Posted on 01/18/2017 2:40:21 AM PST by Fedora
Regardless of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi's titles—and to the comical dismay of corporate, establishment Democrats—Bernie Sanders has become the defacto leader of the Democratic Party.
Sunday in Warren, Michigan put an exclamation point on the sentence, as Sanders, alongside Schumer, brought out 8,000 people on a bitterly cold winter day to fight against Obamacare repeal.
Even the establishment media is waking up—granted a year too late.
"That's the future of the Democratic Party," Joe Scarborough, echoing Mika Brzezinski's sentiment, said on Morning Joe Monday. "He sounds just as relevant today as he did a year ago."
So, as the mainstream media opportunistically tries to Feel The Bern after ignoring Sanders when it mattered (both CNN and MSNBC recently held primetime town halls with him), you know who's become less relevant?
Senator Elizabeth Warren. . .
SNIP
But if Sanders decides against running in four years, Warren—in a political climate with a jarring scarcity of true progressive leaders—could have a chance to climb back up the progressive ranks and possibly serve as the movement's best chance to finally take the White House. . .
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
I think hillary will have been the last white democrat presidential nominee. Democrats look like they have decided their path is to try to balance competing narrow special interests instead of looking out for the general welfare of the country. All things to some people.
Sanders has no electoral future in the Democrat party. So his actual influence is limited. If Warren, or anybody else future candidate, can play off Sanders’ ideas then they too are relevant. It’s not either/or.
How does an INDEPENDENT have any status with an organization he doesn't belong to? Am I missing something? I thought Bernie is not even a Democrat and has an "I" behind his name in the Senate. I know he caucuses with the Rats but he left the democrat party. Why is this not even news? If a Republican did what Bernie is doing the talking point would be 24/7 "FRACTURED Republicans CANNOT HOLD THEIR PARTY TOGETHER" or some other scary headline.
I can't name one top Dem who ISN'T a hardcore far-left Progressive. WTH?
could have a chance to climb back up the progressive ranks and possibly serve as the movement's best chance to finally take the White House.
They just had it for 8 years, and would be taking it back at the very earliest opportunity, and CNBC calls it "finally". SMH.
Senator Elizabeth Warren. . .is a walking, talking freak show.
She will never amount to more than a row of weeds in a vast legislative garden. She is just un-American.
Democrats need to take their party back from the utopian liberal fascists, or there will no longer be a Democrat Party.
The impetus for taking back their party from theses fascists can come from the mid west.
But what do I care. Let the liberal fascists continue to control the dem party. It means 16 more years of Republican presidency.
When I read stuff about Zuckerberg being mentioned as a contender I thought it fit the basic profile of somebody they’d look to as their next guru. They don’t want a traditional POTUS, they’re seeking out a guru.
LOL.
Total non-starter. Ugly and clueless.
EXCERPT--- Trump’s victory was a defeat of their conceit that a progressive was above politics (party machinery's their god), in possession of spotless truth, that the arc of history bent only their way, and for such people there’s no room for compromise and no space for politics.......the progressive thought he’d only muddy himself if he treated opponents with anything more than disdain.
That’s how President Obama conducted himself in office and that’s how many Democrats see Republicans, and that’s why they’re not emotionally able to accept their defeat.
Trump showed progressives that they were self-deceived, that they weren’t in sole possession of the right and the good......and that’s a deep psychic wound.
More at http://nypost.com/2017/01/17/trumps-threat-to-the-liberal-deep-state/
Yes, Sanders raised some grievances that a younger candidate could piggyback on. The more success Trump has at fixing the economy, the less appeal those grievances will have for attracting younger voters.
Her primary problem is that she is dumb as a post.
It prevents her from making a coherent case for or against anything on behalf of her constituents.
She has made it this far because she is a loud-mouthed shrill woman whose frequent idiocy is never analyzed by the press so the average Democrat mistakes it for wisdom, and no Republican has dared confront her since there aren’t many of them in Massachusetts.
They’ll be going with the next generation of young leftists in 2020. A Booker or a Castro or some other young pup like that. Trying for the young Clinton/Obama magic once again.
Chelsea is someone who has no accomplishments, much like Obama. Totally unqualified for the presidency. Perfect for the democraps.
Clinton or Manning?
Now that Americans have decided to ignore that natural born obstacle, why not Raoul Castro at the head of the dem ticket? Or, if we ignore the natural born thing, they could just ignore the POTUS term limit thing too, and have Obama run again.
They certainly can’t run an all-white ticket again; the 2016 election showed just how small a portion of the black and brown votes they could concede and lose a national election. Much of the fake race controversy since the election (include the John Lewis nonsense) is designed to get 100% of blacks on board with the Dems again, and the border issue is being used to get 100% of the Hispanics.
Now both groups think one of their own should be the Dem presidential candidates - and white women will expect one of their own (they feel no kinship with women of color - look at the monochromatic clusters of white women weeping on election night).
Maybe she could do porn? That would boost her popularity.
True. The Democratic Socialists of America and related caucuses have managed to successfully use the Democratic Party to shroud themselves in a cloak of legitimacy, and Sanders is a symptom of that. It could well end up spawning either a third party or a third-party movement within the Democratic Party. I suspect one reason it isn’t news is that post-60s academia has drilled socialism into the heads of students and journalists to the point where many don’t recognize the difference between the pre-McGovern/Carter/Clinton/Obama Democratic Party and what it has become.
They're far enough left now that Al Gore would seem far-right to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.