Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bernie Sanders: The Democratic Mainstream Candidate
Apparently, Bernie Sanders really does represent the mainstream core of the modern Democratic party.
Until now, I had generally assumed that the Vermont Senator represented only a relatively limited portion of enthusiastic supporters. Such supporters did not reflect the broader population of the Democratic Party, and that Sanders’ primary successes would top-out at around 25-30 percent. Saturday’s Nevada Caucus proved me wrong, but not in the way I would have expected.
I was spending time with family on Saturday evening, and all of the seven others around the table are avowed Democrats. I am the only political Conservative in that branch of the family. All of them self-describe as being “moderates,” in favor of “common-sense solutions that respect the beliefs of all.” They decry the current climate of political polarization endemic in our society, and express a sincere desire to find common ground with those on the other side of the aisle. They profess a longing for the heady, halcyon days of bipartisan cooperation that characterized our country before the recent descent into darkness.
As the Nevada Caucus results were announced (Sanders with 40+ percent), every person at the table (less me) raised a cheer, and their glasses to toast his victory. Mind you, this was not because the Democratic candidate had beaten a Republican: they were cheering because the Socialist candidate was beating the other Democrats. It was this that convinced me that Sanders will ultimately be the Democratic nominee – that every single rank-and-file Democrat in that anonymous dining room in Middle America cheered Bernie Sanders’ victory in the Nevada Caucus. Not one person (less me) expressed any concern or hesitation; they were all basically happy with the Sanders win.
Therefore, I can only conclude that Sanders (Socialist) fairly represents the Democratic mainstream, if for no other reason than the self-declared mainstream Democrats are comfortable with his avowed policies and beliefs.
Published in Politics
I don’t doubt there would have been Romney Derangement Syndrome, because that already was apparent during the 2012 campaign. The difference likely would have been Mitt would have cared that the media was saying bad things about him, and would have made futile and useless attempts to change this situation.
Romney was quite different than McCain. His reaction to Trump is not much different from the very many conservative philosophers, commentators and analysts. But I’ll take Romney’s character over Trump’s on any given day.
School yard name calling is not the same as engagement in a political argument. The arguments against Sen. Sanders are many, all very logical, fact based. Is Trump capable of making these arguments? And “socialism is stupid” is not one of them.
Look, Trump should thump Sanders by at least 10%. And he will not because he simply turns off so many people. You may call it fighting, many call it a juvenile tantrum.
There’s no accounting for taste.
Can you still say that after Romney’s vote on impeachment ? Romney gave his vote the impression of serious concern in contrast to McCain’s angry smile of triumph as he showed his lie in the campaign for re-election but Romney is still exhibiting malice and knows he did not represent his constituents. He admitted as much the other day saying that 2% agree with him. It still amazes me that NTs can ignore Trump’s actions, including keeping promises that other GOPe candidates broke with impunity.
Yes, and I am surprised that more republican senators did not also vote for conviction.
And also somewhat disappointed.
Just like Sander’s talking about all of the good that Castro did?
And I can spend a lot of time criticizing Trump’s actions. It was the actions of Pres. Trump which resulted in his impeachment.
Not really. Lots of his predecessors did actions that were impeachable, and they didn’t get impeached.
Sheeshe… Can you name one impeachable action?
The actual reason is that the Dems have not accepted the results of the 2016 election.
An impeachable act is an act that is defined by the House when it votes on impeachment. So no, only 2 other presidents have committed impeachable acts.
Trump’s specific impeachable act was to ask a foreign government to target a US citizen who had committed no crime and was not even being investigated by the US government. In fact a citizen who presented no threat of any kind to the US, and in fact benefited the US by paying taxes on larges amounts of income derived legally from a foreign source. A citizen who held a position also held by other Americans. That is an extraordinary abuse of power for which there is no known parallel.
And see the post which follows the one I am responding to.
The House approved 2 articles of impeachment. And yes, the actions of the house were political and were driven by the very real hatred of the president by the democrats.
