With Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders having announced his candidacy for President for the second time, the question arises whether he can win the Democratic nomination and go on to residence in the Oval Office in 2021.
It is clear that this eventuality could indeed happen, but there are many obstacles to success.
Sanders is not a Democrat, but instead an Independent Socialist who allies with the Democrats in the Senate, while going back and forth from the party to Independent status, although now he is again leagued with the party for this upcoming election battle.
Sanders, being Jewish, although not at all devout, might face antisemitic attacks from white supremacists.
The Republican Party is already on the attack against Sanders, and the Democrats, as being the dirty word–“Socialist”–but hopefully it will have little to no effect on the people of America, as so much of what we have in the nation today is related to Socialist programs.
Also, Sanders will be 79 and four months old at the time of the next Presidential inauguration, and is the oldest potential nominee, more than a year older than former Vice President Joe Biden, who is more centrist than Sanders.
Also, Sanders has competition from others seen as being on the far left of the Democratic Party, particularly the case with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is about eight years younger than Sanders, and also from New England.
The New Hampshire primary, which Sanders won in 2016, will be tougher to win with Warren competing, along with many others.
However, in the first 12 hours after his announcement, Sanders raised $4 million, more than twice what California Senator Kamala Harris was able to raise.
Sanders, with his platform of $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, and free public college tuition, along with support for aggressive climate change action, will certainly enliven the campaign of 2020, no matter what happens.
I hear it’s gone up to $6 million now.
I also hear that the toddler in the White House is working on coming up with nicknames for his 2020 opponents.
I’m boycotting CNN. They’ve hired a GOP operative to oversee their 2020 campaign coverage.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/02/20/cnn-hires-gop-operative-to-coordinate-2020-election-coverage/?fbclid=IwAR21GUyI_rgT7brdnzLqUpACMuanH3RDuXxWlVm7clEZFOqlYMigNmNtHDU#.XG1HUrQzheE.facebook
I totally agree, as CNN has made a massive mistake, selecting someone with no journalistic background!
Washington Monthly’s Martin Longman says that Bernie is in a stronger position than people think.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/02/20/bernie-is-in-a-stronger-position-than-people-think/
Politico is reporting about a wide-ranging disinformation campaign aimed at Democratic 2020 candidates is already underway on social media, with signs that foreign state actors are driving at least some of the activity. The main targets appear to be Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Beto O’Rourke.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/2020-candidates-social-media-attack-1176018
Bernie plans to sign a party pledge affirming that he will run for president as a Democrat in 2020 and serve as one if elected.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/politics/bernie-sanders-sign-dnc-affirmation-run-as-democrat/index.html
If Sanders wins the nomination and goes on to defeat Trump or Pence, sure, I don’t think anybody (least of all me) will complain. I’m worried about where he comes in second again in the primary. Democrats have zero reason to trust he’d energetically join the effort to support the ticket in such a situation. And they indeed have every reason to fear he’d telegraph his bitterness and lack of support to his supporters, in similar fashion to his behavior in 2016.
Bernie has picked out a diverse group of campaign co-chairs.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign-co-chairs-2020-carmen-cruz-ro-khanna_n_5c6efd30e4b0e37a1ed619ae
Ronald asks, “Can Bernie Sanders Win the Nomination of the Democratic Party This Time [for Election 2020]?â€
Yes.
You used the word “canâ€â€”so it is possible that the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination would be won by Vermont’s Bernie Sanders.
The Democratic Party Establishment, and with help from all their allies (including those in the Deep State and in the media), will try to make sure that does not happen. Even worse than they did in 2016.
The Democratic Party Establishment will single out one candidate, one they can control, one who is a puppet, one who is a corporatist and a pro-war candidate, and manufacture consent for nominating that person.
The Democratic Party Establishment also wants to make sure, for as much as they can control precisely who wins major office nominations (another standout example is with the U.S. Senate, as had happened in 2016 with corporatists like Patrick Murphy of Florida and Katie McGinty of Pennsylvania, each having earned their losses), that the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee will also not be Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard.
With Gabbard, she is a threat for not being on board for more wars. With Sanders, he is a threat because the Democratic Party Establishment is serving the oligarchs as are the Republican Party as a whole.
Sanders and Gabbard are the only two who have the ability to unseat Donald Trump in 2020. None of the others—and this includes even Elizabeth Warren—have the political skills and/or a vision, and they don’t convincingly offer the needed leadership, that would persuade the general-election voters (very much including self-identified independents) to vote for any of them to unseat Trump.
A lot of self-identified Democratic voters are already making the mistake with their post-midterm-elections-of-2018 thinking that self-identified Republican voters made just after the midterm elections of 2010: Winning the midterm elections, and getting at least one house of Congress to flip, does not mean the same electorate makes the same decision, for the presidency, two years later. If that was the case, a post-1954 Dwight Eisenhower and a post-1994 Bill Clinton would not have won re-elections two years later. Donald Trump has a hold with his same-party coalition—to a point his party actually won the overall gains in the 2018 U.S. Senate (including flipping out Democrat Bill Nelson for Republican Rick Scott in bellwether Florida) while his party lost the U.S. House and 7 governorships.
