Three reasons to be glad Sanders is in the race
By Richard Barry
The first thing that should be said about the Clinton-Sanders match-up is that it is a good thing that Clinton is being seriously challenged. It generates interest in the campaign and encourages discussions amongst voters that otherwise would not have happened.
The first thing that should be said about the Clinton-Sanders match-up is that it is a good thing that Clinton is being seriously challenged. It generates interest in the campaign and encourages discussions amongst voters that otherwise would not have happened.
The second thing is that having a candidate like Sanders raise so passionately the issue of income inequality in a presidential campaign is a really good thing. Hillary is now being forced to take this era defining issue more seriously than she is probably inclined.
The third thing is that if, against all odd and well beyind my own expectations, Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, that's a great thing because it means America is that much closer to embracing a truly progressive agenda. And I say that understanding Sanders' chances of winning the general election are virtually nil.
I know this frightens people but I think it's best to consider the long game in politics. This means that having people vote for what they believe in is always better than having them vote for what is expedient.
Expediency rarely changes the world.
Having said that, Hillary Clinton is going to win the nomination.
posted by Richard K. Barry at
3:31 PM
3 Comments:
In my case and in the case of so many people I know, Sanders is the only candidate who truly reflects our views. I agree. It's great that he's in the race.
By
Karlo, at 5:34 PM
I agree. As I have argued much elsewhere, the conservative movement has been most successful not in winning elections but pulling the entire debate to the right. That's why I am such a big critic of the New Democrats: politics is not about winning elections. (Anyway: any Democrat would have won in 1992 -- Clinton didn't win because he was conservative.)
But I think Sanders has been continually underestimated regarding his political skills. I think if he manages to win the nomination, he will have as good a chance in the general as any Democrat. Wouldn't that be great: a Democrat who the Republicans could reasonably call a socialist. It's always annoyed me that centrist, free market fanatics like Clinton and Obama could be called socialists. But that just shows how stupid it is to "moderate." The Democrats have never gotten a thing for that.
Still, I agree with you: Clinton will almost certainly win the nomination.
By
Unknown, at 5:40 PM
My guess is that Bush, in spite of his currently low numbers, will go on to win the Republican election. (Money talks--or is it, "shouts"--after all). It looks like we'll end up with two status quo candidates that will, for the most part, be indistinguishable in terms of policies.
By
Karlo, at 6:12 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home