Many self-identified Democrats have, even blaming him for Hillary Clinton's loss. Hillary herself criticized Bernie's position on campaign spending. I don't know if Bernie could have handled the presidency of not. I don't think anyone can, and do a good job of it without enough of the public essentially on board, and at least in the prim…
Many self-identified Democrats have, even blaming him for Hillary Clinton's loss. Hillary herself criticized Bernie's position on campaign spending. I don't know if Bernie could have handled the presidency of not. I don't think anyone can, and do a good job of it without enough of the public essentially on board, and at least in the primary, Sanders was puling some good numbers. His great nemesis was the "Superdelegates"; but had he succeeded in being elected could he been an effective leader? I can't say for sure either way. I'm not always on the same page with him, but I think he has some clarity. Whatever the case, I have observed the influence of the Democratic Party sliding for decades, and believed that there was more that could be done about it. If you keep losing ground you would surely be wise to examine your strategy.
The warping of society and the democratic process by very big money is a very big deal, and by now, it isn't subtle. Sen. Hollings let the cat out of the bag long ago, but that was in the news for like a day:
"But the main culprit, the cancer on the body politic, is money: Money, money, money... We don't have time for each other. We don't have time for constituents, except for the givers. Somebody ought to tell the truth about that."
Spot on JL. It's the money; it's corrupted a percentage within the dem party, without a doubt. I think that is part of the reason for so much inaction by them. I also think the gop is holding some truths above their heads, such as 'who' dipped into the SS Trust, and who approved of costly overseas wars. And more; more that is specific and personal, so their re-election would be at stake.
Many self-identified Democrats have, even blaming him for Hillary Clinton's loss. Hillary herself criticized Bernie's position on campaign spending. I don't know if Bernie could have handled the presidency of not. I don't think anyone can, and do a good job of it without enough of the public essentially on board, and at least in the primary, Sanders was puling some good numbers. His great nemesis was the "Superdelegates"; but had he succeeded in being elected could he been an effective leader? I can't say for sure either way. I'm not always on the same page with him, but I think he has some clarity. Whatever the case, I have observed the influence of the Democratic Party sliding for decades, and believed that there was more that could be done about it. If you keep losing ground you would surely be wise to examine your strategy.
The warping of society and the democratic process by very big money is a very big deal, and by now, it isn't subtle. Sen. Hollings let the cat out of the bag long ago, but that was in the news for like a day:
"But the main culprit, the cancer on the body politic, is money: Money, money, money... We don't have time for each other. We don't have time for constituents, except for the givers. Somebody ought to tell the truth about that."
Thank you for your very thoughtful response to my comment.
JL is a great read when he wants to.
Spot on JL. It's the money; it's corrupted a percentage within the dem party, without a doubt. I think that is part of the reason for so much inaction by them. I also think the gop is holding some truths above their heads, such as 'who' dipped into the SS Trust, and who approved of costly overseas wars. And more; more that is specific and personal, so their re-election would be at stake.