The rollout of Bernie Sanders’ single payer bill marked the closest he’s gotten to being the official leader of the Democratic Party. The ascent of Sanders has been growing for a while, as he’s risen in prominence and quietly prepared for another White House run. Now he’s close to arriving. Bernie fans will cheer this development, but everyone else should worry.
I know this post will anger some readers, so let me say that I do not hate Bernie Sanders. Actually, I agree with him about many issues. But he’s not suited to the role of party leader. A party leader must be obsessively concerned with strengthening Dems’ political position. And that’s just not Bernie’s mission. He is a man with a Cause. There’s room for such people in politics, but as we saw with Randy Voller, they doesn’t make great party leaders.
While leading it, Bernie would change the Democratic Party. This would be bad in key ways. The Democrat’s top strength has been their ability to govern based on data. At a time when rigor is needed more than ever, Bernie would move the party away from this approach. Both his campaign—and his healthcare rollout—have shown Sanders has little patience for data when it complicates his projects. A Bernie-ized party would thus be more likely to make policy mistakes.
Again, not to criticize him too harshly, but the very presence of Bernie impedes party unification, perhaps fatally. Many Democrats deeply resent him. As long as he’s the face of Democratic politics, partisans will keep fighting over Hillary and him. The party, the nation and the world need a Democratic Party that stands united against Trump. Unfortunately, that cannot be achieved under Bernie.
I know millions of Democrats remain deeply loyal to Sanders. But if they care more about the health of the Party—and the fight against Trump—they’ll accept that Democrats need a different leader.
Alexander Jones is an original contributor to PoliticsNC.
Helpful to remember that the nominee in 2016 received 4,000,000 more votes than Sanders; that she received the second highest vote in a presidential primary of any candidate for either party in the history of the United States. Who received the highest vote of any candidate of either party in the history of the United States? She did – in 2008. I would think the national popular vote in presidential primaries is worth something. While there is no way we can prove it, I am confident that to believe that Bernie Sanders would have won by 12% after an election in which his fumbling responses on many issues, his one-time support of Castro, his arguing for a foreign policy for local communities like Burlington. Vt. his allegiance to the Democratic Party declared hours before he had to register for a primary, his commitment – sincere and thoughtful – to socialism, the legal troubles of his wife – which would have been shared with all the impact of an e-mail scandal – to believe that all of that would have resulted in a 12% point victory is to venture towards the delusional.
Paint the man black why don’t you… That’s all typical water-cooler political fanfare for a less-polished office seeker. No one ever said Bernie grew up wanting to be president, or that he would have made any different choices along the way to smooth his way into office. Just the opposite, and that may be a part of his appeal – the authenticity (vs. her lack of scruples). Moreover, the popular vote doesn’t mean squat. Almost all of those extra votes came from California which make the popular vote more of a curiosity than a mandate. How many times can you win a state? After the first time it doesn’t really matter and the extra votes signify nothing nationally other than one might be the class favorite of a more populous state. It would be easier to consider Clinton’s candidacy legitimate in the primaries if the DNC had not been bat-shit corrupt – paying off super-delegates, undermining the other candidates, and co-opting the Black Congressional caucus early. But who knows, maybe she’ll run again and prove me wrong?
Clinton “detractors” in the Trump campaign – aided frequently by opponents on the left – have tried to minimize her victories by three statements which are simply false and easily identified as such by just looking at the facts. The statements are:
1. Her victories in the primaries were won by unfair DNC control. Well, the DNC controls the election machinery in no state. Indeed, in most the control is in the hands of Republicans.
2.Some out of proportion of her vote in the primary came from California which apparently is not a good state in the minds of those who cite this. Well California has 12% of the vote cast in the 2016 primary. She got 15% of her votes there.
3. Her national popular vote was some how less impressive because so much of it had come from this rogue state – California. Well California has 12% of the US population; and 13% of Clinton’s vote came from California.
Tom – I live in CA and am proud to do so. Having been here for 26 years and active in the Democratic party here I know a couple of things about it. In fact, I voted for Hillary in the general along with millions of other CA residents.
1. An extra percent in the most populous state in the Union means something – in fact it’s an added 1,82 million votes out of the purported 3 million more popular votes than Trump in the 2016 general. So I’m not quite correct but I’m better than half wrong on this point.
2. Bernie didn’t campaign in the California primary in any substantial way because it’s very expensive and it was clear by then that the fix was on (DNC shenanigans, Black Caucus, etc.). This is not my opinion, Martin O’Malley identified the DNC collusion with the Clinton campaign before the primaries even started.
