostalgic plea to Make It The 1950's Again...not to mention that his candidacy is a celebrity candidacy highly predicated on his nonsensical 'Terrific Doctrine' of public policy and his inimitable megalomania.
If America was able to turn off its Fox News and hate radios, Bernie Sanders' New Deal would win in a landslide over Donald Trump's Mr. Terrific platform.
323
An incisive analysis of over six decades of American political malfeasance. With those three assassinations, the Light was all but extinguished in the political process.
Bernie Sanders is the last, best sign of its reappearance! And the Forces of Darkness, in both parties, are going to do their best to extinguish it once again. If We the People allow that, we will indeed get "the government we deserve," rather than the one we so dearly NEED!
Interesting that we see these forces so clearly delineated in the "Star Wars" movies, for example, but when it comes to daily life, we're so mystified and confused, so easily taken in and turned against the Good.
Leaders like Sanders only come along once in a generation or more--if we're lucky! Let's not allow this one to go unsupported!
Bernie Sanders is the last, best sign of its reappearance! And the Forces of Darkness, in both parties, are going to do their best to extinguish it once again. If We the People allow that, we will indeed get "the government we deserve," rather than the one we so dearly NEED!
Interesting that we see these forces so clearly delineated in the "Star Wars" movies, for example, but when it comes to daily life, we're so mystified and confused, so easily taken in and turned against the Good.
Leaders like Sanders only come along once in a generation or more--if we're lucky! Let's not allow this one to go unsupported!
1
Socrates .....And why has Fox News and hate radio become ubiquitous throughout the land? They are setting the standards that liberals are forced to reply to, and it's moved the center to the right. The Dem party can no longer properly defend the majority.
This should also be traced back to repeal of anti monopoly laws for media companies, and the repeal of the fairness doctrine for news programs, that once had to present both sides.
The contrast to previous eras in media should be concretely drawn, and then related to our past greater economic equality. At one time, the policies of Bernie Sanders were accepted centrist politics, not sidelined as too 'left wing', even for the NY Times, or so called liberal paper.
This should also be traced back to repeal of anti monopoly laws for media companies, and the repeal of the fairness doctrine for news programs, that once had to present both sides.
The contrast to previous eras in media should be concretely drawn, and then related to our past greater economic equality. At one time, the policies of Bernie Sanders were accepted centrist politics, not sidelined as too 'left wing', even for the NY Times, or so called liberal paper.
3
Bernie Sanders is exposing what many of us suspected for decades--the Dem party is beholden to Wall Street and has abandoned advocating policies aimed at helping the bottom 90%. It started with Bil who cozied up to Wall Street through policies of financial deregulation, NAFTA and the first government bailout of the Street after Mexico's default.
The Street has rewarded the Clintons and DNC handsomely for their loyalty. The most graphic illustration of their cozy relationship displayed by the payment of $3 million in speaking fees to Hillary by financial corporations in 2013-14, on the eve of declaring her candidacy.
And nary a word of analysis by any NYT's pundit of how the deep ties between The Street and Hillary will impact her administration. Crickets. Because the pundits know it looks bad when a candidate's family has taken $150 million in speaking fees from special interests, and who knows how much through their Foundation.
Transparency? When asked for transcripts of her Goldman Sachs pep talks she initially laughed, then said she would get back to us, and now claims when everyone else releases their transcripts, she will.
The divide in the Dem party is between those who don't care money rules politics and those who believe money in politics has rigged the economy. Because Hillary is lathered in special interest money, her supporters have to believe the former.
Sanders is exposing the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and the mainstream don't like it.
The Street has rewarded the Clintons and DNC handsomely for their loyalty. The most graphic illustration of their cozy relationship displayed by the payment of $3 million in speaking fees to Hillary by financial corporations in 2013-14, on the eve of declaring her candidacy.
And nary a word of analysis by any NYT's pundit of how the deep ties between The Street and Hillary will impact her administration. Crickets. Because the pundits know it looks bad when a candidate's family has taken $150 million in speaking fees from special interests, and who knows how much through their Foundation.
Transparency? When asked for transcripts of her Goldman Sachs pep talks she initially laughed, then said she would get back to us, and now claims when everyone else releases their transcripts, she will.
The divide in the Dem party is between those who don't care money rules politics and those who believe money in politics has rigged the economy. Because Hillary is lathered in special interest money, her supporters have to believe the former.
Sanders is exposing the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and the mainstream don't like it.
201
No the Dem establishment is not beholden to Wall St. and long term party supporters want money out of politics as much as the angry populace. The angry populace doesn't really know what the Dems stand for because they ignore the party until presidential elections come along. And therein lies the problem. It's easy for Sanders to make claims about the party with an uninformed populace. Where were these angry people in the last midterms or when we wanted to pass better ACA or on gun control- anyone who stood up for it lost their seats. The article pretty much nailed the problem. Too much (bad) information and too little contemplation.
2
Right Scott....Dem Bill Clinton was carrying on the Dem version of Reagonomics, saying the era of big govt is over. Which really means the majority is now unprotected, which is the ultimate contradiction to democracy.
Where are the Times columnists tracing the causation chain of Bill's deregulation of banks, of Nafta leading to further shipping of US jobs out of the country, and of prison expansion leading to our American prison gulag--largest in world?
What is the NY Times afraid of that they can't even have 1 columnist standing up for true equality, instead of just pretending to.
Then with Hillary vs Bernie, they show their true colors.
At least Sanders wasn't married to a previous president whose negative policies he won't contradict. That's an advantage right there!
Where are the Times columnists tracing the causation chain of Bill's deregulation of banks, of Nafta leading to further shipping of US jobs out of the country, and of prison expansion leading to our American prison gulag--largest in world?
What is the NY Times afraid of that they can't even have 1 columnist standing up for true equality, instead of just pretending to.
Then with Hillary vs Bernie, they show their true colors.
At least Sanders wasn't married to a previous president whose negative policies he won't contradict. That's an advantage right there!
Here's a thought for those who want to believe in fairy tales. It takes money to run political campaigns. Before there was crowd funding, where did politicians get those funds? If the middle class had been donating heavily to political campaigns all along, it wouldn't have been necessary to go to moneyed interests for donations. Without money, campaigns can't get their message out. Sure, it's great that Bernie supporters are funding him, but how many politicians can do that? Particularly at levels below the President?
So, for all the "radicals" who have suddenly discovered the "business" of politics, here's a clue. If you want representative government, you actually have to take part...otherwise, it will be available to the highest bidder. As someone who has been in the trenches and wondered where the heck all the "young people" were hiding, I find it galling to listen to "Johnny-come-latelies" complaining about the Democratic Party when they've been "no where to be seen" for years.
So, for all the "radicals" who have suddenly discovered the "business" of politics, here's a clue. If you want representative government, you actually have to take part...otherwise, it will be available to the highest bidder. As someone who has been in the trenches and wondered where the heck all the "young people" were hiding, I find it galling to listen to "Johnny-come-latelies" complaining about the Democratic Party when they've been "no where to be seen" for years.
1
Mr. Edsall,
You can compare dogs with cats and find similarities between the two, but they come from very different backgrounds and lineage and they think differently. What's more, people who have dogs as pets have very different reasons for their preference than people who have cats as pets.
Trump and Sanders come from entirely different backgrounds, ethnically, religiously, economically, and in the degree of privilege Trump was born into and Sanders had to struggle against. Their ideologies were formed from entirely different principles and experiences. Sanders marched for civil rights. Trump believes in his right to eminent domain. Sanders has remained true to his principles for five decades. Trump changes in whatever manner affords him the best profit margin.
What's more, Sanders' supporters follow him out of hope. Trump's supporters follow him out of anger, racism, xenophobia, and a perverse admiration for bullying.
The fact that they overlap on a couple of issues, and that you have printed this as if it were some sort of truth about Bernie Sanders, shows just how low the NY Times has stooped to promote the candidacy of Hilary Clinton.
You can compare dogs with cats and find similarities between the two, but they come from very different backgrounds and lineage and they think differently. What's more, people who have dogs as pets have very different reasons for their preference than people who have cats as pets.
Trump and Sanders come from entirely different backgrounds, ethnically, religiously, economically, and in the degree of privilege Trump was born into and Sanders had to struggle against. Their ideologies were formed from entirely different principles and experiences. Sanders marched for civil rights. Trump believes in his right to eminent domain. Sanders has remained true to his principles for five decades. Trump changes in whatever manner affords him the best profit margin.
What's more, Sanders' supporters follow him out of hope. Trump's supporters follow him out of anger, racism, xenophobia, and a perverse admiration for bullying.
The fact that they overlap on a couple of issues, and that you have printed this as if it were some sort of truth about Bernie Sanders, shows just how low the NY Times has stooped to promote the candidacy of Hilary Clinton.
358
How anyone could read this essay and conclude it is in support of Ms. Clinton is mind boggling. I am really afraid that Bernie supporters will pull a Nader. This country cannot afford a contemporary Republican in the White House.
5
Bernie supporters and Trump supporters are exactly alike - they both hate Hillary Clinton.
1
Really, I think Sander's supporter follow him out of rage for rich people.
1
Mr. Edsall's analysis of the Republican party is on target.... but I do not see the Democratic party as "the political ally of emerging rebellions"! After McGovern the only Democrats who got elected were a southern centrist (Carter) and two neoliberals-- Clinton and Obama. During that time period the party ran only one bona fide liberal, Walter Mondale, and he was swamped by Reagan. After McGovern and Mondale lost decisively, the Democrats decided to cast their lot with the billionaires.... they became the Republican-lite party. They ended Welfare as We Know It; supported legislation and trade agreements that promoted globalization, off-shored jobs and led to a race to the bottom in wages; supported the War on Drugs and the mass incarcerations that resulted from that policy; and loosened regulations that led to the financial crisis and environmental degradation. The party took the African American vote and the union vote for granted knowing that while they promoted legislation that placed them at a disadvantage their blocs might vote for them as the lesser of two evils.
Social media has had an impact on both parties: it has awakened the public to the devastating effects of money on BOTH parties and made them painfully aware that NEITHER party is looking out for anyone except the oligarchs. That is the reality both Sanders and Trump agree on... and if neither is nominated the dismay of the newly engaged voters will be the real story in the 2016 election.