If the 2020 Democrats nominate another hollow corporatist—one with b.s. platitudes and who focuses on Trump being a poorly behaved and unworthy commander in chief—that will turn out to be a failure and the 45th U.S. president will win a second term.
Oh wow, D, I respect you highly. but totally disagree with your comment.
Tulsi Gabbard is totally unqualified to be President, and her embrace of Assad of Syria is unforgivable, as I see it.
Sanders is not in the same category as Gabbard, but I believe the assault against him by the far Right would totally destroy him, with the fake charge that he is a Marxist.
We shall see what happens, but there is no way that Gabbard should be the nominee, as I see it,
However, I still appreciate your commentary and encourage you to continue to contribute.
LOL! Deep State nonsense is about as loony as Trump!
In 2016, Bernie performed poorly with black voters, a crucial demographic for the Democratic party. That’s the real reason why he lost.
In addition to black voters, he also did poorly with voters who self-identify as Democrats, with older voters, with women voters.
Gallup did a poll recently of the ideologies of the Democratic voters. The two biggest barriers for Sanders is the same as it was in 2016 – the age and race of Democratic voters.
https://www.vox.com/2019/2/19/18231538/bernie-sanders-2020-win-chances-gallup
The ones our family is interested in are Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Sherrod Brown and Beto O’Rourke.
Rustbelt Democrat writes, “LOL! Deep State nonsense is about as loony as Trump!â€
Is it?
D, there is no doubt that different interests try to, and often do influence American policy.
But the term “Deep State” is too much of a conspiracy theory, and my book on Presidential assassinations rejects such concept as reality.
So again, D, we will agree to disagree, and I appreciate your input on this blog!
I second what the Professor said. The term “Deep State†is associated with conspiracy theorists, who could act in a dangerous manner.
Re: Democrats speaking out about Trump’s behavior
They do so because the Republicans are a bunch of spineless chickens!
When Trump takes away kids from their parents and locks them in cages, takes away financial aid from Puerto Rico to build his racist wall, violates the emoluments clause, pushes our allies away and embraces dictators, encourages white nationalists to commit violence against journalists and politicians, it is our responsibility to speak out!
Totally in agreement, Princess Leia!
Curious. What do you mean that the candidates running don’t have the political skills for leadership? I see a bunch of candidates who are clearly more qualified than the toddler in chief we have right now.
Rational Lefty, who are you addressing your question to? Not clear!
D said in his or her post: None of the others—and this includes even Elizabeth Warren—have the political skills and/or a vision, and they don’t convincingly offer the needed leadership
I’m wondering what he or she means by that.
My stupid Republican cousin is attacking socialism on Facebook, equating it with the violence in Venezuela today.
Former Republican, the pure ignorance of so many people about what Socialism is is appalling.
These ignoramuses act as if Socialism is old style Communism as in the old Soviet Union, or in China, Vietnam, North Korea, or Cuba.
The differences are so vast, and it is essential that Socialism is explained as being of the Scandinavian, or even models in Western Europe variety, which promote freedom, but also provide better social policies than the US does!
Rational Lefty writes,
“D said in his or her post: [‘None of the others—and this includes even Elizabeth Warren—have the political skills and/or a vision, and they don’t convincingly offer the needed leadership….’] | I’m wondering what he or she means by that.â€
Some time after the presidential election of 2016, I wrote in a comment to one of Ronald’s blog topics, that there has been a pattern. (I don’t recall where and/or when I wrote it.)
The first full decade of television was the 1950s. For every election cycle in which the White House switched parties, there was something risky to nominating that Republican or Democratic presidential pickup winner.
1952 Republican pickup winner Dwight Eisenhower was a risky choice because he was a General. That that hadn’t happened since the 19th century—and it hasn’t happened since.
1960 Democratic pickup winner John Kennedy was a risky choice because he was a Catholic. (Also: Because television was still young, or one can say “young enough,†Kennedy came across as…quite young.)
1968 Republican pickup winner Richard Nixon was a risky choice because, after failing to hold the presidency in the Republican column in 1960, he failed to win a Republican pickup of the governorship of California in the midterm elections of 1962, which was not the case with his party’s up-and-comer four years later—the one who eventually became the 40th U.S. president. That meant, at that time, Nixon was considered a has-been.
1976 Democratic pickup winner Jimmy Carter was a risk because he hailed from the Deep South. Frankly, one cannot count many U.S. presidents who came from that part of the country.
1980 Republican pickup winner Ronald Reagan was a risk because he was a former actor. (Remember Christopher Lloyd’s character in 1985’s “Back to the Future,†after being told by Michael J. Fox’s character that the U.S. president in 1985 was Ronald Reagan? “Ronald Reagan—the actor?! Who the hell is the vice president—Jerry Lewis?!) Also: There was Reagan’s policy ideas, particularly controversial with economics.
1992 Democratic pickup winner Bill Clinton was a risk because, for the first time since John Kennedy, this was also a nominee who was younger than what the country was used to; youthful, by comparison. (Incumbent George Bush was 22 years Clinton’s senior.)