3. No one said the DNC controlled the state parties but really all they do is arrange the primaries. The general was conducted largely by DNC actors and funds (including the PACs).
We’re not rogue over here, in fact we are more parochial in Democratic politics than you could ever imagine.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-there-are-now-more-registered-voters-in-1475694802-htmlstory.html
The statistics used in this debate are misleading and irrelevant.
Behind the scenes, the DNC introduced a religious test into the primary debate (see the released hacked emails, and review the Anderson Cooper moderated, CNN debate). Further, the DNC clearly took sides in the primary, and used various other ways to influence primary voters and caucuses. AND – The existing “super-delegate” system was exploited through compliant news media (the nomination was supposed to be a “coronation”). Together, these three undoubtedly had a significant effect in biasing the outcome of the Democratic primaries and caucuses. BUT – Even if all of this had no effect on the outcome of the primary election, the Democratic Party violated basic principles of democracy, and fairness.
Having said all of that, Hillary did win the primary election (unlike the general election, there is no question about this). Her loss in the general election was the result of a criminal conspiracy by Republicans, along with Russian interventions and our outdated and undemocratic electoral system! However, she was a seriously flawed candidate in my judgement. I don’t know how Bernie would have fared in the general elections, but believe he had more committed support (my opinion), and his positions were far more consistent with my beliefs (and those of many others who feel they are being shut out of the Democratic Party). I personally think this discussion has exhausted any relevance, if it ever had any.
But she and her minions cheated to get those votes
You are confusing the popular vote in the general election with the popular vote in the primaries.
Not certain what color you are painting people in California.
Bernie Sanders is by far the most popular politician in America today. He has tapped into majority public sentiment on economic and social issues as no other politician since FDR- by speaking to basically the same issues that resulted in FDR being elected 4 consecutive times.
The Democratic Party establishment has strayed dramatically from its historic role as the party of the working and middle class people of America, the Party of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, especially since the Bill Clinton Administration. So, in that sense, the writer is correct. Bernie Sanders is not a good fit for the corporate Oligarchs that have hijacked the Democratic Party in recent decades. These “practical” and politically “wise and astute” so-called “incrementalists” have managed to lose the Presidency to the least popular candidate ever to run for the office. They’ve lost the US House and Senate. They’ve lost a majority of state legislatures throughout the country and a majority of governors. It’s a wonder they still believe they have the ground under their feet to deliver advice about what is politically “wise.”
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, time and again wins in his own state with 70+ percent of the vote, winning a massive majority of Democrats and Independents, and even 20+ percent of Republicans. In 2016, he started with no name recognition, no money, no corporate backing, about 60+ percent behind Hillary Clinton in the polls, and then came very close to upsetting her while fighting against the entire corporate Democratic establishment and corporate news media who proved to be colluding against him, breaking all rules of neutrality and objectivity. Despite all the odds against him he won 23 states during the Primary season, while polls consistently showed him to be by far the strongest candidate in the General Election up until Election Day itself when he would have won by 12%, one of the biggest landslides in Presidential Election history.
So, yes, in a sense the author is right. Bernie Sanders is not exactly a good match to lead the Democratic Party. Unless they want to win.
This has to be one of the more clueless pieces I’ve read recently, given the debacle Democrats suffered last November.
Indeed!
A lot of people complain about the Democratic party because they are the little guy anymore or whatever. But what have you done to help make changes. Have you ever gone to a party meeting, or volunteered to assist the party. If you want the party to change then you need to part of it instead bitching on social media. Change does not happen on its own.
I find Alex Jones’post boring and repugnant. It reminds me why I have for most of my life felt that we don’t have a 2 party system at all just 2 right wings with a few eccentric individuals thrown in. A.D.Read labels Bernie a socialist which self-admittedly he is. Well what about all those DINOs like Chuck and Nancy, Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitcamp, all those who prosper from big defense contracts plus Wall Street worshipers that are Are they really Democrats? I am not sure what Jones means by data when he talks about it being a sign or emblem of when the Dems are at their top strength, What was wrong about the data that showed more than once that Bernie would have more likely defeated Trump than Hilary? Or that many Americans feel that the time has come to grow up and get a single payer type health care like the rest of those countries that rank higher in effectiveness of care delivery? Nancy P still hasn’t come around to that one despite the growing number of reps and Senators that have joined Bernie’s “cause”.
