2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFamed French Economist Thomas Piketty on Rise of Bernie Sanders: the US enters a new political era
Because he is facing the Clinton machine, as well as the conservatism of mainstream media, Sanders might not win the race. But it has now been demonstrated that another Sanders possibly younger and less white could one day soon win the US presidential elections and change the face of the country. In many respects, we are witnessing the end of the politico-ideological cycle opened by the victory of Ronald Reagan at the 1980 elections.
More: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/thomas-piketty-bernie-sanders-us-election-2016

XemaSab
(60,212 posts)If Bernie's elected, he's going to be the second-most "ethnic" president ever.
We've never even had a president with Polish or Russian heritage before.
43 men have served as President, with the following ethnic origins
27 English
2 English/Scottish
2 English/Welsh
4 Scottish
1 Scottish/Irish
2 Irish
3 Dutch
1 German
1 African
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=98954.0
LisaM
(28,966 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)
I think that party identifications slowed a long time ago, at least as early as 2000, maybe before. We all saw in 2000 that people who voted for Al Gore were not that interested in a prolonged fight for the presidency. They just weren't. They can second-guess it now, but I felt like a pelican in the wilderness during the recount, when people I was good friends with just stepped away and didn't want to be engaged in the process. Democracy as we understood it was being stripped away in front of our eyes, and people 'just wanted it to stop", as if we were facing some sort of crisis if we couldn't resolve it instantly.
I saw it even more in 2004, when we had a very good candidate who was dismissed within his own party. I went to caucuses that year, and saw the disruption the Dean supporters wanted. They wouldn't discuss issues, just wanted to railroad their candidate and cry "foul!" because he didn't win Iowa (because Kerry had built an infrastructure and Dean was relying on voter enthusiasm). There were some old time Dems at the caucuses, and we had a rousing good time, but to me, that was the end of the Democratic party in Washington State as I knew it.
In 2008, I saw a candidate that I didn't feel had strong ties to the Democratic party. Yes, he identified as a Dem, yes, he'd run as a Democrat before. But I saw people attracted to the campaign for reasons that both transcended and disdained the party. I remember a bit of warning I'd seen when Obama spoke at the 2004 DNC - he said we're not a blue nation, we're not a red nation, we're a purple nation. I contrasted that sharply to Al Sharpton's impassioned speech about what the Democrats had done for African-Americans over the years. Not perfect by any means, but at least the fight had occurred.
But at the 2008 caucuses, which I still remember as one of the worst experiences of my life, there was an ugly mood. Maybe Washington State shouldn't have a caucus system, but it does, and part of the obligation of going is to help the party set its platform for the upcoming elections. To that end, a lot of dedicated people go to a lot of meetings over the years, and discuss, and vote, and pay attention, and craft what they believe is a good platform. We, as caucus-goers who've declared that we are Democrats (all that is required) are supposed to listen carefully to that platform and vote each plank up and down. Well, in 2008 there was an outcry! People had come simply to shout for or vote for Obama and leave. They were happy enough to make their nasty little speeches about Hillary (and, of course, Bill) Clinton, but it was clear that they thought showing up was all that was required!! I couldn't believe it. The people at my caucus absolutely refused, REFUSED, to sit and listen to the proposed platform. Yes, it would have taken up to a half hour of the two-hour window, but as declared Democrats, that's partly why we were there. Why was there so much objection? I don't think a lot of these people had given thought to a Democratic party platform in their entire existence. Props to them for showing up, but rather than educate themselves on how it was supposed to work (and what the next steps were, and who we might nominate for statewide office, etc.), they just wanted to vote for Obama and leave.
I expect far worse in 2016. I have a lot of friends who are long-time Democrats and we are just bracing ourselves for the caucus. It's the Democratic party caucus. I shouldn't have to defend my party, my history of supporting Democatic candidates, my affiliations. By being there, you are stating that you are affiliated. I expect two long, ugly hours of being lectured to by kids in their 20s who think they are the only people who graduated in an economy without jobs (hello? Reagan years?), who were the only ones who ever had student loans, who probably never canvassed a neighborhood in their lives, who probably couldn't name their state legislator, and who don't understand the struggle up to now. And next February or August, when their is some millage issue, or a primary for city council, the voting numbers will dwindle back down to the unprecedented low levels Seattle experienced in 2015, because party affiliation? Not really there so much.
It's not a new era. We've been inching our way into this since the apathy during the 2000 recount - especially in its aftermath, when people became resigned, not enabled. Not a red country. Not a blue country. I would say, not a purple country either, because no one seems interested in finding any shared values anymore.
Yavin4
(36,929 posts)And if you're out of the economy, you're out of politics as well. As a Hillary supporter, I totally understand and appreciate the fervor for Bernie. He speaks directly to those who feel shut out. The problem that I have with his campaign is that it lacks details, specifics, and a coherent long term strategy to really bring people back into the economy.
Ultimately, Bernie will fail, even if he's elected president which will lead to more disenchantment with the system and push for an even further left of center candidate.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)First, the party is full of members at the top level who are boring. They have been eating too much from the hands that feed them and they don't get that so many more are starving. So when you feed them crumbs, yeah, they have a problem.
Then to this 'fail' bullshit. The only way he fails is that the party does like it did Gore and desert him. So, as far as I can tell, from the posts above, it's an admission that the party will desert Bernie.
Heh, we'll see if the new members can kick out all the old elites who are over fed face-stuffed dullards who have walked us up to this cliff. If we don't, then the country fails. If we continue on, the whole country fails. With the likes of which I have been reading on DU, it don't look good.
Thanks all you staunch nose-in-the-air Democrats, now please, just fade away. It's a new day and a new party!
Yavin4
(36,929 posts)He has to work with the same system that Obama has to.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Another fine example of the current establishment which says that without us, you will fail. Well, we saw them fail Gore and our democracy, so that is truthful.
But that was then, this is now. The party elites better start following the people. And the people say this system is on its last legs and our revolution is going to change the damn system.
Yavin4
(36,929 posts)healthcare issues. Are women going to be able to use the Single Payer system to buy contraceptives or get abortions? That issue alone will kill Single Payer given the current makeup of our country.