Author David Goodner writes:
"My analysis five years ago accurately predicted the impact a populist primary campaign from the left would have on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment. I was also right about the jump start such a campaign would give to social movement organizing and the progressive agenda after the election was over.
But Bernie wasn’t yet a proven star all the way back in November of 2014, and I incorrectly called Warren “far more charismatic and popular” when I argued she should lead the hypothetical populist dream team ticket.
After Sanders announced his candidacy six months later, in April 2015, the democratic socialist from Vermont quickly proved me wrong. I reported on his campaign in places like Madison, Wisconsin, Iowa City and Des Moines, Iowa and watched from the front row as his insurgent campaign caught fire while Warren sat on the sidelines, seemingly unwilling to cross paths with the Clinton machine."
There is no one democratic candidate presently who could present a serious challenge to President Trump.
I think Bernie would slaughter him.
@WilliamCharles Bernie's ideas are so unrealistic that even an average voter understands the impossibility of their implementation.
I'm forever grateful to Sanders for pulling the discussion left but I do not think he should be president. He's to much of an anger making emotional person and tends to say what people want to hear. Much like the current POTUS (only with values and a brain)
Much more interested in Warren Buttigieg myself.
I'd obviously vote for any combination of any of them in November.
Populist candidates are slowly but surely destroying America, by doing exactly the opposite of what needs done to fix the problems and challenges we face.
The desire for a strong centralist party or candidate has never been higher, but that's not going to happen if we keep seeing candidates who lean either far right or far left.
What we need is a technocrat, not a populist who is going to do what the country needs, not what people want.
Well said, I agree completely
I doubt this partnership will happen as Warren let Bernie down last time, when her endorsement would have really counted for something and helped Bernie get the support of women, who instead supported Hillary over him, gender over policy and character. So I doubt Bernie trusts her enough to pick her as a running mate. I know I wouldn't, if a so-called progressive put gender and her own political ambitions over policy four years ago. Also, I think that Warren's own future political ambitions and vulnerability to caving to big money and corporate power would prevent her from wanting to offend them by teaming with Bernie. She has said that she is open to accepting corporate money in a general election if she gets the nomination, unlike Bernie.
If they can avoid serious rifts, keep to polite differences over policy, and make it genuine, then they can be a formidable team or partnership. But it has to be genuine. People and media will smell it if phoney.
And Bernie on top. He led the way. He made it possible for her to be.
I think that's a pretty insightful assessment.
Somewhat unrelated question, but do any of you have your category selected change? I post it under "Politics" and then later see it under "General and Hellos."
That's interesting. I'll keep an eye out. I did comment on a rather political post last night and wonder why they put it in "general and hellos"
She's not my first pick, though others have made a credible case for her. I would be thrilled with Tulsi, but others have also expressed their concern about the baggage she purportedly has.
Nina Turner would be awesome as she is bright, fearless, and quite the motivator. I think she would draw in many disaffected voters who would also be energized with her on the ticket. Would a substantial number of voters be reluctant to vote for a black woman? I hope not, but I really don't know.