I personally have floated in the left wing of this country’s electorate having voted Democrat for 37 years (never missing an election or referendum during that time). except for 3 occasions; 1996 when I realized that Bill Clinton was heading to be the best Republican President of all time, 2000 when I realized Al Gore might surpass him in that ( yes I can hear the growls from the diehard duopoly Dems: but remember GW didn’t win that election, Al Gore gave it up ) and this past farce when I couldn’t force myself to vote for “Mrs. Wha happened” cause, come on…. you thought she was going to win too and like Al did she won the popular vote. And in those 37 years I NEVER voted for a Republican even if I thought the candidate was a “better” choice because I knew that voting for that party in any shape or form just furthers their cause of suicide capitalism greed and oppression. I see that as at least a strong token loyalty to the Democratic Party.
As to the central theme of Jones’ piece, when since maybe Lyndon Johnson has the Democratic Party had a real leader? Jimmy Carter?
Walter Mondale? Mike Dukakis? Clinton was a leader of sorts but not exactly sure what party he was in again? Chuck and Nancy?Maybe they could have made it a s a punk band duo but progressive leadership, forget it!
So into the fray steps Bernie a guy as an Indy rep and Senator that always caucused with the Dems. He understood that politics as usual isn’t making it anymore with the general population and has some pretty good ideas that will help our country avoid capitalistic self-destruction and decides to challenge the rightward drifting mainstream. And what do you know? He brings tons of young people (and old timers like me!) back in (or first time in) to the Democratic fold because surely everybody realizes that the old stlye politicos are dead or dying, (wow look !! Trump just pulled ahead of everybody on the other side!!). Surely someone in the Democratic establishment will see this is the election of the outsiders and Bernie could beat Trump attracting both those independents that he did and those that couldn’t possibly vote for the Chumpster. But instead Bernie is sabotaged by self-serving party functionaries. This is the saddest and possibly most damning misdeed the party pulled off, exposing the lack of political saavy which has brought us to today’s sad state. Its funny but Dems since the 60’s have almost always gone with relative outsiders except for maybe Mondale and have frequently succeeded. This time however they decided to go with the heir apparent first woman ever, never mind that she was utterly despised by anyone to the right of her and not exactly beloved by many to the left of her and was a boring and out-dated “establishment figure”.
My hope is with the youngsters of progressive ilk. They don’t have Cold War viruses, intolerance disorders, or unfettered free marketitis as ingrained in them as our generation (my age 68). They see Bernie as a leader and for now that is about all we got. Because of them and general common sense, I have rejoined the Democratic Party and hope to guide its power away from all the DINOs, Half -Republicans and others that are leading the country and the world toward unsustainable disaster. I have joined the Progressive Caucus of the NC Democratic Party, sadly as a charter member in our county. (why just now is it being formed?) and encourage you to do the same!
Excellent observations, reminds me of Susan Sontag’s exact same sentiments….. https://www.c-span.org/video/?172991-1/depth-susan-sontag
I agree on your conclusion that Bernie isn’t the leader the part you needs now. He has captured the imagination of a lot of folks, especially young folks, many if whom are just getting involved in politics for the first time. Both his ages, and, I regret to say, his temperament are strikes against him. It is time to really open the Democratic search for talent and begin cultivating tomorrow’s leaders. It sounds corny, I know, but that is how a substantive political movement sustains itself over time. Otherwise, it either dies of vacuity , or becomes the retirement home for uninspired functionaries moving up for no reason other than a paycheck.
The observation that younger voters are abandoning the Democratic Party and registering as independents is borne out by the facts. The problem is, “independent’ isn’t a party, and our government is designed in a multitude of ways, big and small, to be run by members of parties. And not just any parties, only the two largest. Third parties either disappear after one or two election cycles, of they become one of the two major parties, displacing one that had become moribund or simply unresponsive to any substantial body of voters.
There is a path to renewed national vitality for progressives, and it is not building personality cults each time an especially talented or charismatic left-leaning politician breaks into the scene. The solution is to run as democrats while building the progressive wing of the party from within. Don’t abandon the party, abscond with it! Don’t take the freshest, brightest left wing talent out in search of a new way. Within two cycles, the Democratic party could remake itself from the centrist -left party it has become into the left-prigressive party the many of us long for. Taking over an existing but worn out party.has many advantages over building one from scratch, not the least of which is the party apparatus, the donor lists, and more.