Social media has had an impact on both parties: it has awakened the public to the devastating effects of money on BOTH parties and made them painfully aware that NEITHER party is looking out for anyone except the oligarchs. That is the reality both Sanders and Trump agree on... and if neither is nominated the dismay of the newly engaged voters will be the real story in the 2016 election.
77
Attempting to sell the idea of a similarity between a person of no discernible moral or ethical code and a person who has remained remarkably consistent throughout a long political career is a seriously flawed effort. Trump "speaks with forked tongue." He has repeatedly contradicted himself, depending on what he thought to be the most popular answer of the moment. Bernie never does. We are too used to politicians being liars and opportunists. Even if Bernie has to go toe to toe with congress for 4 years, at least he'd be telling us the truth about it.
In the last days of the Roman Republic, the senate had become corrupt and dysfunctional so of course a strong man arose. At least Julius Cesar had the best interests of the state at heart and was an honest man (hopefully Bernie would not suffer JC's early fate.) More or less the same could be said of Augustus Cesar. Do we really want to skip that phase and go directly to a bloviating, self-aggrandizing Nero? Not to mention what Trump would do to the White House. Just look at photos of his apartment in Trump tower and shudder. At present the the White House looks like a study in minimalism by comparison. Bernie on the other hand, probably wouldn't even notice the decor, let alone change anything.
In the last days of the Roman Republic, the senate had become corrupt and dysfunctional so of course a strong man arose. At least Julius Cesar had the best interests of the state at heart and was an honest man (hopefully Bernie would not suffer JC's early fate.) More or less the same could be said of Augustus Cesar. Do we really want to skip that phase and go directly to a bloviating, self-aggrandizing Nero? Not to mention what Trump would do to the White House. Just look at photos of his apartment in Trump tower and shudder. At present the the White House looks like a study in minimalism by comparison. Bernie on the other hand, probably wouldn't even notice the decor, let alone change anything.
55
Love your last line. Bernie wouldn't change anything because he would consider the expense to be misuse of public monies.
2
Count me among those who would never, repeat, never vote for Donald Trump. Sanders, despite the polling results cited in this article, is much closer to the Democrat establishment in my opinion. If Hillary Clinton would only embrace just a part of Sander's thinking, something she could do without damaging her image, she would unify the young Democrats and the so-called establishment. She could embrace the $15.00 minimum wage for example, and harden her stance against the banking industry and for campaign finance reform and education funding. In short, show some of Sander's fire and combine it with her experience and practicality.
The coming election now looms more important than ever, with the Republican defiance of the Constitution re and Obama Supreme Court nominee. The younger generation of Democrats will unite with their older counterparts in energizing voters to go to the polls. I have long argued for a strong, constructive Republican opposition in our government in the belief that our democracy would be stronger for it. It is now abundantly apparent that there should be a Democrat president and majority in the Senate at the very least, if the country is to move forward.
The coming election now looms more important than ever, with the Republican defiance of the Constitution re and Obama Supreme Court nominee. The younger generation of Democrats will unite with their older counterparts in energizing voters to go to the polls. I have long argued for a strong, constructive Republican opposition in our government in the belief that our democracy would be stronger for it. It is now abundantly apparent that there should be a Democrat president and majority in the Senate at the very least, if the country is to move forward.
31
Hillary cannot *credibly* become Bernie.
This underestimates the negative reaction to Hillary. Enough would refuse to vote for her that Trump could win, probably would.
This underestimates the negative reaction to Hillary. Enough would refuse to vote for her that Trump could win, probably would.
15
I hope those who would refuse to vote for her don't have daughters. Anyone who doesn't vote democratic in the next election is spitting in the eye of every woman on this globe. Women's rights are human rights and yet I see Sanders supporters repeatedly willing to allow a Republican presidency to spite HRC and the "establishment". This country should be the vanguard for women's rights, yet we have an electorate on both ends of the spectrum who couldn't possibly care less.
6
She is doing what you say. She is giving lip-service to most of Bernie's point and repeating the same words. When her "no we can't" message wasn't working, she grabbed his.
However, that does not mean that she believes or is committed to anything she says. She is an opportunist. I never thought she was anything other than a corporate lackey and a warmonger. Now, I know why. She is a Kissinger acolyte. Expect nothing better from her than you would expect if Nixon rose from the dead.
However, that does not mean that she believes or is committed to anything she says. She is an opportunist. I never thought she was anything other than a corporate lackey and a warmonger. Now, I know why. She is a Kissinger acolyte. Expect nothing better from her than you would expect if Nixon rose from the dead.
3
Apparently Edsall and the Times don't get that Americans who aren't living in Manhattan and able to afford a $3 million condo are disgusted with the status quo. We want to see a change occur so that we feel the plutocrats, 1%, multinationals don't own the political machine and get everything they want and ask for to our detriment. It's that simple. Germans were swayed by the vindictive message aka "revanchisme" of their far right politicians in the wake of the Great War and the onerous Versailles Treaty...
32
"Revanchisme", in so far as it even existed, was a French phenomenon....not a German one ('Revanche' is not a very German word.). It dates to the period after the Franco-Prussian War, not the 1920s.
1
There is another overlap between Trump and Sanders, not mentioned here. Both presidential candidates are running without bowing down to a brain-dead dumbed-down news media which remains largely incapable of coming to grips with the long-obvious obsolescence of their favorite ready-to-copy-paste storybook lines about "left versus right."
77
The owners of the media are also the owners of Rubio and Hillary. They want to run their wholly owned candidates, of course, and they want their wholly owned media to say that.
16
It's quite simple really. There is a large group of Americans who have been taught from birth that "their" job, "their" promotion, "their" taxes, are all going to (insert minority) who by rights should not be treated as equal to them. These are Trump supporters.
There is another large group who have been taught from birth that minorities are not the enemy, and these people have learned that the true blame for our miserable economic prospects rests largely on corporate and political tactics, such as outsourcing, trade agreements, offshoring. These are Bernie supporters.
Racism vs inclusion, minority bashing vs revolt against the masters of the universe. There is some common ground between the supporters of each but not a lot.
There is another large group who have been taught from birth that minorities are not the enemy, and these people have learned that the true blame for our miserable economic prospects rests largely on corporate and political tactics, such as outsourcing, trade agreements, offshoring. These are Bernie supporters.
Racism vs inclusion, minority bashing vs revolt against the masters of the universe. There is some common ground between the supporters of each but not a lot.
657
I'd like to clarify this a bit. Both groups agree that our country is headed in the wrong direction and needs to be "taken back", but because they view the cause differently, they therefore have vastly different ideas on how this goal should be accomplished.
2
It is frustrating that you mainly can only vote for policies that help other people. While this provides an opportunity to express your values about morality and charity and the social fabric, it leaves one wanting a social fabric for ourselves as well. Which candidate is running on helping people move up from earning $100k to $250k? Which candidate will pay for your Ph.D. in chemistry? Of course minorities are not the enemy. What different is that in countries like Sweden, the system works for everyone, including people who are pretty well off.
Agreed, the differences noted are critical values and wash any other similarity. Individualism and looking out for # 1 (Trump, by the way) vs. a common good for all are diametrically opposed. Basic values such as this are long held by both, maybe that is what is in common.
"The American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages, and … they grow more timorous, more sniveling, more poltroonish, more ignominious every day."
--- H.L. Mencken, "On Being an American," 1922.
--- H.L. Mencken, "On Being an American," 1922.
29
Stanton,
You mean the HL Mencken who opposed American entry into WWI and WWII because he was such a fervent supporter of Germany, including the nazi party in the 1930s, and an avid anti-Semite?
Ok, you're from Texas, so that may explain your affection for him.
You mean the HL Mencken who opposed American entry into WWI and WWII because he was such a fervent supporter of Germany, including the nazi party in the 1930s, and an avid anti-Semite?
Ok, you're from Texas, so that may explain your affection for him.
1
I presume you know Mencken is talking about all of us, including you.
2
To TDurk ---
Mencken had unkind things to say about just about everybody, including
Jews and blacks, but he was laugh-out-loud funny and, besides being a great stylist as an author, journalist and magazine editor who among many other things wrote a pioneering study of the American language, also did a great deal to encourage black writers.
And he was frequently correct when other people were wrong.
Here is what he had to say about FDR’s refusal to help more Jewish refugees get into the country during World War II:
“There is only one way to help the fugitives, and that is to find places for them in a country in which they can really live. Why shouldn’t the United States take in a couple hundred thousand of them, or even all of them?”
Now as far as Texas is concerned:
Texas is a late-in-life acquired habit of mine. I like the pickup trucks, the cowboy hats, the big university libraries, the big country, the big sky and the relative ease of finding places to keep horses and chickens. The Mexican food is tops,
the Chinese food and the chopped liver sandwiches could stand some improvements. The passion for guns sometimes gets a bit excessive, but that is more than balanced out by the paucity of hard-core, left wing ideologues.
Mencken had unkind things to say about just about everybody, including
Jews and blacks, but he was laugh-out-loud funny and, besides being a great stylist as an author, journalist and magazine editor who among many other things wrote a pioneering study of the American language, also did a great deal to encourage black writers.
And he was frequently correct when other people were wrong.
Here is what he had to say about FDR’s refusal to help more Jewish refugees get into the country during World War II:
“There is only one way to help the fugitives, and that is to find places for them in a country in which they can really live. Why shouldn’t the United States take in a couple hundred thousand of them, or even all of them?”
Now as far as Texas is concerned:
Texas is a late-in-life acquired habit of mine. I like the pickup trucks, the cowboy hats, the big university libraries, the big country, the big sky and the relative ease of finding places to keep horses and chickens. The Mexican food is tops,
the Chinese food and the chopped liver sandwiches could stand some improvements. The passion for guns sometimes gets a bit excessive, but that is more than balanced out by the paucity of hard-core, left wing ideologues.
2
A commenter on the Trump victory article said both Trump and Sanders are essentially running as independents. That seems correct. Neither party is addressing the issues of the people: jobs leaving for China and India, immigrants legal and illegal welcomed to further depress wages here, money being funneled only to those who already have plenty.