2000 Republican pickup winner George W. Bush was a risk because only once before did the nation elect separate presidencies to a father and his son. (Also: Bush was more right-wing than other candidates from his party.)
2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama was a risk because he is black. The questions, for many, were: “Would the people be willing to elect to the presidency of the United States a person who is black?†and “If the answer is ‘yes,’ will that happen during my lifetime?â€
2016 Republican pickup winner Donald Trump was a risk because he was considered a joke candidate, sort of like 1980 Ronald Reagan, due to his overall image which included his hosting the NBC reality-competition series “The Apprentice†(later titled “Celebrity Apprenticeâ€).
I was thinking of the fact that, for people who think playing it “safe†is the way to go, playing it safe is the way to go if your party—not currently holding the White House—will fail to unseat an incumbent U.S. president. That is where the likes of 1984 Walter Mondale, 1996 Bob Dole, 2004 John Kerry, and 2012 Mitt Romney applied. But, that is what also happens when your party has the White House for two consecutive terms and it ends up flipping to the other party. This was the case with 2000 Al Gore, 2008 John McCain, and 2016 Hillary Clinton. (I also think, looking at another example prior to the 1980s, this applied to 1960 Richard Nixon.)
When I mention a “vision,†I am referring to the fact that Republican and Democratic presidential pickup winners have a vision for where next to take the country. (That is what people want to know especially after a two-term president.) And that comes from one person more so than a political party. It is the individual. In the case of Bernie Sanders, his offering a vision for Medicare for All and free public college tuition were coming from him first, in 2016, before Hillary Clinton. Now, here in 2019, and looking toward 2020, the other candidates—minus, so far, Amy Klobuchar (which is why I don’t take her seriously)—have moved there to say they are for Medicare for All. But, it still comes down to people recognizing the vision came from first for Bernie Sanders. As for Tulsi Gabbard, she beats everyone—including Bernie—for being anti-war. What they both do is argue for and defend that vision—that we need Medicare for All (Bernie); that we need to stop continuing with these wars (Tulsi). When I look at the others—and the one being suggested as the party establishment’s preferred candidate is Kamala Harris—they can’t sell it. And some, and Harris recently did this, will waffle. (That is partly why Andrew Gillum failed to flip the governorship of Florida to the Democratic column in 2018.) That is what I mean with the words “political skills.†You have to connect, you have to be real, you have to be both consistently and convincingly, and you have to win the people and their votes.
What no one knows, here in February 2019, is whether the United States presidential election of 2020 ends up a Republican hold (re-election for Donald Trump) or a Democratic pickup. I consider both possibilities.
List of all the people who are running and who they will appeal to.
https://qz.com/1536793/kamala-harris-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-all-of-the-democratic-presidential-candidates/
Interesting discussion and analysis, D, and food for thought, for sure!
I’m looking for a fresh face. I was a fan of Obama’s progressive pragmatism, so I’m looking for someone who is a pragmatist. I’m also looking for an optimistic message to contrast Trump’s negativity.
I don’t think the spiritual woman on the list has a chance. I’m not so sure about the Yang guy either.
Tulsi may be anti-war but she’s had issues with Islamaphobic and homophobic remarks and she embraces a dictator, which is why I think her chances of winning are not going to be so good.
As several of us mentioned earlier, one of the biggest barriers for Bernie is black people. He didn’t connect with them last time.
That’s because he struggled with issues outside of his economics wheelhouse.
As middle class people, we are attracted to Kamala Harris’s Lift Act for the middle class.
This nails about Bernie’s weaknesses regarding gender and race.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/24/opinions/bernie-sanders-glaring-weakness-perry/index.html
In agreement about that article. Women and people of color want to see leaders who look like them instead of white men all the time.
This is what we mean by political skills and leadership that are necessary for a president:
A good leader must demonstrate such qualities as competence, integrity, empathy, character and temperament. Trump does not have these essential qualities.
Trump simply lacks the competence to serve as president of the United States. His knowledge of economic policy and foreign affairs is minimal, at best. His views are misguided. His threat to impose prohibitive tariffs on trade would repeat many of the mistakes that contributed to the Great Depression.
His words and actions have disturbed European and Asian allies at a time when Russia and China are resurgent. He has demonstrated neither the capacity nor the inclination to learn from experts in global economics.
There is no comparison to running a sophisticated global operation such as the U.S. government, to running a hotel business.
Everything one does as the leader of the free world is watched by markets, foreign governments, our competitors and our enemies. Trump is simply not up to a job of this complexity.
In reality, he is not a businessman, he’s simply a salesman, attempting to sell and con the citizens of this country.
Rational Lefty, wow, I commend you on a great posting,and I totally agree with you!
Many of our top tier 2020 Democratic candidates are much more knowledgeable about government and foreign affairs than he is. They also show they have better temperaments, they show empathy, they have competence, etc.
Absolutely the truth, Rational Lefty!
Another criticism of Bernie Sanders was that his big ideas weren’t backed up by much attention to specifics. Elizabeth Warren is separating herself from him by giving details of her policies.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/02/25/how-elizabeth-warren-is-distancing-herself-from-bernie-sanders/