This Is How Trump Would Destroy Bernie Sanders

[Elixir]

https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/

All of which is why, according to the New York Times, “Trump’s advisors see . . . Sanders as their ideal Democratic opponent in November and have been doing what they can to elevate his profile and bolster his chances of winning the Iowa caucuses.” They seek to build Sanders up now so that, come autumn, they can pivot to accusations that Sanders is a candidate gripped by the desire to plunge America into freedom- throttling socialism—and worse.

A week after the 2016 election, Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek noted that, of strategic necessity, Hillary Clinton had treated Sanders with extreme gentility. Trump would not have been so kind,

I am confused, I thought Trump was afraid of Sanders.

Trump is afraid of everything and everyone. Reality is out to get him and it's really unfair.
But nobody can vilify others like the Donald. He has the best vilifications. He knows more about vilifying than anyone. Watch him vilify whoever wind in Iowa and then whoever wins in New Hampshire. It will be the greatest vilification ever.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump is afraid of everything and everyone. Reality is out to get him and it's really unfair.
But nobody can vilify others like the Donald. He has the best vilifications. He knows more about vilifying than anyone. Watch him vilify whoever wind in Iowa and then whoever wins in New Hampshire. It will be the greatest vilification ever.

So if he was a superhero, would he be The Vilificator or Vilification Man?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Trump is afraid of everything and everyone. Reality is out to get him and it's really unfair.
But nobody can vilify others like the Donald. He has the best vilifications. He knows more about vilifying than anyone. Watch him vilify whoever wind in Iowa and then whoever wins in New Hampshire. It will be the greatest vilification ever.

So if he was a superhero, would he be The Vilificator or Vilification Man?

Little Belittler.
Little-Hands Belittler.
Sargent Shameless.
The Disher (he can dish it out, but...)
The Raging Reviler (1 Corinthians 6:10)
The Great Fright Hope

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ellipsis Man

 

[lpetrich]

I think that the Democrats' big nightmare scenario here is the Presidential race of 1972.

The Democratic Party back then was split into hostile factions: its old guard and the New Left. Organized labor was a big part of its old guard, but it did not get along very well with the New Left. Consider the  Hard Hat Riot of May 8, 1970. Some 200 construction workers were mobilized by the AFL-CIO, and they attacked some 1000 high-school and college students who were protesting the Vietnam War. In 1972, AFL-CIO head George Meany said about the New York delegation to the party convention: "They've got six open fags and only three AFL-CIO representatives!"

Richard Nixon, a Republican, was running for re-election that year. He reached out to labor-union leaders, and he got an electoral-vote landslide against the Democrats' George McGovern, winning all but GMG's home state of Massachusetts.

What might be a counterpart in this year's race?

A split between the corporate and the progressive Democrats?

But there's a difference, I think. In 1972, the Democrats had essentially two bases of activists, the labor unions and the New Left. It now has only one main base of activists, and that's on the progressive side. That base had been mobilized for electing Obama -- and then thrown away. So it won't want to let itself be used by corporate Democrats.

 

[J842P]

I think that the Democrats' big nightmare scenario here is the Presidential race of 1972.

The Democratic Party back then was split into hostile factions: its old guard and the New Left. Organized labor was a big part of its old guard, but it did not get along very well with the New Left. Consider the  Hard Hat Riot of May 8, 1970. Some 200 construction workers were mobilized by the AFL-CIO, and they attacked some 1000 high-school and college students who were protesting the Vietnam War. In 1972, AFL-CIO head George Meany said about the New York delegation to the party convention: "They've got six open fags and only three AFL-CIO representatives!"

Richard Nixon, a Republican, was running for re-election that year. He reached out to labor-union leaders, and he got an electoral-vote landslide against the Democrats' George McGovern, winning all but GMG's home state of Massachusetts.

What might be a counterpart in this year's race?

A split between the corporate and the progressive Democrats?

But there's a difference, I think. In 1972, the Democrats had essentially two bases of activists, the labor unions and the New Left. It now has only one main base of activists, and that's on the progressive side. That base had been mobilized for electing Obama -- and then thrown away. So it won't want to let itself be used by corporate Democrats.

I agree that the comparisons to 1972 are facile.

 

[Gun Nut]

https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/

All of which is why, according to the New York Times, “Trump’s advisors see . . . Sanders as their ideal Democratic opponent in November and have been doing what they can to elevate his profile and bolster his chances of winning the Iowa caucuses.” They seek to build Sanders up now so that, come autumn, they can pivot to accusations that Sanders is a candidate gripped by the desire to plunge America into freedom- throttling socialism—and worse.

A week after the 2016 election, Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek noted that, of strategic necessity, Hillary Clinton had treated Sanders with extreme gentility. Trump would not have been so kind,

I am confused, I thought Trump was afraid of Sanders.

.. just the way he likes you. good boy. Just do whatever he tweets and you will be prosperous beyond your wildest imagination. Disclaimer: It is believed by the GOP that your wildest of wild dreams doesn't exceed being able to afford to go to Olive Garden once per week, and Red Lobster once a month.

 

[Politesse]

This Millennial gets a little tired of the refrain "You weren't here in '72".... it's like arguing that you should never again put forth a candidate who is genuinely likeable, for fear of ressurecting a long-dead Nixon. He's gone, guys. You can chill now. Electoral PTSD is not a basis for rational action.