Ironically it is the Democrats who are being the true conservatives this election year with their promotion of safe, familiar, you-know-what-you'll-get Hillary. Conservative in the sense of "conserve the status quo".
Ironically it is the Democrats who are being the true conservatives this election year with their promotion of safe, familiar, you-know-what-you'll-get Hillary. Conservative in the sense of "conserve the status quo".
37
This article certainly leaves the biggest question untouched. Why are folks who essentially believe in the same policies utterly divided? What is the basis of the antipathy if it is not based on the proposals and opinions of the candidates?
I read a quote of a speech writer for the first President Bush in this newspaper that America has never been a country divided politically between the poor and the rich and is instead divided between the more and less educated.
I believe that this is actually a kind of class "warfare" where envy and distrust stems from comparisons to the people one actually lives with. Plutocrats are not so resented as the person you went to school with who made you feel inadequate. Essentially our politics are deeply rooted in the continuation of high school and its all about nerd vs jock.
Politicians and their propagandists have been instinctively aware of this for probably centuries and both use it and inflame this rivalry of status. Roger Ails is the ultimate strategist of what has become the divide and conquer strategy on behalf of our plutocrats. The rejection of science by his viewership (think climate and evolution) are symptomatic of the success of his strategy.
I read a quote of a speech writer for the first President Bush in this newspaper that America has never been a country divided politically between the poor and the rich and is instead divided between the more and less educated.
I believe that this is actually a kind of class "warfare" where envy and distrust stems from comparisons to the people one actually lives with. Plutocrats are not so resented as the person you went to school with who made you feel inadequate. Essentially our politics are deeply rooted in the continuation of high school and its all about nerd vs jock.
Politicians and their propagandists have been instinctively aware of this for probably centuries and both use it and inflame this rivalry of status. Roger Ails is the ultimate strategist of what has become the divide and conquer strategy on behalf of our plutocrats. The rejection of science by his viewership (think climate and evolution) are symptomatic of the success of his strategy.
120
The rejection of science is a result of right wing propaganda that serves the needs of corporations and financial players. If people understood science, they would demand action to prevent the coming catastrophe and that would affect the corporate bottom line.
2
"Why are folks who essentially believe in the same policies utterly divided? "
While the left- and right-populists may perceive injustices concerning the distribution of wealth and economic power in much the same way (pretty hard for anyone to miss them!) the social and morality divide remains an unbridgeable chasm. It is this chasm which the ruling class has exploited to distract attention. It used to be defined by "flag burning" and "school busing" and "prayer in schools"...now it is "abortion," GLBT" and "the Police."
The result is the perpetual Bait-and-Switch: Vote on Morality on the Tuesday in November, but find your pocket picked...again...on the following Wednesday.
Both Bernie and Trump have succeeded on shinning light on the issues of wealth distribution whose effects have so skewed the life of the Nation.
However, the mechanisms of the actual campaigning and voting processes are firmly in the hands of money and the self-serving apparatchiks of both parties...making true change - short of revolution - virtually impossible.
Revolution itself would seem highly unlikely, requiring as it would, an extended attention span...far beyond the present capacities of the electorate
While the left- and right-populists may perceive injustices concerning the distribution of wealth and economic power in much the same way (pretty hard for anyone to miss them!) the social and morality divide remains an unbridgeable chasm. It is this chasm which the ruling class has exploited to distract attention. It used to be defined by "flag burning" and "school busing" and "prayer in schools"...now it is "abortion," GLBT" and "the Police."
The result is the perpetual Bait-and-Switch: Vote on Morality on the Tuesday in November, but find your pocket picked...again...on the following Wednesday.
Both Bernie and Trump have succeeded on shinning light on the issues of wealth distribution whose effects have so skewed the life of the Nation.
However, the mechanisms of the actual campaigning and voting processes are firmly in the hands of money and the self-serving apparatchiks of both parties...making true change - short of revolution - virtually impossible.
Revolution itself would seem highly unlikely, requiring as it would, an extended attention span...far beyond the present capacities of the electorate
The 2 sides don't believe in the same policies, it's not about h.s class envy, and there is real, engineered inequality, out of keeping with even 20th c standards in other democracies.
Whatever your point, Thomas, Trump and Sanders are popular because Americans no longer buy the nonsense jammed down their throats by the oligarchs who only care about further enriching themselves.
Americans are taking their country back. Game over.
Americans are taking their country back. Game over.
25
Does Mr. Edsall understand that for anyone not drawing Social Security, McGovern is ancient history? The (D)s who remember the McGovern election are already in Clinton's camp. That was a very different election, and things have changed massively since then. Particularly economics have changed.
The (R)s are eventually going to get over their shock and realize that Trump will be their nominee. As reported in The Week a few days ago, no (R) has won NH and SC and *not* gotten the nomination.
On the (D) side it is still *very* undecided. Things look very bad for the (D)s (and IMO for the country) if Clinton wins the nomination. An excellent piece from yesterday in Current Affairs:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-san...
I agree with Edsall that Trump-Sanders is like oil and water. The point of the above article is that Trump-Clinton will be oil-and-oilier. Trump will smear Clinton, and she'll have no defense that doesn't make her look worse. There will be no Sanders' kid gloves tactics during a GE with Trump.
Sanders is a drink of fresh water. Anything Trump attacks Sanders on (with one exception) will not, er, hold water (sorry). Trump can only attack Sanders as a socialist. Sanders will (as always) stick to the issues. Trump will then look either foolish or cruel arguing against Sanders very popular democratic socialist policies to help the working and middle class. Sanders wins.
05:35 CET
The (R)s are eventually going to get over their shock and realize that Trump will be their nominee. As reported in The Week a few days ago, no (R) has won NH and SC and *not* gotten the nomination.
On the (D) side it is still *very* undecided. Things look very bad for the (D)s (and IMO for the country) if Clinton wins the nomination. An excellent piece from yesterday in Current Affairs:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-san...
I agree with Edsall that Trump-Sanders is like oil and water. The point of the above article is that Trump-Clinton will be oil-and-oilier. Trump will smear Clinton, and she'll have no defense that doesn't make her look worse. There will be no Sanders' kid gloves tactics during a GE with Trump.
Sanders is a drink of fresh water. Anything Trump attacks Sanders on (with one exception) will not, er, hold water (sorry). Trump can only attack Sanders as a socialist. Sanders will (as always) stick to the issues. Trump will then look either foolish or cruel arguing against Sanders very popular democratic socialist policies to help the working and middle class. Sanders wins.
05:35 CET
214
Some things change. Some things do not. One thing that hasn't changed is the electoral college. For that reason, I think you are going to be very, very, disappointed in November one way or another.
"Oil and oilier?" Of course! What Hillary would do as POTUS will be just as bad, or almost as bad, as what Trump would do, right?
Right?
"Oil and oilier?" Of course! What Hillary would do as POTUS will be just as bad, or almost as bad, as what Trump would do, right?
Right?
3
Mr.Albrecht, thank you for your thoughtful and well-expressed insights.
Please know that I look forward to reading what you have to say, and that invariably, I agree with you (and with Larry Eisenberg).
Please know that I look forward to reading what you have to say, and that invariably, I agree with you (and with Larry Eisenberg).
3
In case the link doesn't work, here are a few paragraphs from this piece written by Nathan J. Robinson, a PhD candidate at Harvard, as well as an attorney and children's book author. He is the editor of Current Affairs.
"The whole Clinton campaign has been unraveling from its inception. It fell apart completely in 2008, and has barely held together against the longest of long shot candidates. No matter how likely she may be to win the primary, things do not bode well for a general election, whomever the nominee may be. As H.A. Goodman put it in Salon:
"Please name the last person to win the presidency alongside an ongoing FBI investigation, negative favorability ratings, questions about character linked to continual flip-flops, a dubious money trail of donors, and the genuine contempt of the rival political party.
. . .
"Trump’s various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with."
"The whole Clinton campaign has been unraveling from its inception. It fell apart completely in 2008, and has barely held together against the longest of long shot candidates. No matter how likely she may be to win the primary, things do not bode well for a general election, whomever the nominee may be. As H.A. Goodman put it in Salon:
"Please name the last person to win the presidency alongside an ongoing FBI investigation, negative favorability ratings, questions about character linked to continual flip-flops, a dubious money trail of donors, and the genuine contempt of the rival political party.
. . .
"Trump’s various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with."
5
I wonder if this the NYT's way of supporting HRC: trying to brand Sanders as Trump-like. Calling us, Sanders' supporters as having a "...Sanders Fantasy" Shame on you for such an horrific unequal comparison, why not compare tennis to football in your headline? Reprehensible headline, some substance in article.
291
The NYTimes has endorsed Mrs. Clinton with five months of primaries remaining.
Caesar’s wife, indeed.
Caesar’s wife, indeed.
1
"I wonder if this the NYT's way of supporting HRC: trying to brand Sanders as Trump-like."
Gee, you think?
Gee, you think?
In terms of temperament, Trump's doppelganger is Hillary; both are absent any core principle except 'winning'. Both present an unfathomable mystery as to what they would actually do once in office. It would be like electing someone with multiple personality disorder and waiting to discover "who" won.
57
Stan Continople
I disagree.....Trump is like "Sybil" with all of his narcissistic personalities living in his head.
Clinton is like the Beverly Hillbillies....bringing the
whole fam damily back to the mansion to feed.
However....both are dangerous for the country and will bring years of putting out personal fires, i.e. lawsuits and in-fighting, instead of moving us forward as a nation. Instead of our focus being on the evil forces outside of the country as they have been since 9/11, our new electeds' will have to expend all of their energy inside of the country now that the snakes have been aroused.
What a fine mess Ollie. Sanders can move us forward....in good conscience and solid leadership. He's the only straight-shooter in the whole wrestling match.
I disagree.....Trump is like "Sybil" with all of his narcissistic personalities living in his head.
Clinton is like the Beverly Hillbillies....bringing the
whole fam damily back to the mansion to feed.
