Impossible to believe, but it could be happening—Independent Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont as the Democratic nominee for President vs. Businessman Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for President OR Trump running on an independent or third party line, with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush as the Republican nominee!
How could this happen?
It is clear that there is an anti Establishment mentality at this time in America, and it is showing up in both political parties!
But the differences between Sanders and Trump are massive.
Sanders has no vast amounts of wealth or wealthy people supporting him, while Trump has his own unlimited resources for his campaign.
Sanders has never been a Democrat, but has served longer in government than any independent in the history of Congress.
Trump has never been a member of any party, but has flirted with Democrats before, and his views are unsettled, and not clearly Republican.
Sanders has set principles and ideas, while Trump has no ideas except to promote his own ego.
Sanders has run a positive campaign of ideas, and refuses to attack his opponents.
Trump has spent the last three months attacking the character and persona of all of his opponents.
Sanders has tried to expand his base to minority voters, while Trump has done everything to antagonize all minority groups and women.
Sanders is trying to stop the influence of billionaires, while Trump is a billionaire who is endangering the idea of a democracy with his encouragement of greed, selfishness, and egotism as a virtue to be promoted.
Sanders is a sincere, genuine, authentic person, while Trump is an egomaniac and narcissist.
It would seem that Sanders, running as a Democrat, would be favored over Trump in the Electoral College, but one could imagine the false charges that Socialism is Communism, and although Trump would not utilize it, it is certain that hate groups would promote antisemitism, as Sanders would be the first Jewish Presidential nominee.
It would be a contest between two different worlds, of a 75 year old Socialist, who would be the oldest elected first term President in history, vs a billionaire who would be past 70 and a half, and would be, if elected, himself, the oldest elected first term President in history, although four years and nine months younger than Sanders!
It might not be the end of the Republican establishment at least. While the Establishment types are biding their time for the moment, they are said to have warned that there will be no more Dave Brats or Tom Cottons, and they will back that threat with money and all the other influence they can exert. Moreover, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Bush PACs, the “hedge fund guys,” and the party hierarchy will unload when it counts against Trump, Fiorina, Carson, Cruz, or whoever the surviving outsider standard-bearer is. It will be scorched earth, and who’s to say they won’t in the end prevail, as they did in 2008 and 2012?
“But they can’t win or govern without their electoral base!” Oh, no? It depends on what “win” or “govern” is. Some time ago Bush speculated on winning and governing without the base. Suppose the Republicans’ primary definition of winning becomes ridding the party permanently of the troublesome conservatives? By forcing them out into a third party, and thereby insuring permanent second-place status for themselves, the establishment Republicans could enter into a kind of de facto coalition government in Washington, permitting them to keep plenty of money and a modest share of the power flowing their way for the foreseeable future. This détente would provide the pretense of an opposition, which could at times be useful for “The Donor Class” as leverage in dealing with the Democrats, as well as continue to provide suitable employment for Republican consultants. Jeb Bush’s round-shouldered shambling gait will symbolize the stance of this New Republican Party admirably.
HAHA, Ariel, I love your dripping sarcasm! LOL
But you just might be right!
LOL But just imagine what a Bush – Biden race would look like. The debate would be kept comfortably within acceptable bounds, avoiding awkward references to illegal immigrants, EB-5 visas, cultural suicide, or K Street. Bush will lose the presidency graciously, without being unpleasant about recounts, vote fraud, or voter intimidation. The “permanent government” can at last enjoy genuine permanence, and everyone will be able to get back to business, as neither money nor troublesome primary challenges are ever a problem again. The aisle can at last be well and truly crossed, and “things” can finally “get done.”
Hmmm, Ariel, I sense you really think Biden can win, and that there would be “Crossing the Aisle” with him, unlike with Obama?
Is that the case?
If the Republican establishment pushes out the conservatives from the party, then yes. Notice, and this is just an empirical observation, that leaders such as McCain, McConnell and Boehner have harsher words reaching the level of insult towards conservative than they do towards any Democrat. There is also a practical and personal reason why Republican establishment incumbent politicians despise conservatives. If they lose a general election against Democrats, they just pass over to the minority but more likely than not they retain their seats in Washington. But if they lose a primary against a conservative, they are out of there. And none of them want to go the Eric Cantor way. Finally for all intents and purposes, currently there is a de-facto “Crossing the Aisle” between the Republican establishment and Obama, in my humble opinion. With Biden and with the elimination of conservative opposition within the Republican party this “Crossing the Aisle” will be more transparent.