I’m a 56 year old lifetime democrat. Come steal my party!
Don’t worry – we plan to steal it!!!
What does that have to do with the topic at hand?
Agreed. Proves the corruption of the DNC during the last election cycle.
I love Bernie Sanders, always have. I hoped and prayed that he would beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries last year. But you are right, he probably isn’t the one to lead the Democratic party the next time around. He is getting a little old, and he is a little hard to work with sometimes, as he is so single-minded. He is inspiring as hell, though, and that is a wonderful thing. And there sure doesn’t seem to be anyone qualified and inspiring enough to lead the Democratic party anywhere else these days. Not that the Democratic party is worth leading, anyway. One of the many reasons why I and many, many of my fellow Democrats are turning in our party registration cards and registering as Independents. The Democrats have long since stopped caring about us. They care about donors, corporate kings and the rest of the oligarchy. The poor and lower-middle class have ceased to exist to most of the Democratic representatives of our government. Look at the legislation that has come out of congress over the last 50 years, when either party was in control, and tell me how much of it was of any benefit to the less well-off in our society. I’ll wait. You won’t find much. We don’t have any champions anymore. Just Bernie, Elizabeth, and a handful of others tilting at windmills and generally losing.
Say what you will about Bernie, Alex, but at least he has a cause. What do you have?
And just to settle the little side argument going on here, Bernie changed back to Independent as soon as the primaries were over.
I’m afraid you confuse cause with effect Alex. If the Party doesn’t need Sanders then why do you suspect he doesn’t need the party? Frankly all of his policies and programs are based upon data – not party loyalty. This may be anathema to the Party but it does excite voters, who also happen to be tax-payers. It is the Party that stands in its own way of progress, not Sanders who identifies more strongly with the aspirations of voters than their identities. Identity politics do not work – and the Party is guilty of having been successfully baited to use them by the GOP. You can recommend we continue down this path of misery but I would like to win elections and move the country forward – not circle the wagons around a lost cause.
Data driven leaders? Sounds like more jobs for politicos! What good has all this data-driven party leadership done in the last 4 election cycles? We’ve lost the majorities we’ve had in 2008 and we are now a minority party – which people are leaving in droves!
Bernie Sanders is more of an old-school FDR/New Deal Democrat than any of the data-driven/DLC/neoliberal/establishment conservaDems we’ve got around now – who sold out our birthright and majorities.
If we are serious about wanting to take back our majority and re-build the party, we ought to be looking to Bernie Sanders. After all, he gave Hillary a good run for her BILLION DOLLARS after she had the 2016 nomination locked up since June 2008 when she endorsed Obama in order to get Sec State, help retiring her campaign debt, and got a helpful DNC Chair going into 2016.
The Democratic National Committee is not wholeheartedly taking a look at itself in the mirror. It is hanging on to a gameplan that has seen public approval of congress dip into the low teens. The voters don’t mean as much as the party. America doesn’t mean as much as the party. And if you don’t agree with us you are wrong. As a member (now resigned due to moving to a new county) of the NCDP SEC am proud to have voted for progressive Ray McKinnon as our delegate to the DNC in an attempt to reform an organization with serious ethical problems. North Carolina’s DNC delegation is now completely composed of progressives. This nicely complements the progressive platform we voted for in 2016. I am also proud to have stood and turned my back to the one candidate for the DNC that treated our support as an entitlement and advocated unity by acquiescense by the progressives who supported Bernie Sanders. I believe Roberta Lange was guilty of the crime of fraud in Nevada, and the party leadership apparatus that has not disavowed her actions.is dangerously out of touch. The fact that North Carolina’s party was a start contrast to Nevada’s in terms of openness and fairness is what has kept me active in the party and given me realistic hope of meaningful positive change. The fact that leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy have not endorsed Medicare for All represents the interests of donors outweighing the will of the people. No sale Mr. Jones. You don’t excite people. Bernie does. We are tired of hearing about how a better world just cant be done. We are doing something about it.
I personally voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election. I wore black that day. Please be a part of delivering a better product to the USA.
You’re right, I do not excite people.
God forbid. Bernie is not a Democrat. Nor is he a democrat. He is an “independent democratic Socialist” who has no loyalty to anyone or anything other than himself and his own ideas. Yes, some of his ideas are good; but he will not get many people to support him OR them unless he demonstrates — which he has never done in more than 35 years of public life and elected office — that he will support those other people when they need it, too.