However....both are dangerous for the country and will bring years of putting out personal fires, i.e. lawsuits and in-fighting, instead of moving us forward as a nation. Instead of our focus being on the evil forces outside of the country as they have been since 9/11, our new electeds' will have to expend all of their energy inside of the country now that the snakes have been aroused.
What a fine mess Ollie. Sanders can move us forward....in good conscience and solid leadership. He's the only straight-shooter in the whole wrestling match.
1
Stan—Hillary Clinton has laid out one of the more detailed policy platforms of any candidate running now or at any time. She has laid out a plan for criminal justice reform, debt free college, clean energy, racial injustice, etc.
6
By the end of the day this thread will be rife with Hillary bashing from the right and the left. Now there's something that they definitely have in common!
5
Mr. Edsall commendably demonstrates that even widely disparate political "personalities" such as Trump and Sanders can reflect an underlying truth:
Many Americans are beyond fed-up with the entrenched parties dominating our electoral process.
It is clear to anyone paying attention for several election cycles that Trump is not a "real" Republican. Sanders lacked the resources for an Independent campaign, and seeks the nomination of a party to which he never belonged.
What we are witnessing in 2016 is the death spiral of an antiquated party system in presidential elections. And not a moment too soon.
Many Americans are beyond fed-up with the entrenched parties dominating our electoral process.
It is clear to anyone paying attention for several election cycles that Trump is not a "real" Republican. Sanders lacked the resources for an Independent campaign, and seeks the nomination of a party to which he never belonged.
What we are witnessing in 2016 is the death spiral of an antiquated party system in presidential elections. And not a moment too soon.
28
As usual the American electorate demonstrates its MO--unbridled emotions. They do both appeal to the disenfranchisement and subsequent desperate anger of the electorate, but only Sanders has a message of inclusion for the 99% regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, etc, ...
They are both populist ideologues but: Trump is a walking and talking hate crime, a megalomaniac, and charismatic TV-reality star while Sanders' populist message has just become popular because the electorate has been squeezed out of their cushy comfort zone for over a generation.
I am aghast that anyone outside of the top1% supports Trump, but then again the Republican party has successfully gotten their constituencies to vote outside and away from their self-interests for decades.
They are both populist ideologues but: Trump is a walking and talking hate crime, a megalomaniac, and charismatic TV-reality star while Sanders' populist message has just become popular because the electorate has been squeezed out of their cushy comfort zone for over a generation.
I am aghast that anyone outside of the top1% supports Trump, but then again the Republican party has successfully gotten their constituencies to vote outside and away from their self-interests for decades.
14
Trump is a candidate who says of a protestor at one of his rallies that he would "like to punch him in the face" and that that protester would have been "carried out on a stretcher" back in the old days -- and the crowd cheered him!
That alone tells you what you need to know about Trump and his adherents. There can be absolutely no comparison between that and what Sanders and his supporters are calling for: i.e. a restoration of fairness in American society. It's really not such a radical thing.
That alone tells you what you need to know about Trump and his adherents. There can be absolutely no comparison between that and what Sanders and his supporters are calling for: i.e. a restoration of fairness in American society. It's really not such a radical thing.
235
To find similarities between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders one must be asking the wrong (and most irrelevant) questions. The Times Op Ed page seems almost as desperate as Hillary Clinton herself to find ways to disparage the one candidate for the Democratic nomination who stands for Democratic values. I don't fit into the demographic categories the article finds to be Sanders supporters. I'm for him because I believe we're entitled to free health care for all, free college, expanded social security, job creation through advancing green technology, a return to regulated banks and a graduated income tax, and an end to costly and destabilizing foreign wars. I believe Bernie Sanders can be elected because he's a two-term Senator, eight term Congressman and former mayor and former governor. Thus he has little in common with a Republican media clown. As little as he has in common with Wall Street toady, warmongering flip-flopper Clinton.
163
Governor of ???
3
Just to be accurate, Bernie Sanders has been mayor, congressman, and senator, but not governor of Vermont.
5
@Ann: Yeah, but except for that error moviebuff is spot on (IMO).
1
Sanders is a respected U.S. senator who has a long record of public service.
Trump is a corporate freeloader off his dad's money first and, later, off federal bankruptcy protections, business tax loopholes and other perks from his "contributions" to the politicians (not Sanders) who would take his money.
The two men have nothing in common morally, politically or intellectually, and neither do their supporters.
Although Trump must feel complimented to be compared to a decent man, this column is a not-too-subtle attempt to smear the good reputation of Sanders by lumping him with the likes of Trump. What an insulting, no, repellent column.
Trump is a corporate freeloader off his dad's money first and, later, off federal bankruptcy protections, business tax loopholes and other perks from his "contributions" to the politicians (not Sanders) who would take his money.
The two men have nothing in common morally, politically or intellectually, and neither do their supporters.
Although Trump must feel complimented to be compared to a decent man, this column is a not-too-subtle attempt to smear the good reputation of Sanders by lumping him with the likes of Trump. What an insulting, no, repellent column.
484
Exactly. These wink-and-a-nod smears, as well as editorial content masquerading as news, are why I cancelled my subscription this week. The money I used to give to the NY Times is better spent on the Sanders campaign.
5
Renee, I'm not sure we read the same column. I read a dispassionate analysis of the question whether Donald Trump and Sen. Sanders appeal to the same disaffected voters, who might coalesce into a populist alternative party. Edsall looked at various polls and other data, and concluded that there's not much overlap. You read " an insulting, no, repellent column," "a not-too-subtle attempt to smear" Sen. Sanders.
Is it illegitimate to even ask those questions? To look for answers in available data? That's the kind of attitude which appalls me in the far-right. I hope those of us on the progressive side don't let passion blind us to our basic commitment to open inquiry and discovering the facts of any situation, as best we can.
Is it illegitimate to even ask those questions? To look for answers in available data? That's the kind of attitude which appalls me in the far-right. I hope those of us on the progressive side don't let passion blind us to our basic commitment to open inquiry and discovering the facts of any situation, as best we can.
10
Kathy Wendorff, thanks for your excellent comment and Renee, O, and other Sanders supporters, please get a grip!
Yes, quite a few pieces in the NY Times have downplayed Bernie Sanders and his chances to win. No argument there.
But this column is absolutely not one of those. It is in fact one of the most interesting pieces of reporting and analysis that I've seen in the NYT during the entire primary cycle.
If Sanders supporters keep looking for slight and insult and invent it where there none, people will stop listening.
Please take a deep breath and save your invective for where it is warranted.
Yes, quite a few pieces in the NY Times have downplayed Bernie Sanders and his chances to win. No argument there.
But this column is absolutely not one of those. It is in fact one of the most interesting pieces of reporting and analysis that I've seen in the NYT during the entire primary cycle.
If Sanders supporters keep looking for slight and insult and invent it where there none, people will stop listening.
Please take a deep breath and save your invective for where it is warranted.
5
At the beginning of the race, the two extremes (left) Sanders and (right) Trump were supposed to bring the moderates Hillary vs Jeb to the center stage, but Jeb is out and Hillary is with the emails issue. So, is there a possibility of a general election Sanders vs Trump? Hard to believe, but who knows.
3
Early on, there was a political cartoon that showed Hillary and Jeb marching down the center of a road with few or no followers behind them.
Off the left side of the road was Senator Sanders, marching and holding a placard reading "Love!". Off the right side of the road was Donald Trump, marching and holding a placard reading "Hate!". Both had Yuuuge crowds marching behind them.
This cartoon was very prescient.
Off the left side of the road was Senator Sanders, marching and holding a placard reading "Love!". Off the right side of the road was Donald Trump, marching and holding a placard reading "Hate!". Both had Yuuuge crowds marching behind them.
This cartoon was very prescient.
8
And yet Hillary is projected to win SC this weekend, decisively.
Then she is projected to win every state and territory on Super Tuesday, save for Vermont, obviously.
I would say the people are behind her.
Then she is projected to win every state and territory on Super Tuesday, save for Vermont, obviously.
I would say the people are behind her.
2
We can simplify this. Trumpers look down the ladder (they themselves are near, but not at, the bottom) for the source of their troubles. They want to stomp on the fingers of those just below them. (They are bullies.) Sandistas do not. They consistently look only up to the top of the economic ladder to locate their villains.
67
The opening primace is ridiculous on the face of it. No one believes that any Trump follower would join forces with the far left. This is just another instance of the times trying to come up with a strawman argument to try and knock down Sanders by association with a substituted bad argument rather than making a legitimately posed argument. It's a variation of calling Sanders the same as Trump. C'mon Edsall how stupid do you think those who want only to keep the democratic party from sliding more right as Hillary no doubt would do of she didn't have Sanders keeping her from it? This is completely different from what Trump is doing to the republican party that is slinking ever further into farce, hate mongering, and does not mind selling out the constitution to get it's way for instance with the refusal to even consider any Obama nominations for the Supreme Court.
36
The major and decisive difference between the two parties and their populist candidacies is that the former Republican Party is committing a murder-suicide political self-destruction, while the Democrats are simply moving constructively to the left, with broad agreement on substantive goals, mutual respect between the leaders, with the Establishment candidate in the lead for delegates. If Hillary is nominated she says her first call will be to Bernie, and their conversation will be about uniting the Party for the general election. A Hillary/Bernie ticket is not inconceivable, and would have strong appeal to voters. That kind of scenario is inconceivable for Republicans, who are about to be buried in the national election, and with it their deliberate strategy since 1968, of negatively appealing to voters' phobias in order to divide Americans against themselves. They have sown the wind and are reaping the whirlwind. Their leadership in Washington and among governors has been ineffective against their rabid populism because they helped create it and now don't know what to do with it. They will have their reward.
30
Hillary cannot choose Bernie as her running mate. First off, by the convention, they will have been pummeling each other for months and calling names.
You didn't see Obama choosing HILLARY as his running mate -- did you?
And it would be a ticket with two old, white, wealthy liberals from the Northeast. Not a ticket that speaks to diversity, the rest of the Democratic party or the nation.
No -- Hillary has to pick a "person of color" or she loses all credibility her black constituency -- the one she depends on and is most indebted to.
You didn't see Obama choosing HILLARY as his running mate -- did you?
