Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders Rising?...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Maybe the democratic primaries will shape up to be; interesting? It is looking like Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont is getting some legs and with them some name recognition.

Hillary Clinton, once the anticipated shoo in to receive the democratic nomination is finally getting some, competition? Bernie Sanders just might be the man to provide a serious challenge to Hillary who certainly has been dealing with her share of troubles stemming from the Clinton Foundation and perceived improprieties. Not to mention her less that brilliant performance as former Secretary of State.

It is good for our republic when all parties have a field of candidates with divergent views and all serious candidates are able to have their views heard by the voting public.

Who knows, maybe Bernie Sanders will be the 21st centuries George McGovern, the ultra liberal democrat who lost the 1972 presidential election to Richard Nixon; in a 60.7% to 37.5% landslide. We're certain conservatives and republicans are salivating at the prospects of facing Bernie Sanders in the 2016 general.

However, history does not always repeat itself and upsets do happen.

POLITICO - Hillary Clinton is crushing the rest of the Democratic presidential field in national polls, but over the weekend, in a Wisconsin straw poll, there was reason to give the Clinton camp pause and the Bernie Sanders camp hope — Sanders scored a strong second-place finish with 41 percent of the vote, to Clinton’s 49 percent.

The Vermont senator, a self-described democratic socialist and a long shot for the White House, received 208 of 511 delegate votes at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention in Milwaukee on Saturday, while Clinton won votes from 252 of the delegates, leaving her just short of a majority.

Vice President Joe Biden and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who announced his candidacy late last month, each received 3 percent of the vote. Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who is considering a bid, won 2 percent, while former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, who announced his long-shot candidacy last week, received 1 percent.

The result is another encouraging sign for Sanders, an Independent who is drawing large crowds in early nominating states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. In the two weeks since he announced his candidacy, he has seen an uptick in the polls against Clinton — who remains the heavy favorite — and is showing signs he is picking up some supporters of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the progressive icon who has said repeatedly that she is not running for president in 2016.

While the first caucuses and primaries are still months away, and while the overall polling gap between Sanders and Clinton is still massive (roughly 50 points in a recent CNN poll), the Wisconsin results show the strength of the restive progressive movement and the challenge before Clinton to tap into it.

The real test for progressives is whether they will actually support a true progressive like Bernie Sanders (or Elisabeth Warren), or settle on a multi millionaire who's progressive bonafides are, at the very least, suspect.


  1. Wisconsin may be an early outlier. Most of my Wisconsin relatives and friends are still reeling in
    outrage over Guv Walker; a snootfull of far right may be forcing the WI pendulum?

    1. Believe it or not, BB, there's stuff about Walker that rubs me the wrong way. Despite my strong support for him on one particular issue.

    2. Like he'd be all set to re-invade Iraq and probably bomb Iran? Yuppers, he's just what the neocon Tea Party folks and the MIC ordered.

      Of course everyone knows his agenda is to shut down unions and deprive labor of the ability to effectively bargain for wages and benefits; thus insuring keeping wages and other labor associated costs lower for businesses. Perhaps one day folks will see though the smoke and mirrors created by the oligarchs and plutocrats. But I ain't holding me breath. Big money controls the agenda and payoffs are standard fare.

    3. I didn't know about Walker's foreign policy agenda... but looking it up, I see it now. I'm a fairly recent convert to opposing the wars and entanglements of the neo-cons and also of the left (Obama, with his new wars and expansion of old ones and all-time record military spending).

      As for Walker's agenda and unions, I think it should be easy to effectively bargain.... and also easy to choose not to participate in the bargaining. I would agree with you that's clear that Walker only wants one of these. I also think that unions would become more popular if they didn't routinely throw the dues into a slush fund used for very partisan campaign and lobbying purposes. That's not bargaining at all.


      Back to Sanders and his reputation....and those of his opponents. When I read of the phony claim of sexist writings against Sanders, I immediately thought of the scorched-earth tactics of the Clinton campaign (see my Tue Jun 09, 11:03:00 AM EDT comment)

      When I read of the ridiculous and sexist condemnation of Hillary by Ralph Nader (the reality matched the claims of what Nader was doing), I didn't think even for a second that Rep. Sanders was behind this attack. He just doesn't have that reputation. He just seems like a straight shooter. And whatever I think of the majority of his agenda, that's good.

    4. IMO, the GOP strong-arm tactics in WI have been successful, doing everything they wanted. However, the results have been destructive, wages have fallen, WI is way behind
      in job creation, and restrictions on voting as well the flood of outstate $$ are disliked. This is reflected in the latest polling there: Clinton 52/Walker 40 and Feingold 52/Johnson 38.
      The situation is similar in Kansas
      Kansas where the over reach has even driven some state GOP leaders into the opposing camp. Perhaps in these cases, an inadvertent push reversing the pendulum.