I think you just lost an argument with yourself…
Pres. Trump asked the government of the Ukraine to investigate the son of Joe Biden, in a very clear effort to negatively impact the electoral chances of the former vice president in 2020.
The Ukraine played no role in the 2016 election.
You know this how ?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ukraine-interfered-in-the-2016-election-thats-a-fact-not-a-conspiracy-theory
Fascinating…
Are you saying that the act of asking to investigate corruption is an impeachable offense? While corruption itself is not?
Are you saying that Biden’s son is immune from investigation because his father is running for president? Not only immune from investigation, but that investigation itself… no, just asking someone to investigate becomes an impeachable offense? While President Trump, also running for president, should be both investigated and impeached? Not for corruption, but for asking to investigate it?
Are you unaware that one of the most common forms of bribery is a high-paying no-show job for a relative?
Any why do you think that an “effort to negatively impact the electoral chances” of a political opponent is a crime? Impeachable or otherwise?
There is no evidence that the Ukrainian government participated in anyway in the 2016 election, unlike Russia. From your link:
This is known. Manafort was working for the former president who was ousted and is in Russia now. Manafort was corrupt and is now serving time. But he was pro-Russian. But as the campaign manager, he was obviously was trying to influence the campaign.
No the whole Ukraine thing with the mythical CloudStrike server is something fed to Trump. And again, there is no connection to the Biden’s in anyway. Which makes the “ask” by the president even more problematic.
I regret that the discussion here has vectored into a heated exchange regarding the late impeachment proceedings regarding President Trump. As the OP author, that was certainly not my intent*. The point of the OP was to observe the high degree to which a random sample of self-identifying “main stream Democrats,” or “Tip O’Neill Democrats” greeted Bernie Sanders’ (Socialist) victory in Nevada with enthusiasm and approval. I think it reveals the likelihood that Sanders will eventually be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President in 2020.
*For the record, all I will say regarding the impeachment and subsequent trial of the President is this: it was stupid, demagogic grandstanding. In the Clinton Impeachment, it was established that Perjury and Obstruction of Justice (charges against the President proven in courts of law) did NOT rise to the level of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” as specified in the the Constitution. Therefore, whether worthy of impeachment in a hypothetical sense or not, any article of impeachment for actions LESS than Perjury and/or Obstruction of Justice fails to rise to the necessary threshold worthy of removal.
I think you and I both learned something about Bernie Sanders’ supporters in these last few days: you with your relatives and me at a rally… A lot of the people who are supporting him are really just regular people. That’s the scariest thing to me because it shows just how far to the left the Democratic Party has gone.
To be honest, I am not sure how that leftward drift translates ultimately in the general. I certainly know Democrats who did not toast Bernie’s win in NH and who are downright panicked by the prospect of his nomination.
But these happier reactions from people that one wouldn’t exactly have put in the “Bernie Bro” column at first glance are, none-the-less, very interesting. And bothersome.
These are probably some of the same types who approach me and ‘thank me for my service’ when they see me in my veteran’s cap but then go on the internet and mock us for thinking we are still in the ‘Cold War’.
Yeah, a lot of these supporters aren’t necessarily wanting to turn the country upside-down. They just are ignorant about economic realities. They think that the rich are just sitting around with their cash in vaults, so there will be no negative consequences to taking a bunch of that money. They don’t see how there can be a downside to a $15/hour minimum wage.
In that case it’s the actions of Congress that result in impeachment, not the actions of the impeachee.
Very well put. Absolutely correct.
Correct. As the constitution so states. The constitution specifically gives this form of oversight to congress. Federalist 65 is fairly clear on what those acts are to be.
Now the Federalist is most concerned about explaining why the Senate and not the House is the correct place for such a trial.
For Nixon’s impeachment, the House Judiciary committee adopted 3 charges:
Nixon resigned and the full House passed a resolution to “accept” the committee report. Not quite the same as impeachment.
Nixon, no doubt, would have been convicted.