And it would be a ticket with two old, white, wealthy liberals from the Northeast. Not a ticket that speaks to diversity, the rest of the Democratic party or the nation.
No -- Hillary has to pick a "person of color" or she loses all credibility her black constituency -- the one she depends on and is most indebted to.
1
One can easily overplay the similarities between Trump and Sanders that wrongly diminishes the gulf between them. For example just because both are over 60, have two legs, two arms, and a head with no hair on it doesn't make anything about them and the appeal they have to their voters similar in an substantive way that matters.
46
There is a ongoing Corporate Coup but the people are waking up. We live in the richest country in the world by far but the people are poor. We have the best collages but you have to take on a mortgage size dept to attend. We get caught with a little weed in your pocket you get a criminal record but Wall Street's fraud breaks the worlds economy with no jail time for anyone.
There are two different Revolutions going on. The one the Rich have been winning and one that is starting.
There are two different Revolutions going on. The one the Rich have been winning and one that is starting.
825
Could you elaborate exactly how Wall Street is ruining the world's economy I would love to hear the analysis you learned in "collage"?
5
Criminal record for low level drug offenses and the results?
See today's Editorial:
End an Unfair Restriction on College Aid
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
"A draconian law denying government grants and loans to people with even a minor drug offense should be repealed.”
Our presidents weren't denied their office because they used drugs, but people can't get college loans? Of course people 1st have to be arrested to have a record. And who gets arrested vs who doesn't? And thus are shut out of higher education? And then we read about racial 'gaps' in education and income?
See today's Editorial:
End an Unfair Restriction on College Aid
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
"A draconian law denying government grants and loans to people with even a minor drug offense should be repealed.”
Our presidents weren't denied their office because they used drugs, but people can't get college loans? Of course people 1st have to be arrested to have a record. And who gets arrested vs who doesn't? And thus are shut out of higher education? And then we read about racial 'gaps' in education and income?
1
Great condensed version of Mr. Edsall's novella...
America will only work for 1% of us as long as the status quo lives, while Bernie might be able to slay it peacefully, Trump would kill it with his incompetence, but Hillary would brace it up, so if we are denied Bernie Trump would be the next best choice for 99% of us.
15
False & devious equivalency. How 'bout also noting who wins when toe-to-toe in national polling now? Bernie over Trump by 6% just a few days ago. And Trump loses to HRC by a mere 1%, well within margin of error. Columns like this one flirt with disaster.
27
National polls are irrelevant, especially at this point in the campaign.
There's a reason people have a favorable view of Bernie: They know nothing about him.
Just wait until the GOP attack machine goes all in in destroying Sanders. It will not be pretty and make Swiftboating look like a pleasure cruise.
There's a reason people have a favorable view of Bernie: They know nothing about him.
Just wait until the GOP attack machine goes all in in destroying Sanders. It will not be pretty and make Swiftboating look like a pleasure cruise.
2
I joke to people about my dream team of trump/sanders 2016. Maybe it's not such a joke...
A better title for this opinion piece would have been:
"Why only Sanders and not Clinton can win sufficient votes to insure a Democratic victory in November."
"Why only Sanders and not Clinton can win sufficient votes to insure a Democratic victory in November."
70
Did you read the numbers. The article would indicate that you are wrong.
1
Did you read the article? Here's a small hint, it's not about the horse race between Sanders and Hillary.
1
"the Republican Party shifted to become the party of white America." It is quite impossible for a rational observer to see the GOP moving substantially away from the core principles of its raison d'être: the historical utilization of the white working class to insulate the party's elite from the marginalized of those on the bottom of society's social and economic strata. The driving forces of a black vs. white America were Brown vs. Topeka (1954) and the Civil Rights Act ten years later. Both landmarks repudiated a segregationist past that whites were determined to preserve. They drove whites from the cities to the suburbs; this flight contributed to the irreversible decaying of traditional, secure and comfortable metropolitan realities: neighborhoods, schools, local businesses. The Democrats have their own problems in the cities. Although they are mainly populated by blacks and Hispanics in their inner core, policed by occupying forces, not guardians of society, the party has atrophied and is calcified by corruption. City dwellers are downtrodden by the disintegration of social pillars and services, an absence of anything like jobs, infrastructure repair, that its residents are trapped between inept government and a deterioration of social services designed to aid them. Add to that nationwide anthema of federal money spent on urban projects and the institutional rot is clear. Anyone who sees these extremes merging to create a new populist movement is being quite naïve.
6
"cities...mainly populated by blacks and Hispanics ... are downtrodden by the disintegration of social pillars and ... residents ... trapped between inept government and a deterioration of social services..."
I do believe you just stated that blacks and Hispanics are incapable of governing and providing for themselves. e.g. Detroit and Birmingham, AL.
I do believe you just stated that blacks and Hispanics are incapable of governing and providing for themselves. e.g. Detroit and Birmingham, AL.
2
"How the Republican and Democratic parties will remake or reset themselves is part of the drama..."
Another important analysis begins where you end, Tom. How did we get to this point in the blanket repudiation of the two party system when we've experienced an eight year presidential term of a centrist, highly intellectual and telegenic "minority president" who has created new domestic and international order from the ashes and chaos left by his predecessor? Clearly, the Republicans have accomplished way more than blocking and attacking this president at every turn, by entirely negating any belief in our representative democracy to the point that many citizens now believe an American president must be far outside of both established parties' "ideological landscape," where, of course, extremist meet. Neither party will exercise much control of a president Trump because he and many of his followers will never tire of listening to him attack both parties. While many may not recall the fear and deep concern among centrist Republicans during Reagan's successful 1980 campaign, not many Americans realize just how far he was able to stop progress on all major federal initiatives. He may have received credit for "tearing down this (German) wall, but he also effectively began the process of destroying America's belief in cooperative governance. His famous battle cry, " Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem..." certainly resonates loudly today.
Another important analysis begins where you end, Tom. How did we get to this point in the blanket repudiation of the two party system when we've experienced an eight year presidential term of a centrist, highly intellectual and telegenic "minority president" who has created new domestic and international order from the ashes and chaos left by his predecessor? Clearly, the Republicans have accomplished way more than blocking and attacking this president at every turn, by entirely negating any belief in our representative democracy to the point that many citizens now believe an American president must be far outside of both established parties' "ideological landscape," where, of course, extremist meet. Neither party will exercise much control of a president Trump because he and many of his followers will never tire of listening to him attack both parties. While many may not recall the fear and deep concern among centrist Republicans during Reagan's successful 1980 campaign, not many Americans realize just how far he was able to stop progress on all major federal initiatives. He may have received credit for "tearing down this (German) wall, but he also effectively began the process of destroying America's belief in cooperative governance. His famous battle cry, " Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem..." certainly resonates loudly today.
25
I'm sure that most people commenting here will find the article "How America Is Putting Itself Back Together" by James Fallows (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/03/how-america-is-putti... in The Atlantic unduly pollyanna-ish. How dare Mr. Fallows write something so positive when millions of Americans are still suffering from the failures of "politics as usual" or from the actions of Reagan, Bush, Obama?
Personally, I agree that our country has many serious problems--almost all brought about by humans' shortcomings, but I really think we have moved into a dangerous mode of trying to tackle those problems with anger, blame, and despair. Yes, we can get momentarily fired up by someone we believe can take on and tackle those problems, solve them almost by magic--Trump gets things done and he knows who is responsible for all our problems; Bernie has integrity and the right ideas, and is someone who knows who is responsible for all our problems--but the underlying conversation is that nevertheless things are terrible and we need someone to save us. Meanwhile, Fallows is writing about how people all across America are saving themselves and working toward a positive future by tackling the issues bit by bit, working to solve problems on their own, not searching for a savior. Is it all going smoothly? No, of course not. But it's a far better path than one that would have us following a demagogue or pie-in-the-sky magician.
Personally, I agree that our country has many serious problems--almost all brought about by humans' shortcomings, but I really think we have moved into a dangerous mode of trying to tackle those problems with anger, blame, and despair. Yes, we can get momentarily fired up by someone we believe can take on and tackle those problems, solve them almost by magic--Trump gets things done and he knows who is responsible for all our problems; Bernie has integrity and the right ideas, and is someone who knows who is responsible for all our problems--but the underlying conversation is that nevertheless things are terrible and we need someone to save us. Meanwhile, Fallows is writing about how people all across America are saving themselves and working toward a positive future by tackling the issues bit by bit, working to solve problems on their own, not searching for a savior. Is it all going smoothly? No, of course not. But it's a far better path than one that would have us following a demagogue or pie-in-the-sky magician.
1
Thank you Annie for reminding me of the important characteristics of highly engaged and responsibility people. Your comment clearly deserves far more attention than having it buried under my "blame game negativity." With respect, James
1
The two major political parties are indeed clueless in many ways, but they still maintain enough structural strength that one of them will emerge the winner in November.
I believe that will be the Republican Party, and that Donald Trump will be the next President.
This go round, the anti-establishment forces among ordinary Republicans has been sufficient to defeat the establishment wing, but this was not the case in the Democratic Party. Hillary Rodham Clinton amassed so many so-called super-delegates that Bernie Sanders never had a chance. Ironically, the Republican Party is now the more democratic of the two parties.
I predict that, contrary to the polls cited in this column, a significant portion of Sanders' supporters will vote for Trump. One reason is an issue not cited in this column: foreign policy. Trump, like Sanders, is a non-interventionist. Another reason is that Trump is not a panderer; pandering, a Clinton trademark, turns off most voters. Finally, as pointed out in this column, Trump agrees with Sanders that "free trade" is a failed policy.
Clinton is on the wrong side of all these issues.
I believe that will be the Republican Party, and that Donald Trump will be the next President.
This go round, the anti-establishment forces among ordinary Republicans has been sufficient to defeat the establishment wing, but this was not the case in the Democratic Party. Hillary Rodham Clinton amassed so many so-called super-delegates that Bernie Sanders never had a chance. Ironically, the Republican Party is now the more democratic of the two parties.
I predict that, contrary to the polls cited in this column, a significant portion of Sanders' supporters will vote for Trump. One reason is an issue not cited in this column: foreign policy. Trump, like Sanders, is a non-interventionist. Another reason is that Trump is not a panderer; pandering, a Clinton trademark, turns off most voters. Finally, as pointed out in this column, Trump agrees with Sanders that "free trade" is a failed policy.
