Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-05-27 at 11.05.06 AM


  • ***


« Pelosi and D.O.A. single-payer | Main | The GOP debate: an untrumpeted evening »

January 28, 2016


Anne J

I kind of see Bernie Sanders as the Ron Paul of the left. An unrealistic candidate backed by young people with unrealistic expectations.


A couple of my old grad school professors are feelin' the Bern, but they were always rather starry-eyed leftists. I'm a leftist myself, just not quite so starry-eyed. So I'm with Hillary, if for no other reasons than that 1) we need a down-and-dirty knife fighter in the White House, and 2) she'll drive the GOP even crazier than Barack Hussein Obama.

Liam Caulfield

I'm right where I always was. I'll support Bernie, as I have for 10 years or so, through the primaries. This sudden shift from "Member of The House since 1991, Elected to the Senate in 2007, former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs" to "Starry Eyed liberal who doesn't understand how Washington works" has me baffled. His resume reads better than Hillary's, yet now he's painted as the radical outsider.

The main point is: if and when Mr. Sanders does not get the nomination, I will support Hillary all the way. I hope that a vast majority of Bernie supporters feel the same way.


I think you're right on that score, Liam. The counter-argument is being made, in part, I suspect, to amp up the horse-race and sell more soap.


In fairness, Bernie paints himself as the outsider, with pride.

I think the "doesn't understand how Washington works" line is an overgeneralization - as you state, he's been there too long to "not understand" it. It's more accurate to say that he has not clearly spelled out how he proposes to get his agenda passed in present-day Washington. He can and should argue for the urgency of the "revolution" he wants to lead, but he should be able to discuss what his presidency might look like if his revolution does not sweep Paul Ryan out of the Speaker's chair or deliver 60 D votes in the Senate- because even if he is the nominee and wins big, it's hard to see the House flipping unless Tailgunner Ted is the GOP nominee or we finally discover what Trump has to do to self-destruct.

To be clear - Hillary is offering a lot of proposals that have little to no chance to pass the GOP-led House as well, and she should field the same questions Bernie does about that (and hasn't, so far). But her rhetoric is more realistic about the obstacles she'll face, and she's talking more about preserving Obama's gains than she is about ushering in transformational change, which is realistically what the next Democratic president will spend a lot of time being forced to do since we know the braindead Teabagger dolt caucus won't stop assaulting Obama's wins until they're pushing up daisies.

priscianus jr

" ... has me baffled. "

It shouldn't. It's called "negative spin," and it's no accident.

priscianus jr

I see no reason why it would end in South Carolina, as long as Bernie wins a least one of IA and NH. Nobody expects him to win SC; but even in a loss, if he should give Hillary a good run for her money it would still energize his campaign.

Peter G

I don't believe that either. I think Bernie understands perfectly how Washington works. He just doesn't like how Washington works. Who does? I have fundamental concerns about many of his policies but the policies where I think he is wrong have little chance of becoming law regardless of who becomes president. I find it hard to be too unkind to Senator Sanders. He really is a genuinely nice human being.

Tom Benjamin

I agree. As long as Bernie has money, he'll run. Just like every other Presidential candidate. Fundraising is going to become a lot tougher for him after Super Tuesday unless he wins enough states to keep within hailing distance on the delegate count. Nobody (except the odd Republican billionaire) gives money to a campaign that is clearly going to lose.

The comments to this entry are closed.