Bernie Sanders Might Be Running, But He’ll Never Be President
Apologies if you’ve heard this one before.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) dials the customer service number for his cell provider. An automated voice on the other end says, “Press one for English and two for Spanish. Para Espanol, oprime el dos.” Sanders replies, “Fine, but first let me tell you about the middle class…”
No other senator of either party is quite as good as Sanders when it comes to pivoting to his agenda, and there’s ultimately nothing wrong with Sanders’s agenda. Middle class, middle class, middle class. He’s a decent senator and remains tremendously popular in his state and among the broader far-left. But don’t count on him winning the Democratic nomination in 2016. He has even less of a chance at winning the presidency in a national election. There’s no real way to objectively quantify the reasons why, but being a self-identified socialist is a big one. He’s just not really presidential material and he’s not mainstream enough to win nationally. Plus, even though he caucuses with the Democrats, he’s spent his entire Senate career as an independent. The party cares about things like that, and tends to reward loyalty — not fair-weather friends who only climb aboard when it’s convenient.
Sanders plans to run anyway but supporters would be well-served to keep their hopes for victory firmly planted in the reality of presidential politics. Candidates like Sanders, or guys like Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich, always say they’re running to win, but it’s never actually true. It’s all about getting the message out. Bernie Sanders will run almost exclusively for those moments during the debates when he’ll be able to pivot the conversation from anything else to middle class, middle class, middle class. He also won’t mind having “presidential candidate” on his list of accomplishments. He is, after all, a politician who will eventually want to collect some decent speaking fees.
But there will surely be… CONTINUE READING
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Bob Cesca
Bob Cesca is the managing editor at The Daily Banter (www.thedailybanter.com) and a Huffington Post contributor since 2005. He's worked in journalism since 1988 as a print writer/editor, a radio news anchor, a digital media columnist/editor, a book author and blogger. He's the co-host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Thursday regular on the syndicated Stephanie Miller Show. He's appeared on numerous other radio shows including the John Phillips Show and Geraldo Rivera Show in Los Angeles. Bob has been a commentator/analyst on the BBC (TV and radio), MSNBC, Current TV, CNN and Sky News. Following him on Twitter: @bobcesca_go
24 responses to Bernie Sanders Might Be Running, But He’ll Never Be President
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Budda September 16th, 2014 at 08:17
If he runs he will bring the dialogue to where it should be and nail the pompous BS.
NW10 September 16th, 2014 at 08:20
As I posted on the Banter, if Bernie wants to run in the Democratic primaries, that should be fine, because he could change the debate. But running as an independent is a no-no because of the winner-take-all system of government that only allows for two viable political parties. Yet unicorn progressives will
continue to deal in this fantasy that if they push candidates like Bernie Sanders enough, the electorate will eventually accept them, which is just stupid. Did these loud progressives forget how Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan in 1980 because Ted Kennedy primaried Carter, and Kennedy couldn’t even articulate why he wanted to be President? It’s these loud progressives who are the worst enemies to Democrats, because they ultimately suppress more votes for Democrats than Republicans could even dream of: by being negative against Democrats and convincing less folks to show up to the polls.
Suzanne McFly September 16th, 2014 at 11:17
I agree, Bernie will bring valuable insights into the conversation, I hope he would never even consider running as an independent, only a complete egotist would consider that, and even though Bernie is not on my email list, I feel I know enough about him to say that he is not a self centered moron.
Budda September 16th, 2014 at 08:17
If he runs he will bring the dialogue to where it should be and nail the pompous BS.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) September 16th, 2014 at 08:20
As I posted on the Banter, if Bernie wants to run in the Democratic primaries, that should be fine, because he could change the debate. But running as an independent is a no-no because of the winner-take-all system of government that only allows for two viable political parties. Yet unicorn progressives will
continue to deal in this fantasy that if they push candidates like Bernie Sanders enough, the electorate will eventually accept them, which is just stupid. Did these loud progressives forget how Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan in 1980 because Ted Kennedy primaried Carter, and Kennedy couldn’t even articulate why he wanted to be President? It’s these loud progressives who are the worst enemies to Democrats, because they ultimately suppress more votes for Democrats than Republicans could even dream of: by being negative against Democrats and convincing less folks to show up to the polls.
Suzanne McFly September 16th, 2014 at 11:17
I agree, Bernie will bring valuable insights into the conversation, I hope he would never even consider running as an independent, only a complete egotist would consider that, and even though Bernie is not on my email list, I feel I know enough about him to say that he is not a self centered moron.
Cosmic_Surfer September 16th, 2014 at 08:45
Bob Cesca, as usual, lives in a very creative imagination. Sanders has never said he is “running to win.” In fact, if Cesca was the least bit learned on the matter he would have paid attention to Sanders interviews and statements from the last 2 years.