Clinton is on the wrong side of all these issues.
12
Timothy Bal,
I don't think you read carefully enough.
Bernie backers loath T-rump.
The only reason we/they would cross over is to burn it all down.
T-rump would be such a disaster, one would hope both parties and peoples would awaken and begin anew.
From out of the ashes we can start anew, without nibbling around the edges and being pragmatic and not trying big things. This, that is now is not working. To prolong it only makes it worse. The Dem.'s wish to stay the course. Doesn't help. Republicans want to re-live Bush the lesser. T-rump will bring chaos and failure.
Maybe then We the People can have a say again in Gov. The way this election is going it looks like more of the same. We the People lose again. The lesser of evil wins again. This, that is now, is not working for most of us.
Bern or Burn.
I don't think you read carefully enough.
Bernie backers loath T-rump.
The only reason we/they would cross over is to burn it all down.
T-rump would be such a disaster, one would hope both parties and peoples would awaken and begin anew.
From out of the ashes we can start anew, without nibbling around the edges and being pragmatic and not trying big things. This, that is now is not working. To prolong it only makes it worse. The Dem.'s wish to stay the course. Doesn't help. Republicans want to re-live Bush the lesser. T-rump will bring chaos and failure.
Maybe then We the People can have a say again in Gov. The way this election is going it looks like more of the same. We the People lose again. The lesser of evil wins again. This, that is now, is not working for most of us.
Bern or Burn.
1
I was thinking along the lines of this article a few days ago. And it occurred to me that a winning strategy -- in a couple of months from now -- would be if Donald Trump asked Bernie Sanders to be his VP running mate.
Think about it. They DO agree on a number of core issues. But the big thing, is it would be a HILLARY KILLER ticket. Bernie's supporters would glom onto him, and they don't like Hillary. Yet, the VP slot (while prestigious) has no power at all.
It would be a brilliant strategic move.
Think about it. They DO agree on a number of core issues. But the big thing, is it would be a HILLARY KILLER ticket. Bernie's supporters would glom onto him, and they don't like Hillary. Yet, the VP slot (while prestigious) has no power at all.
It would be a brilliant strategic move.
2
Dream on. Sanders supporters will never vote for Trump, no matter how much they threaten to do so.
2
>
In this country, Sanders as POTUS is a fantasy, but Trump is not. This is America.
Sanders will not win the Dem nomination, but Trump probably will win the GOP nomination. Trump "could" win it all. Laugh at your own peril.
You live in a rightwing country with all the right ingredients for a fascist movement.
In this country, Sanders as POTUS is a fantasy, but Trump is not. This is America.
Sanders will not win the Dem nomination, but Trump probably will win the GOP nomination. Trump "could" win it all. Laugh at your own peril.
You live in a rightwing country with all the right ingredients for a fascist movement.
92
Promotheus:
I think you might be correct about the potential for a fascist candidate to win the Republican nomination, however I do not think such a candidate would win the general election. Also, I strongly disagree about Sanders not winning the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
Sanders could win the nomination and the presidency. Two of the significant reasons why he could win the prize are:
1. Most Americans, including many Hillary Clinton supporters, understand the economy is rigged.
2. A little legal case in California could reinforce the notion of a rigged economy and as a result, blow up the credibility of the established presidential candidates. For more on this California case, go here: http://tinyurl.com/hidden-political-donations .
The 2016 presidential race has a long way to go, and I suggest we all strap in for a stomach-churning political ride.
P.S. Don't forget the Senate Republicans are refusing to give a fair hearing for and up-or-down vote on a new SCOTUS nominee put forth by President Obama, strong evidence of the racism inherent in the Republican Party's Southern Strategy.
I think you might be correct about the potential for a fascist candidate to win the Republican nomination, however I do not think such a candidate would win the general election. Also, I strongly disagree about Sanders not winning the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
Sanders could win the nomination and the presidency. Two of the significant reasons why he could win the prize are:
1. Most Americans, including many Hillary Clinton supporters, understand the economy is rigged.
2. A little legal case in California could reinforce the notion of a rigged economy and as a result, blow up the credibility of the established presidential candidates. For more on this California case, go here: http://tinyurl.com/hidden-political-donations .
The 2016 presidential race has a long way to go, and I suggest we all strap in for a stomach-churning political ride.
P.S. Don't forget the Senate Republicans are refusing to give a fair hearing for and up-or-down vote on a new SCOTUS nominee put forth by President Obama, strong evidence of the racism inherent in the Republican Party's Southern Strategy.
16
We are already there, and have been for some time. The US is the biggest, meanest, police state on the planet, while the DNC and RNC are determined to keep us on that road. We'll get to the end of it faster with Trump as president, I think, rather than Hillary.
A pox on both their houses!
A pox on both their houses!
Get Trump to 270 Electoral College votes.
I've tried and can't. Being generous and giving him states that I'm not sure he could win, I can only get to 175.
Remember, as we learned in 2000, it's not the people that elect the President; it's the Electoral College.
I've tried and can't. Being generous and giving him states that I'm not sure he could win, I can only get to 175.
Remember, as we learned in 2000, it's not the people that elect the President; it's the Electoral College.
1
I'm glad to see Sherrod Brown's name mentioned in this column. He is one of those Democrats whom indeed could have mounted a populist challenge to Hillary.
I agree that getting these two movements on the same page is going to be difficult - and yet there is no way out of our current dilemma unless this happens. We need a new national consensus asserting that putting Americans back to work in jobs that pay a living wage (and thus don't require subsidies from government to make them palatable) be Job 1 of any President. We need to take on those advocates for globalization who refuse to acknowledge the authentic downside for ordinary Americans - and seek to instead perpetually distract us with wedge issues.
The problem with our current globalist consensus is that its most honest advocates admit that it is propelling us towards a welfare state - a prospect that the political right finds philosophically unacceptable. And yet, because these two movement cannot unite, the job losses and decimation of middle- and working-class incomes continue, thus making a welfare state the only feasible option for a relatively non-violent future.
America can happily endure as either a welfare state or a workers state; but it cannot long endure as a Wal-Mart state - or state where the lion's share of jobs being created pay little, and thus require the kind of extensive government assistance that the same economic elite that benefits from globalism adamantly refuses to pay for.
I agree that getting these two movements on the same page is going to be difficult - and yet there is no way out of our current dilemma unless this happens. We need a new national consensus asserting that putting Americans back to work in jobs that pay a living wage (and thus don't require subsidies from government to make them palatable) be Job 1 of any President. We need to take on those advocates for globalization who refuse to acknowledge the authentic downside for ordinary Americans - and seek to instead perpetually distract us with wedge issues.
The problem with our current globalist consensus is that its most honest advocates admit that it is propelling us towards a welfare state - a prospect that the political right finds philosophically unacceptable. And yet, because these two movement cannot unite, the job losses and decimation of middle- and working-class incomes continue, thus making a welfare state the only feasible option for a relatively non-violent future.
America can happily endure as either a welfare state or a workers state; but it cannot long endure as a Wal-Mart state - or state where the lion's share of jobs being created pay little, and thus require the kind of extensive government assistance that the same economic elite that benefits from globalism adamantly refuses to pay for.
79
The economic elites are betting on two things: demoralized self-blame and militarized police.
1
Sherrod Brown for Hillary's VP!
1
me, world,
Oh, that could be an interesting choice and one that would all but ensure Ohio goes for her in the election.
Assuming, of course, that Kasich doesn't wind up on either Trump or Rubio's ticket...
Oh, that could be an interesting choice and one that would all but ensure Ohio goes for her in the election.
Assuming, of course, that Kasich doesn't wind up on either Trump or Rubio's ticket...
1
A favorite explanation of Times readers and commenters involves education--on race or politics. Voters are uninformed, or mislead. True, but advanced analysis should go deeper: on race, many of the nation's most educated men have supported white supremacy. Structural racism has been reinforced by well educated decision makers--the slaveholding Constitutional delegates, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, President Woodrow Wilson (he segregated the federal government)--pick a favorite from the well educated.
Harvard Law/Chief Justice clerk Cruz's robo-calls to SC voters pointing to Trump's support for taking the flag down and the photoshopped Rubio hand shake commercial are two.
One reason you can't educate out of racism is its system is built and depends on denial. The flag is heritage; police violence brings shouts about black-on-black murders (never white-on-white murders that play in prime time nightly!)--pick your favorite deflection. Systemic racism is more than bias or prejudice; its inequity and disempowerment is written into law, issued in court decisions, informs individual decisions, and embedded in the myth that it can be overcome by education (a tool but not a solution!).
Smart people have missed the obvious about Trump: in his muddle, he calls for action! He makes a strong cultural appeal: lovingly, he will limit minorities, put white people first, liberals to the rear. There's little blame in his game. Those in denial can't admit it's a winning formula.
Harvard Law/Chief Justice clerk Cruz's robo-calls to SC voters pointing to Trump's support for taking the flag down and the photoshopped Rubio hand shake commercial are two.
One reason you can't educate out of racism is its system is built and depends on denial. The flag is heritage; police violence brings shouts about black-on-black murders (never white-on-white murders that play in prime time nightly!)--pick your favorite deflection. Systemic racism is more than bias or prejudice; its inequity and disempowerment is written into law, issued in court decisions, informs individual decisions, and embedded in the myth that it can be overcome by education (a tool but not a solution!).
Smart people have missed the obvious about Trump: in his muddle, he calls for action! He makes a strong cultural appeal: lovingly, he will limit minorities, put white people first, liberals to the rear. There's little blame in his game. Those in denial can't admit it's a winning formula.
31
Walter:
Any examples of rampant structural racism in otherwise respectable people NOT dead for almost a century? Roger Taney, for heaven's sake!
But you're probably right about Trump. Any efforts to eliminate the vestiges of truly egregious racism in our society would require major bucks, and he's not going to make that a priority. His "action" would involve other priorities, and racism probably isn't an issue on which he'd gamble political capital.
Any examples of rampant structural racism in otherwise respectable people NOT dead for almost a century? Roger Taney, for heaven's sake!