I have to admit, Ariel, that you are probably correct in what you say here, imagine that! LOL hahahaha!
You do realize that the “establishment” – McCain, McConnell, Boehner, etc. – are conservatives too.
Also, what’s so wrong with compromise? It’s the backbone of what makes our government work.
Princess Leia: As I said, when Reagan was President, and even when Clinton was President there was compromise. But what is compromise? Reagan said it clearly, if he got half a loaf he would take it then come back for more. He had tremendous battles with Congress , as did Clinton by the way. Reagan had 8 government shutdowns while Clinton had 2 , Carter 5, and Bush senior 1. But they managed to reach and agreement. None of them got 100% of what they wanted. But today the Republican held Congress in view of many of us, simply will not fight for even 1/4 of a loaf. And Obama is not willing to give not even a 1/4 loaf. So here we are. When there was a showdown regarding Obamacare, the President absolutely refused to negotiate. Nada, nothing, zilch. Republicans who started off with total de-funding of Obamacare went down to just asking for a postponement of the individual mandate. And Obama said no and Republicans blinked. There was no negotiation in the only government shutdown we had during this Presidency. So it is logical for conservatives to view the establishment Republicans as weak. As for McCain, Bush, McConnell or Boehner being conservative… please give me a break. They are anything but conservatives. None of them ever talks about respecting the Constitution, individual freedom, limited government and free market capitalism. They have no idea what conservatism mean. They believe it is just reducing taxes, never mind reducing red tape, spending and the regulatory burden on small and medium size businesses. When the establishment Republicans had the Presidency and Congress during Bush W first years they also spent and grew government like drunken liberals. Bush W and the establishment Republican Congress were the biggest spenders and increased the debt in real dollars and as percentage of GDP more than any other President or Congress before his time. Only to be surpassed by President Obama.
Incorrect. Obama has tried working with you GOTea and keeps getting rejected because you are the party of NO.
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/05/19/republican-obstructionism-real-scandal-plaguing-washington.html
Re: Conservatism
Definitions of things like that change over time. Get that fact through your stubborn mind.
Exactly! Modern liberalism, no longer classic liberalism, is the ideology of us progressives and liberals here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
Truth busting! During Obama’s term, the deficit has been reduced.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/02/obama-drops-truth-bomb-gop-since-office-cut-deficit-23.html
Thanks for that Rustbelt. The facts on the deficit contradict the widely held notion that the Obama administration is crazily out of control when it comes to the nation’s finances.
http://theweek.com/articles/453634/why-dont-americans-realize-deficit-falling
Trump gave a foreign policy speech, that, as usual, didn’t mentioned any specifics. Sooner or later, people are going to tire of no substance in his speeches.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-promises-some-plans-are-coming-national-security-speech
Pragmatic Progressive: You are precisely correct. Modern liberalism has nothing to do with classic liberalism. As a matter of fact they are quite the opposite when it comes to individual rights vs collective rights and the understanding of the economy. Furthermore,classic liberalism has more in common with American conservatism than with modern liberalism/progressivism.
No. You totally misunderstood. It’s exactly as Leia said. Definitions of these ideologies change over time.
No. You misunderstood completely. As society has modernized over time, liberalism has had to evolve. We’re not going backwards to limited government, so get over that idea.
Amen, Pragmatic Progressive!
I am just wondering what is it that you think limited constitutional government means?
This blog goes into excellent detail explaining the anti-government agenda. http://www.governmentisgood.com/index.php
As that blog explains, limited government is: Elimination of every federal agency not mentioned in the original constitution – including the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce and Labor. Programs like Social Security and policies like the minimum wage would also be abolished. Not only should taxes never be increased, but that most current taxes should be abolished, including income taxes, inheritance taxes, capital gains, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and property taxes.
To eliminate all government agencies that have been created in the past century is total anarchism!
To wipe out the New Deal and the Great Society is a war on the American people who are NOT in the top few percent of the population!
During the debate last night, one of them, I think it was either Rubio or Cruz, said something about having a flat tax yet get rid of the IRS. With no agency to oversee taxes, how are you going to make sure taxes are enforced? Make sure people aren’t cheating? And so on. Mr. Spock would say that’s illogical.