He is an ego-driven, arrogant, crabby, shallow man who believes that simple slogans translate into great policy without all the hard work that goes into developing policies and programs that actually work in the real world.
Yes, Medicare for All is a good idea, one I’ve supported for years. So is “single payer,” which Hillary Clinton proposed back in 1993 (and did all the groundwork and analysis to make it realistic). For any plan, you need numerical and financial and factual data to show its effects, both good and bad, on the wide range of people they would impact, from families with employee-provided insurance to veterans (both the ones happy with the VA and those who want it gutted in favor of private providers); to people on Medicaid, to those using plans through the ACA, to the self-employed, to small businesses that provide some coverage to a few employees, etc. It also has to analyze what happens to healthcare providers, big and small: hospitals, clinics, nonprofit community health services, private doctor practices, visiting nurse services, nursing homes, etc.
What would the tax rates be to pay for it? What entity would manage it? Would all medical care providers be employed by the National Health, as in Britain? Would private physicians have a say on what they charge for procedures? Would people “buy in” to Medicare at younger ages, or would everyone be covered by tax revenues? What happens to those already on Medicare who did prepay through FICA throughout their lives? Do they now get some money back?
Slogans are great for selling a product. The problem with Bernie’s products is that there’s a slogan but no in-depth policy.
And if the cranky old crab wants to “lead” the Democratic party, let him join it!!!!
That’s also an accurate and adept critique of Donald Trump (if you leave out the Democrat parts) A.D.; look what happened.
You do realize that he joined the Democratic Party when he filed as a Democrat to run for President as a Democrat?
Bernie is from one of several states where voters do not register by party affiliation. He cannot therefore “join” the party in his state in any other way BESIDES filing to run as a Democrat for party office. Which he did when he ran for President.
Sorry you have a hard time understanding that not everyone does things the way we do them here in North Carolina.
Frankly, I am one of those tens of millions of people who doesn’t have any health care coverage now because ACA isn’t health care – it’s health insurance mandates. Mandating coverage for me that I cannot use (maternity coverage) while not including coverage I do need (vision and dental care). ACA does mandate coverage for things that were designed to garner support (and campaign donations) from big donors.
The USA is the only industrial democracy which does not have single payer universal health care. We piss away so much of our GDP on health care and insurance that leaves out a large number of people, and our outcomes suck compared with the rest of the world. We are tied with some benighted third-world country. for outcomes.
I’d really love it for the US to cover 100% of our people with health care they can actually use, for 1/3 to 1/2 of what we spend now, with much better outcomes. We can’t go back to what we had before, and ACA isn’t delivering affordable health care – or even affordable health insurance. Why are we subsidizing the health insurance and drug companies?
First of all, Sanders’ own official website ( https://www.sanders.senate.gov/ ) lists him as an independent, not a Democrat. Since Vermont senator Patrick Leahy’s official website ( https://www.leahy.senate.gov/about ) lists him as a Democrat, it may safely be assumed that the reason Sanders’ website lists him as an independent is not because it’s of the way voters register in Vermont.
Second, the United States is not the only industrial democracy that does not have single-payer health care. Germany uses a combination of public and private insurers who are funded by workers and employers (sound familiar?). In the Netherlands every citizen is required by law to purchase healthcare from a private insurer. The same is true for Switzerland.
Yet we piss away tens of billions on health insurance and health care because we don’t have economies of scale. We better hope for Single Payer sooner rather than later
If you think Bernie hasn’t done all that, you haven’t been paying attention. He isn’t up there giving speeches on all those details, because the average american wouldn’t understand. Doe that mean his plan would be perfect? No, probably not. But why don’t you contact his office and ask him about it before you just decide he hasn’t done his homework? Maybe he hasn’t, but I HIGHLY doubt it. I guarantee he’d be happy to talk to you about it if you called his office. If he hasn’t done his research, then shout it to the rooftops.
Point of fact – when I was at Chapel Hill the Democratic Socialists were Democrats, just a sliver of the overall party that wished to focus on extending the benefits of public and semi-public goods without checking skin-color or initiating law suits to claim damages. By definition public goods are already financed and paid for – indivisible (such as defense, security, etc.) and divisible (such as transportation, financial and healthcare services). It’s a red herring to claim that extending the benefits of public goods to more or different people cannot happen because there is no mechanism to finance them. That is the difference between the politics of participation (aspirations) vs. the politics of identity (tribes). There’s nothing scary about the Democratic Socialist wing of the Democratic party that the larger party couldn’t benefit from.