But you're probably right about Trump. Any efforts to eliminate the vestiges of truly egregious racism in our society would require major bucks, and he's not going to make that a priority. His "action" would involve other priorities, and racism probably isn't an issue on which he'd gamble political capital.
2
One of the problems in writing comments is you got read but not remembered--I suggested this unique commonality (not really a false equivalency, but a realigning contradiction brought on by the Obama Presidency) as a means for the left to win back the Roosevelt coalition. Hooted down by remainders that the working class sabotages its own interests, I still maintain that a portion of that class is now willing, if pursued, to sabotage itself by moving left! Remember the famous "Rednecks for Obama" (Alabama, 2008)? Who is working the factory gates?
Familiar individuals who hold views that are examples of embedded and structural racism should be well-known: Jesse Helms (his black and white hands commercial), David Duke, the former Congress member who claimed Obama 5 million vote majority was the product of "white guilt;" others unnamed because they should receive no acknowledgement for their populist rants.
The new system is always framed in denial.
It's good to know our history! (I'm a historian by training.) Its depth and breath. It's twists. History is filled with surprises, like Wilson, or today's anonymous hordes.
Familiar individuals who hold views that are examples of embedded and structural racism should be well-known: Jesse Helms (his black and white hands commercial), David Duke, the former Congress member who claimed Obama 5 million vote majority was the product of "white guilt;" others unnamed because they should receive no acknowledgement for their populist rants.
The new system is always framed in denial.
It's good to know our history! (I'm a historian by training.) Its depth and breath. It's twists. History is filled with surprises, like Wilson, or today's anonymous hordes.
3
Speaking of the anonymous hordes, according to the Times, in exit polling, "nearly 20 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters disagreed with the freeing of slaves in Southern states after the Civil War." [http://nyti.ms/1RldrEG].
Trump mix of plantation-benign (we love everybody), don't break the rules (punishments are severe), and I trust mine, not yours (others are potentially evil and must be restricted) is centered in actions. Cruz/Rubio are still making speechless and assigning blame. His micro-examples (throwing blacks and Muslims out of rallies, boycotting debates) reinforce his focus on action: he will do it like it should be done!
Democrats must move from discussions of racism to direct confrontations: why is Trump silent about white supremacists making robo-calls on his behalf? Why is Cruz going after the Bundy vote, when their followers have declared war on the government and resisted authority in armed confrontations? How will Rubio the "expert" advance the Cuban cause--by extending the embargo and failing to engage, to topple the regime of a country in poverty--or by transformational engagement that inspires change?
Trump mix of plantation-benign (we love everybody), don't break the rules (punishments are severe), and I trust mine, not yours (others are potentially evil and must be restricted) is centered in actions. Cruz/Rubio are still making speechless and assigning blame. His micro-examples (throwing blacks and Muslims out of rallies, boycotting debates) reinforce his focus on action: he will do it like it should be done!
Democrats must move from discussions of racism to direct confrontations: why is Trump silent about white supremacists making robo-calls on his behalf? Why is Cruz going after the Bundy vote, when their followers have declared war on the government and resisted authority in armed confrontations? How will Rubio the "expert" advance the Cuban cause--by extending the embargo and failing to engage, to topple the regime of a country in poverty--or by transformational engagement that inspires change?
5
Trump and Sanders point out the same problems. But they have different solutions. Moreover,Trump says one thing and does something else. He ran his business the same way.
Sanders is genuine
Sanders is genuine
408
Sanders is a genuine grifter who has somehow managed to convince half of the Democratic Party after doing nothing in Congress for 30 years, he's the one to usher in change. If you could for a moment, step back and take a rational view, you'd see him as he is. He's not an odious human being like Donald Trump but he's just as motivated by power, just as unqualified and just as vague and unrealistic in his platform.
Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
7
If Sanders were truly genuine, he'd be running as an Independent instead of taking advantage of the apparatus that the Democratic Party has in place while he has done so little to support the DNC.
Last year he raised $1,000 for the DNC; Hillary over $26 million.
Like mj, says, he's just a grifter taking advantage of other people's hard work and money in building a party to further his own gain.
Last year he raised $1,000 for the DNC; Hillary over $26 million.
Like mj, says, he's just a grifter taking advantage of other people's hard work and money in building a party to further his own gain.
2
Yeah he's genuine all right. A genuine disaster. If you want the USA to turn into Venezuela with milk and toilet paper shortages, vote for Sanders.
1
Unfortunately, the anger and disillusion felt by the average American, regardless of race, is ripe for exploitation by both Trump and Sanders. I believe that Sanders is genuine in his beliefs and would really try to institute his aggressive agenda as POTUS. I just don't see how it can be done. Not with the government we currently have in place. Everyone bemoans how Obama did not bring in the sweeping change he promised back in 2008. And his ideas were no where near as controversial as Sanders.
It is unfair to lump Sanders and Trump in the same category, despite the seeming similarities. Trump has no experience, no plan, and probably the worst personal and professional background of all the GOP candidates. His brand/business has declared bankruptcy 4 times, which he called smart decisions, and he brags about not paying his bills on time or in full, if at all. But he has convinced working class people that he understands their struggles and frustrations, and that he has the business and financial savvy to fix our broken economy. If he tries to run our country the way he runs his businesses, we will all be financially doomed.
It is unfair to lump Sanders and Trump in the same category, despite the seeming similarities. Trump has no experience, no plan, and probably the worst personal and professional background of all the GOP candidates. His brand/business has declared bankruptcy 4 times, which he called smart decisions, and he brags about not paying his bills on time or in full, if at all. But he has convinced working class people that he understands their struggles and frustrations, and that he has the business and financial savvy to fix our broken economy. If he tries to run our country the way he runs his businesses, we will all be financially doomed.
88
Sanders knows that to get anything done, people will have to get involved and inspired in ways that are yet to be invented. He is the only candidate who sees this as essential to getting things done and has shown he can do it. Trump entertains his audience with free association, while Sanders gives facts and connects ideas.
34
" ... he has convinced working class people ..."
There's a sucker born every minute.
At best Trump, in the White House, will be a US version of Sylvio Berlusconi.
At worst he'll become our own Mussolini.
There's a sucker born every minute.
At best Trump, in the White House, will be a US version of Sylvio Berlusconi.
At worst he'll become our own Mussolini.
12
This country has been run by lawyers and an activist for how many decades now... we're approaching 20 trillion in debt, the economy is stagnant, incomes are lucky to keep pace with inflation, our foreign policy is abysmal. Turning to a socialist is not the answer to our problems. Please read some history books or reach out to someone who ran from a socialist country to come to America. Socialism does not work. Period. You may not like Trump, nor do I, but a path towards Socialism becomes the road to the end of the American experiment.
2
Bernie Sanders hasn’t shown an inclination to compromise on anything. Donald likely would compromise on core issues to a far greater degree than Reagan ever did. Sanders regards himself as highly principled in everything he does, while Trump’s morals are, shall we say, flexible? In short, Bernie is a man with a bottom to his beliefs and insistent enough on them in their purest form that he has absolutely no chance of working productively with a Republican Congress. Trump probably has no strong beliefs and probably could work productively with a Democratic Congress, for four years, anyway, until he antagonized the vast majority of Republicans who would be asking themselves how it was that they elected not a Republican but a Democrat.
Both represent protest candidacies, but the protests are dramatically different. Bernie’s is one of the far-left in America, the moderate left in Europe, that wants to see us transformed into a Euro-socialism. But Trump’s is simply one of anti-establishmentarianism, frustrated at seven years of frozen politics and invective, wanting to see the old order replaced by something that works – they might be surprised and deeply concerned to find out what that means, which wouldn’t be Bernie’s Euro-mess but something far closer to it than we have now.
A unity ticket? Let’s put aside the mushrooms. These two men, and these two movements, couldn’t be more fundamentally different in ALL respects and in ALL intentions.
Both represent protest candidacies, but the protests are dramatically different. Bernie’s is one of the far-left in America, the moderate left in Europe, that wants to see us transformed into a Euro-socialism. But Trump’s is simply one of anti-establishmentarianism, frustrated at seven years of frozen politics and invective, wanting to see the old order replaced by something that works – they might be surprised and deeply concerned to find out what that means, which wouldn’t be Bernie’s Euro-mess but something far closer to it than we have now.
A unity ticket? Let’s put aside the mushrooms. These two men, and these two movements, couldn’t be more fundamentally different in ALL respects and in ALL intentions.
17
You have a lot of faith in the ability of Donald Trump, a man who has more or less failed at everything he has tried (four bankruptcies, and a net worth that is less than half what he would have had if he'd just taken his money and invested it in index funds) and has no history of working productively with anyone, to get things done as President.
You're telling a nice story, but it's not about the actual Donald Trump, it's about the fictional character you see on TV.
You're telling a nice story, but it's not about the actual Donald Trump, it's about the fictional character you see on TV.
27
It's rough out there for economic Conservatives. The nativist, xenophobic, racist, bible thumping, and gun wielding monster has escaped its bonds.
8
Richard, would you please spend at least 5 minutes reading about Bernie's 30 year success in working with Republicans - as Mayor, representative and senator - before you write your next comment indicating you have absolutely no knowledge about Sanders' actual record? There may be 3 or 4 Republicans in the entire Congress who have engaged in the level of dialog and openness across the aisle to the extent that Sanders has. (I assume you won't do this - but please, surprise me by writing at least one comment about Sanders that is based on fact)
5
The biggest ways ways the electorate for Sanders and Trump overlap are on jobs and inequality. But that overlap, the reason why it exists isn't the low information voter or the attraction educated voters might have for the other things Trump supposedly offer, but the failure of the media, in its frenzy to shut down Bernie Sanders, to shine a light on what else Trump's candidacy means.
If anyone has any illusion that Trump is any less a plutocrat than the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, and even Mike Bloomberg, then they're severely mistaken. Trump himself, in stump speeches has boasted about the support he has among his peers. One in particular is Carl Icahn, which not even Paul Krugman has mentioned in anything he's written in critique of the oddly-coiffed real estate magnate.