 

[southernhybrid]

This Millennial gets a little tired of the refrain "You weren't here in '72".... it's like arguing that you should never again put forth a candidate who is genuinely likeable, for fear of ressurecting a long-dead Nixon. He's gone, guys. You can chill now. Electoral PTSD is not a basis for rational action.

It's because you simply don't understand. Living through an experience isn't the same as reading history. The country was much further to the left than it is now. The candidate was much more accomplished than Sanders. He was a person who was able to unite the party, not a person who has divided the party. As we age, we usually learn from our experiences. History often repeats itself, because human nature doesn't change very much. But, I get it. I never liked to listen to what older people told me either when I was much younger.

It amuses me that so many young people think we boomers are the problem, when a good faction of us were almost exactly like the current generation's progressives. Unfortunately, in time, we learned that the country has never been as progressive as we thought. Now, we are more realistic. And, most of us never changed our positions. Just like today, we had a good percentage of peers who were conservative. When I was marching in protest the war, my conservative peers we're having a hissy fit. It's foolish to think that the younger generations are all progressives. There are many young conservatives just like there were back in my day.

It's very difficult to beat an incumbent. If the economy tanks this year, that might be the only way to beat Trump with someone like Sanders or Warren. It might be the only way that anyone can beat Trump. I hope this isn't the case.

Still, unlike many Sanders supporters. I will vote for the nominee. I wish everyone felt that way. We must all unite to try and defeat Trump. That's all that should matter to us.

Paul Krugman had a wonderful editorial today. Maybe I'll post it later. He told everyone to chill and vote for the nominee because regardless of their positions, we are going to end up with the same policies. Nothing will happen, if the Dems don't take back the Seanate. Over half of the House Democrats are moderates, many are further right than Biden for that matter. If Sanders somehow beats Trump, he will not be able to get a single one of his ideals passed. Anyone with a little bit of common sense realizes that. Krugman gives a good argument as to how whether it's Sanders or Biden, the result will be the same.

He also has a link to Sanders saying the exact same thing that Biden once did about SS. So, Sanders pretending that he never mentioned that SS might need to be cut back is a lie. His former position was exactly the same as Biden's was. But, either of them, if elected will protect SS, Medicare and M'caid. But, I digress.

 

[Elixir]

.. just the way he likes you. good boy. Just do whatever he tweets and you will be prosperous beyond your wildest imagination. Disclaimer: It is believed by the GOP that your wildest of wild dreams doesn't exceed being able to afford to go to Olive Garden once per week, and Red Lobster once a month.

That dream is well out of reach for me - WAY too wild!
The nearest Red Lobster is 2 hours away, and 3 hours to the nearest Olive Garden. Of course that could change if someone gave me a helicopter, a pilot and lots of AVgas.

 

[Elixir]

This Millennial gets a little tired of the refrain "You weren't here in '72".... it's like arguing that you should never again put forth a candidate who is genuinely likeable, for fear of ressurecting a long-dead Nixon. He's gone, guys. You can chill now. Electoral PTSD is not a basis for rational action.

You don't understand. That was the first presidential election I was allowed to vote in, and the Dems put up George McFuckingGovern! Not only did I have to vote for him, but have had to live down his humiliating defeat forever since. It was the electoral equivalent of child abuse, and it has still been less than fifty years - far too little for real healing!

 

[Politesse]

You know, voting for Kerry wasn't the most INSPIRING start to my voting career...


Somewhere along the way, Dems have become utterly convinced that "boring policy wonk is what the hicks in the middle of the country want" and will not get off of it.

 

[Elixir]

You know, voting for Kerry wasn't the most INSPIRING start to my voting career...

Somewhere along the way, Dems have become utterly convinced that "boring policy wonk is what the hicks in the middle of the country want" and will not get off of it.

Lulz! Anyhow, props for "electoral PTSD" - that's spot on. I suspect that the way Republicans are making hash of their image, this could be a unique chance to elect an actual progressive if one can get nominated. If anyone takes over from Trump in 2021 they'll have a massive cleanup on aisle one to deal with before they can even start enacting an agenda...

 

[lpetrich]

Somewhere along the way, Dems have become utterly convinced that "boring policy wonk is what the hicks in the middle of the country want" and will not get off of it.

Also, cowardly centrists who crave big money and who have dinners with big-money donors in fancy places like wine caves.

 

[Politesse]

Somewhere along the way, Dems have become utterly convinced that "boring policy wonk is what the hicks in the middle of the country want" and will not get off of it.

Also, cowardly centrists who crave big money and who have dinners with big-money donors in fancy places like wine caves.

I think politicians insist on that sort of thing because they don't understand anything else; they were, for the most part, raised with money. And if not raised with it, it's a lifestyle that really sucks you in once you've gotten your first invite. Easy to forget how other people live or what they consider normal.

 

[Elixir]

Somewhere along the way, Dems have become utterly convinced that "boring policy wonk is what the hicks in the middle of the country want" and will not get off of it.

Also, cowardly centrists who crave big money and who have dinners with big-money donors in fancy places like wine caves.

I think politicians insist on that sort of thing because they don't understand anything else; they were, for the most part, raised with money. And if not raised with it, it's a lifestyle that really sucks you in once you've gotten your first invite. Easy to forget how other people live or what they consider normal.

Yes, it's a heady feeling. It quickly gets to the point where the solitude that once provided clarity and perspective, is suddenly full of painful reminders of neglected ideals and emotional isolation, and is therefore shunned in favor of more money, more attention... it is truly a fatal attraction.