A Medicare-for-all single payer system would not be like the British Healthcare system. Physicians would not be government employees. Medicare is a government managed insurance program, that is clearly more cost-effective than private insurance (if you don’t believe me, look at the data!). Further, a government managed program is the only practical and affordable way of achieving universal coverage (a conclusion supported by the experience of many other countries).
Insurance is a way of distributing risk in time or among a large group of individuals, a “risk pool,” (so that an otherwise unmanageable financial burden doesn’t fall on one individual all at once). If you only buy insurance “when you need it” (i.e. when you have an accident, or an illness, or get old, or have a fire in your house) it would either be unaffordable or unavailable. Since we don’t know when a risk-event will occur, the best deal for all of us individually or collectively is to come together and spread our risk among the largest “pool.” We all must be part of that pool (ergo, the individual mandate?)
If we allow people to buy in when they think their risk is high enough, the rest of us will have to pay more for our insurance. Further, with a separate risk-pool for people with “preexisting conditions,” although the insurance cost for those of us without such a condition might go down a small amount, we would either need to subsidize the care of those with preexisting conditions or allow them to go without healthcare because it would likely be too expensive for them (a much crueler cost for society).
The federal government is the only entity that can efficiently negotiate costs. Further, what if a North Carolinian was vacationing in Florida when he became ill, or a person with a chronic illness moved from North Carolina to Texas. Can you imagine 50 state-managed systems, settling accounts with providers in other states. Or by moving from one state to another, suddenly having a “pre-existing condition.” The patchwork of state-run programs would make moving or travel like changing jobs (as an aside, I don’t believe health insurance should be tied to employment).
Health savings accounts are not the answer. Average lifetime healthcare costs are well over $300,000 for an individual (and costs have been doubling every 8 years). Illnesses and injuries can occur at any time in our life. The average American could never put aside enough money to pay for their care, or the care of a family member in time.
We are required to buy some insurance because the risk-event may affect others. We must have auto liability insurance, but not homeowner’s insurance (unless required by a lender). You may ask, why isn’t healthcare insurance like homeowner’s insurance? The answer depends on how you feel about your fellow human. Our health depends on many factors; genetic, environmental, socioeconomic, diet, lifestyle, profession, and sometimes just plain luck. If you are ready to say, “tough luck buddy, you are on your own” to someone who needs healthcare, but has no insurance and can’t afford the cost of care, I suspect I know your answer to the question “is healthcare a human right?”. On the other hand, if you believe society has a responsibility to provide care to all, we must find a fair way to pay for it.
In fact, we are all paying for it now through cost shifting, through the monetary and social effect of illness on families, and through economic loss because of illness and disability. Another hidden cost in our current system is due to management overhead. Private insurance carries with it an overhead of about 12%, while in government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Military and VA) the overhead is about 2%. If private insurance is replaced by a government operated Medicare-like plan, money saved in reduced overhead costs would be enough to pay the insurance tab for over 13 MILLION people. The unified billing-payment process could save even more money.
The bottom line is that we can’t afford not to have a single-payer, Medicare-like system for all Americans. Our economy will not be able to sustain our present system for much longer. And then there is the human side of this issue. I’ll stop now
Hear, hear!
Nothing but empty words. Who? Who for Christ’s sake will lead the party? No answer. This so-called party has forgotten its roots. It doesn’t listen to anyone but the triangulators. Since Reagan, we’ve become impotent. Hillary, for whom I voted, was my second choice. No vision of the future, no plan to incorporate other ideas and expresse them in a short, concise concrete manner. The new slogan is as stupid as the path we’ve followed for 6 decades. A better deal! What bullshit. If this is the best our so-called intelligent leaders can offer, it’s no wonder the mental midgets voted for Bush and the trumPutin menace.
Interesting. Bernie will not join the Democratic Party, let alone attempt to be its leader.
And yet, because of the horrifically embarrassing lack of leadership from within our Party, people like our author actually see Bernie as “vying for leadership of the Democrats”.
Bernie is our leader by default, because no one else is even trying.
Dems, go for it! Bern’s the one if you want to:
Keep Trump and the Repubs (my party) in power
End social security and medicare benefits but keep the taxes to pay for my tax cuts!
Let me guess, you’re concerned about us and your advice is designed to help us, the other political Party?
Clearly you are terrified of Bernie.