If people knew - understood - the significance of bringing in the likes of corporate-raider Icahn to run this nation's trade negotiations, then the level and tenor of the political discussions in the media would be completely different.
But no, instead of talking about the real dangers that Trump presents, we insist on mounting fake attacks against Sanders, by equating him to Trump and using fake take-downs of his economic plans, by 4 economists who work for Wall Street. It's disgusting.
Sanders is nothing like Trump - not even close!
---
My analysis of the significance of Trumps' Nevada win: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-23u
How we illustrate "truth"http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-22n
If anyone has any illusion that Trump is any less a plutocrat than the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, and even Mike Bloomberg, then they're severely mistaken. Trump himself, in stump speeches has boasted about the support he has among his peers. One in particular is Carl Icahn, which not even Paul Krugman has mentioned in anything he's written in critique of the oddly-coiffed real estate magnate.
If people knew - understood - the significance of bringing in the likes of corporate-raider Icahn to run this nation's trade negotiations, then the level and tenor of the political discussions in the media would be completely different.
But no, instead of talking about the real dangers that Trump presents, we insist on mounting fake attacks against Sanders, by equating him to Trump and using fake take-downs of his economic plans, by 4 economists who work for Wall Street. It's disgusting.
Sanders is nothing like Trump - not even close!
---
My analysis of the significance of Trumps' Nevada win: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-23u
How we illustrate "truth"http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-22n
375
You mistake Trump badly, Rima. He would identify legacy items immediately and trade the virtue of his wife and daughters to secure them before two years are out. That means he could actually get some things done and, with a Republican Congress to keep him relatively honest, he could very well put some serious wins on the tote-board. Such as education that works, including in our poorest communities. Such as rational levels of regulation and taxes that incentivized our companies to remain here and hire middle-class Americans. Such as a FAR more forward-leaning and re-invigorated defense establishment that hired a ton of people and helped re-stabilize the world. Such as trade policies that benefited the domestic unions you so cherish.
You would have utter contempt for how he did it, which would be by co-opting the Democrats and buying enough congressional Republican votes with deals to fashion a winning coalition ... but he'd move us, for the first time since 20 Jan., 2009.
Finally, it's been a long time since Donald Trump has been a "real estate magnate". He's simply been a Trump-brand manager for a long time, and has made what money he's made by selling pieces of himself to those who want the cachet of slapping his name on something.
Bernie has zero chance at the nomination, much less of being elected, because people understand, in their hearts, that he can't deliver anything. Trump could win because people understand that he CAN deliver, by whatever foul means available.
You would have utter contempt for how he did it, which would be by co-opting the Democrats and buying enough congressional Republican votes with deals to fashion a winning coalition ... but he'd move us, for the first time since 20 Jan., 2009.
Finally, it's been a long time since Donald Trump has been a "real estate magnate". He's simply been a Trump-brand manager for a long time, and has made what money he's made by selling pieces of himself to those who want the cachet of slapping his name on something.
Bernie has zero chance at the nomination, much less of being elected, because people understand, in their hearts, that he can't deliver anything. Trump could win because people understand that he CAN deliver, by whatever foul means available.
12
Oy, Richard!
You're seriously deluded this morning. Seriously. Conservative politics long ceased to be about anything other than finding novel ways to finish the job of extracting what's left in this nation. If you think Trump is about doing anything for you, then you are seriously deluded.
You're seriously deluded this morning. Seriously. Conservative politics long ceased to be about anything other than finding novel ways to finish the job of extracting what's left in this nation. If you think Trump is about doing anything for you, then you are seriously deluded.
240
Why, Rima, I don't expect Trump to do anything for ME; but he might wind up doing something productive for YOU. After all, a general national bankruptcy that would be the outcome of a Bernie presidency would prevent Congress from bailing out California next time the stock market collapses, the people who pay an astonishingly high percentage of your taxes go stony and you guys seek to degrade your schools and roads beyond even YOUR endurance.
And Trump is anything but a conservative. He's an opportunist. As we've seen from the current example, a president in search of a legacy can do some very odd things.
And Trump is anything but a conservative. He's an opportunist. As we've seen from the current example, a president in search of a legacy can do some very odd things.
6
The false equivalency of Trump and Sanders.
Boy am I getting tired of that canard. And it’s one that the New Democrats use at their own peril.
What this election is really proving is that there are two Democratic parties today: the New Democrats of Bill Clinton and the old Democrats of FDR and LBJ.
Robert Kuttner sums it up concisely:
"Bill Clinton declared that people who work for a living shouldn't be poor. But he also declared that the era of big government was over. He appointed a few good liberals, but the power positions in the economic portfolios went to Wall Streeters. Deregulation of finance, and more insecurity for regular people, followed. Barack Obama followed much of the same script, embracing social liberalism but giving the power positions on the economy to the same protégés of Robert Rubin. And then Bernie Sanders blew it up."
For most of his time in Congress, Sanders was an independent who faithfully caucused with the Democrats. But even though Sanders is unwilling to use the term FDR Democrat, that is— in fact— what he is. And that’s what Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are not.
This primary process is about the heart and soul of the Democratic party: what we once were and what we have since become.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. Every Democrat should have the opportunity to vote and no pundit should be allowed to rob them of their electoral right.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/the-year-the-voters-took-_b...
Boy am I getting tired of that canard. And it’s one that the New Democrats use at their own peril.
What this election is really proving is that there are two Democratic parties today: the New Democrats of Bill Clinton and the old Democrats of FDR and LBJ.
Robert Kuttner sums it up concisely:
"Bill Clinton declared that people who work for a living shouldn't be poor. But he also declared that the era of big government was over. He appointed a few good liberals, but the power positions in the economic portfolios went to Wall Streeters. Deregulation of finance, and more insecurity for regular people, followed. Barack Obama followed much of the same script, embracing social liberalism but giving the power positions on the economy to the same protégés of Robert Rubin. And then Bernie Sanders blew it up."
For most of his time in Congress, Sanders was an independent who faithfully caucused with the Democrats. But even though Sanders is unwilling to use the term FDR Democrat, that is— in fact— what he is. And that’s what Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are not.
This primary process is about the heart and soul of the Democratic party: what we once were and what we have since become.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. Every Democrat should have the opportunity to vote and no pundit should be allowed to rob them of their electoral right.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/the-year-the-voters-took-_b...
569
Maro, FDR was very different from Sanders. FDR was not committed to any particular program or ideology. He was the ultimate pragmatist, who had no qualms about changing his mind or position if some program he tried didn't work out. When he first ran for President in 1932, he actually promised to balance the budget! FDR is probably much closer to Hillary than Bernie on the spectrum of pragmatic political liberalism.
19
The corporate pundits are now trying to demoralize the Sanders movement by a steady drumbeat of "he can't win" (really meaning "he must not win"). This is reinforced by providing a delegate count including the thumbs on the scale of Democratic party elites, super delegates, while assuring us they would not give the nomination to Hillary against the wishes of the rank and file. Without them, the number of obligated delegates won are a tie.
Please all you Chicken Little Hillary supporters, wake up and see you are being played. Your fears are being exploited to promote the corporate candidate. First, she will do next to nothing for the people. She will sell you out. Second, she is despised by a wide number of Independents and Republicans (and increasingly other Democrats). She is no shoe-in and were she in office we would have one unseemly mess after another. Do you really want to return to years of scandal and insider dealing? She belongs with Jeb in the dustbin of history.
Please all you Chicken Little Hillary supporters, wake up and see you are being played. Your fears are being exploited to promote the corporate candidate. First, she will do next to nothing for the people. She will sell you out. Second, she is despised by a wide number of Independents and Republicans (and increasingly other Democrats). She is no shoe-in and were she in office we would have one unseemly mess after another. Do you really want to return to years of scandal and insider dealing? She belongs with Jeb in the dustbin of history.
7
This notion of Sanders as a FDR is ridiculous. FDR was funded by Wall St and a corporate lawyer. Yes, the New Deal saved America but it did so with the express purpose of moving people quickly from government work to the private sphere. If FDR were running today, he would be similar to Bush, a member of a political dynasty. He would have zero chance of winning. Moreover, the Great Recession is NOT the Great Depression because we are facing different problems. Should we tax the rich more, yes. Should we provide health care to all, yes. But, we need new solutions to address global competition, automation, pensions, etc. and to address these problems we need a functioning bi-partisan government who can collaborate.
11
It is astonishing to me that the establishment seems so surprised by the populist rage on both sides. Pretty much everyone at ground level feels screwed over and sold out.
I'm going to vote for Hillary, but meanwhile I'm cheering both Sanders and Trump. I hope she's listening.
I'm going to vote for Hillary, but meanwhile I'm cheering both Sanders and Trump. I hope she's listening.
127
Let me scramble the order of names in your post; I am cheering for Hillary and Sanders, but I am voting for Trump. It sounds a bit ridiculous and pretty confusing, no? That's called failing to follow your heart and that's what's gotten us into trouble before. Do what your heart tells you is right, not what your brain calculates as the most expedient way to win.
3
I agree on the cluelessness of the political establishment, which includes corporate media such as the NYTimes. That's been translated by that corporate media (NYT, NBC, CBS, et al. into trolling for Hillary and raising up Trump because he's easy to cover).
As to Hillary listening? Oh, yeah. She'll tack toward Sanders positions because it's politically expedient, a mark of her career and a Clinton family trait. Her campaign, scared skinny by Sanders rise, will demonize, whine about marginal "Bernie Bros" victimizing poor Hillary the Female, and then plead for "Unity", assuming Clinton wins the nomination if only thanks to "super-delegates." Clinton's presidential run will be at best a squeaker because the GOP has imploded. With a better GOP candidate package, she'd lose.
As to Hillary listening? Oh, yeah. She'll tack toward Sanders positions because it's politically expedient, a mark of her career and a Clinton family trait. Her campaign, scared skinny by Sanders rise, will demonize, whine about marginal "Bernie Bros" victimizing poor Hillary the Female, and then plead for "Unity", assuming Clinton wins the nomination if only thanks to "super-delegates." Clinton's presidential run will be at best a squeaker because the GOP has imploded. With a better GOP candidate package, she'd lose.
19
Madeline, you read my mind.
5