As far as the “Nader effect”…Bring it on. We haven’t had anything but neo-cons and baby neo-cons in the WH since Reagan. Personally, I’m sick of the stupidity of lying war-mongers filled with blood-lust and greed who refuse to learn from history and the idiots who vote for them because they refuse to even learn history
Carla Akins September 16th, 2014 at 08:46
Come on, Cosmic – you it’s not good for your blood pressure to suppress your real feelings. :-)
NW10 September 16th, 2014 at 10:54
Sanders has never said he is “running to win.”
The game of politics is to win. What good is it when you vote for candidates that can’t possibly win? Because they say things you agree with and will never have to utilize the system to make those things happen?
That would be just like me running for office saying I’d give every American a million dollars. I know I’m not going to win, and I’ll never have to deliver on that promise, so what would you call people that still vote for me regardless? It starts with “g”.
As far as the “Nader effect”…Bring it on.
You mean another third party idiot that will spew 90% negative rhetoric about whatever Democrat is nominated for President in 2016, and ignores the Republican nominee, causing enough people to switch their votes and elect the Republican? You’re one to talk about refusing to learn from history.
Suzanne McFly September 16th, 2014 at 11:12
I agree with your point about having republican light choices since Reagan, I wish Democrats would fully embrace the liberal ideology and run on that platform, if we educate the population about what our stances actually are, I believe our base will increase.
BillTheCat45 September 16th, 2014 at 11:13
Nader effect? Yeh, no, NO THANKS, I’ve seen that movie, and George Bush was horrible in it. 8 years of my life I’ll never get back (nor will the world and all it’s dead from illegal war), so yeh NO THANKS.
arc99 September 16th, 2014 at 11:34
a President who nominates a Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is vastly different than a President who nominates a Sam Alito to the Supreme Court.
the real idiots are those who cannot grasp that simple concept.
Cosmic_Surfer September 16th, 2014 at 08:45
Bob Cesca, as usual, lives in a very creative imagination. Sanders has never said he is “running to win.” In fact, if Cesca was the least bit learned on the matter he would have paid attention to Sanders interviews and statements from the last 2 years.
As far as the “Nader effect”…Bring it on. We haven’t had anything but neo-cons and baby neo-cons in the WH since Reagan. Personally, I’m sick of the stupidity of lying war-mongers filled with blood-lust and greed who refuse to learn from history and the idiots who vote for them because they refuse to even learn history
Carla Akins September 16th, 2014 at 08:46
Come on, Cosmic – you it’s not good for your blood pressure to suppress your real feelings. :-)
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) September 16th, 2014 at 10:54
Sanders has never said he is “running to win.”
The game of politics is to win. What good is it when you vote for candidates that can’t possibly win? Because they say things you agree with and will never have to utilize the system to make those things happen?
That would be just like me running for office saying I’d give every American a million dollars. I know I’m not going to win, and I’ll never have to deliver on that promise, so what would you call people that still vote for me regardless? It starts with “g”.
As far as the “Nader effect”…Bring it on.
You mean another third party idiot that will spew 90% negative rhetoric about whatever Democrat is nominated for President in 2016, and ignores the Republican nominee, causing enough people to switch their votes and elect the Republican? You’re one to talk about refusing to learn from history.
Suzanne McFly September 16th, 2014 at 11:12
I agree with your point about having republican light choices since Reagan, I wish Democrats would fully embrace the liberal ideology and run on that platform, if we educate the population about what our stances actually are, I believe our base will increase.
BillTheCat45 September 16th, 2014 at 11:13
Nader effect? Yeh, no, NO THANKS, I’ve seen that movie, and George Bush was horrible in it. 8 years of my life I’ll never get back (nor will the world and all it’s dead from illegal war), so yeh NO THANKS.
arc99 September 16th, 2014 at 11:34
a President who nominates a Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is vastly different than a President who nominates a Sam Alito to the Supreme Court.
the real idiots are those who cannot grasp that simple concept.
uzza September 16th, 2014 at 09:46
This. Because as we all know, the electoral college is elected by popular
vote and accurately reflects the wishes of the American public at all times.
/s
Tammy Minton Haley September 16th, 2014 at 11:41
a 3rd or 4th party challenge “protest” vote is the ultimate in voter immaturity and selfish behavior–it is ridiculous to pretend we DON’T use the electoral college system, and a childish fantasy to long for a self-professed “socialist” to be elected POTUS…
Solid State Max September 16th, 2014 at 23:38
Wrong, Demo-Repuke liar. What’s immature are Bush/Obama partisan idiots such as you playing “BATTERED SPOUSE” for the major parties.
uzza September 16th, 2014 at 09:46
This. Because as we all know, the electoral college is elected by popular
vote and accurately reflects the wishes of the American public at all times.
/s
Tammy Minton Haley September 16th, 2014 at 11:41
a 3rd or 4th party challenge “protest” vote is the ultimate in voter immaturity and selfish behavior–it is ridiculous to pretend we DON’T use the electoral college system, and a childish fantasy to long for a self-professed “socialist” to be elected POTUS…
Solid State Max September 16th, 2014 at 23:38
Wrong, Demo-Repuke liar. What’s immature are Bush/Obama partisan idiots such as you playing “BATTERED SPOUSE” for the major parties.