    5. A pendulum will swing only so far before losing inertia and opposing forces take over moving it back in the opposite direction when once again inertia is lost an opposing forces move it back. This continue until eventually the pendulum stops in the middle.

      Perhaps we will someday be so lucky with the political pendulum BB Idaho? But I ain't counting on it. Certainly not in my lifetime.

    6. Your pendulum explanation is correct when the center stays in one place. Our political center is always shifting, however, and therefore the pendulum will swing forever. In fact, if the center shifts fast enough, the swings will become greater and greater, causing a very unstable situation.

    7. Astute observation Jerry; and, as the center is moving slowly left (at least at present) the reality is America is moving left, gradually.

      So, if liberals are smart they will stay just ever so slightly to left of center to avoid backlash (or whiplash. :-).

      Politics is as much an art as a science.

    8. Also, to get really technically nitpicky, it is not inertia that the pendulum loses, but energy. As the pendulum swings energy changes back and forth between momentum and potential energy. Frictional forces slowly reduce the total energy available so the maximum momentum and potential energy eventually goes to zero (assuming no change in center position). During all of this, the inertia of the pendulum has not changed. The inertia is determined by the mass of the pendulum which has not changed (neglecting quantum effects).

      Sorry! This is probably way too much information.

    9. Yes Jerry you are correct, inertia is the force responsible for keeping objects traveling in the same direction once in motion. Until energy is dissipated or an opposing energy acts on it.

      Sorry, I ain't a physicist and was trying to keep it simple. But you are right and I should have said it right or kept quiet.

    10. No need to keep quiet. Your point was clear and using inertia did not interfere or change the point you were making.

    11. Good going Jerry and Les... it is not often that tangents actually increase the level of knowledge and discourage in such discussions

  2. The hounds are already treating Sanders seriously. Perhaps funded by, Hillary, famous for her "destroy anyone" campaigning. I read a report of Sanders writing something outrageous about women and sex, more than 40 years ago. That was what the headlines were.

    I found his actual writings... if anything, he was guilty only of writing silly musings long after he should have put the pen down. If that's all they can get on him...

  3. I agree, RN, with your analogy of Sanders to McGovern. As much as I like Sanders, I fear that he is not electable. And the worst thing that could happen to this country in the 2016 election is for a republican to be elected to the White House. The democratic candidate must have a good chance of winning.

    1. While I do not disagree in general I an extremely uncomfortable with HRC and view her "ascension" as equally as bad as a republican being elected president.

      I keep hoping a viable moderate and rational republican (in the mold of Weld and Baker) will emerge and carry the day.

    2. We had a recent commenter here, whom I will not name (as to keep it non-personal) who said that Hillary's Presidency was inevitable, and that "men" had better get used to it. This was from a Hillary supporter, of all things. Not only was this sexist, it presented Hillary as a candidate whose Presidency will arrive due to destiny, or inevitability..... as opposed to any sort of valid reason to elect her. This supporter sure sold her candidacy very short.

    3. Agree with the general tone of your statement. Except in my opinion Hillary makes it easy to sell her candidacy short. Either Sanders or Warren would be a better choice to represent the progressive brand than Clinton who in my view has integrity issues. BIG time,

    4. Clinton is not a progressive democrat. Of course Sanders or Warren are a better choice to represent progressives.

  4. IMO, Sanders is a bit like Ron Paul as well: folksy, common language and highly motivated followers.
    And we saw that highly motivated followers like Paul's and McGovern's were not enough to make them electable. Add the "s-word" and Sanders becomes unelectable as well. Also, among the flock
    of GOP candidates, there are a few IMO, that could not win the presidency. We could very well be
    presented with the battle of the family dynasties in this one.

    1. You may very well be right BB Idaho. If so it is not a desirable or rational choice IMO. Neither deserve a second and third look based on what we know of both candidates of which you speak.

    2. Two worn-out "typical politicians" who have trouble answering basic questions (BIG trouble) and who both campaign out of some sort of entitlement to power, you mean?


Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.

Top Posts

Our Biggest Creditor {China} Tells Us "The good old days of borrowing are over"

Illinois Democrats Move To Tighten Firearm Regulation/Restrictions...

More Thoughts On Reasonable Firearm Control...

Every So Often the Nation Gets GREAT News!...

As The Feds Ship Illegals To Massachusetts From The Southern Border...