Home | About | Donate

Why Bernie Sanders Is the Democratic Party’s Best Hope to Win the White House in November


Why Bernie Sanders Is the Democratic Party’s Best Hope to Win the White House in November

Tom Weis

What many expected to be a coronation for establishment candidate Hillary Clinton has morphed into a pitched battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. Despite all the corporate media hype to the contrary, the long slog to the Democratic nomination is just getting started.


This nails the essence of the Sanders' momentum:

"Clinton represents timid incrementalism at a time when the American people are in desperate need of bold transformational change. It is dispiriting to watch the Clintons serially slam the dreams that millions of Americans share with Sanders, dreams that most of the rest of the industrialized world have already achieved."


Until Bernie wins a state that isn't at least 90% white an objective view of the race would be that Clinton is on her way to victory. And in any case, the opponent might not be Trump, who either Sanders or Clinton should be able to defeat. While Bernie is finding that you can't win the Democratic nomination by just winning "white states" Trump will find that you need minority votes to win the general election. He won't get many African American votes and if he can't win enough Latino votes he will lose. The Republicans strongest candidate would probably be John Kasich. But Republicans voters seem to care less about who would be their strongest candidate. They don't even seem to care whether or not the Republican Party stays intact. They just want to vote for a candidate who is against the Republican establishment. They have had it with Republicans claiming they are conservatives and then compromising with Democrats by raising taxes and expanding government. This seems to be the election when the Republican voters actually draw the line. So far it appears the majority of Democratic voters are sticking with the Democratic establishment.


From Weis' article:

"Even more troubling for Clinton, poll after poll shows Sanders not only beating Hillary nationally, but leading her against all the GOP presidential hopefuls, including Mr. 1%, Donald Trump. In “Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency,” Current Affairs editor Nathan J. Robinson spells out why Sanders is the Democratic Party’s best hope against Donald Trump:
“A Clinton match-up is highly likely to be an unmitigated electoral disaster, whereas a Sanders candidacy stands a far better chance. Every one of Clinton’s (considerable) weaknesses plays to every one of Trump’s strengths… From a purely pragmatic standpoint, running Clinton against Trump is a disastrous, suicidal proposition.” I agree. It would be foolhardy for Democrats to take a chance on Hillary in 2016."

Do we suppose that there is anyone else in the DNC establishment (following the defection of DNC Vice-chair Tulsi Gabbard to the Sanders camp), who can even wrap their heads around the possibility, that all the accumulating evidence that Sanders is the stronger candidate, might have some truth to it?


Seeing how Clinton incrementalism during the past three decades has been regressive, not progressive, transferring ever more wealth from the 99% to the 1%, Weis would be more accurate phrasing it as "Clinton RHETORIC represents timid incrementalism..."

Bernie forcing Clinton's hand is the only reason "incrementalism" has ever been mentioned in the 2016 campaign.


The DNC bosses know that Bernie might beat Trump in November, and that Hillary can't beat Trump in November.

The DNC bosses also know that the Party's mission is to get more corporate cash than the GOP. Nominating Hillary sustains corporate cash flow. Nominating Bernie significantly diminishes corporate cash flow.

Follow the money.


I don't think Americans want to "bring the Party home to its New Deal roots." For example, did you know that what came to be called AFDC was actually first included in FDR's Social Security Act? This generation rejects those roots.

Either way, Sen. Sanders made a statement last night that will have an impact on the election. He said: "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor." Stunning. America does, indeed, have a poverty crisis. The US shipped out a huge share of our jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s. Not everyone can work (health, etc.) and there aren't jobs for all. The last I heard, there are 7 jobs for every 10 people who urgently need one. The great majority of US poor, and those in extreme poverty, are white. The majority of our despised homeless are white. They don't know what it's like to be poor?


Actually, it's just the only place that media chose to notice.


We lack a representative government. In a nutshell, Republicans represent the rich, Democrats represent the middle class, and the rest of the population has no representation whatsoever. As for the bourgeoisie, well yes, this is the middle class. What kind of movement are people talking about? What do they want? We've been through a long era of liberals promoting middle class elitism. That's just the way it is.

What could we expect from Sen. Sanders? Does he have any concept of what life is like out here? I doubt it. Last night he said: "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor." Seriously? Of course, the great majority of US poor, and those in severe poverty, are white. So, how do we interpret Sen. Sander's statement?


You repeat your distortion, despite being repeatedly called on it (and never responding).

Despite your tireless distortion, the material fact is that the majority of US poor - and by an even greater margin, the majority of US homeless - are people of color.


What does Hillary stand for? Whatever flavor you like. But if you follow her decisions and contributions, I would guess it is large corporations and the wealthy. This has been true, at least, since she was on the Board of Directors of Walmart while Walmart was doing everything possible to destroy any efforts for their "employees," I might call them slaves, to unionize.


tj, I also screamed out at the same statement by Mr Weiss, "Fortunately, we live in a democracy, not a monarchy, and voters in 31 more states will decide who carries the Democratic banner into the general election." I would like to add a couple of thoughts: the US is a plutocratic-oligarchy; is now, always has been, and much more than knowing people even realize (read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer); we tragically have suffered through at least two electronically rigged elections, both giving the election to GW Bush (2000/2004), so who really needs Super Delegates any longer to assure the oligarchy ' s desired results; and then, of course, when all else fails there is the time proven perfect crime of assassaination-more recently JFK and RFK. Voting merely gives a certain segment of the population a drugged feeling of citizenship and the results of elections a certain sense of credibility to a very sick system of government.


So, how do we interpret Sen. Sander's statement?

What is so hard? Sanders is saying a "white does not walk in the shoes of those who are poor" and black He is saying poor whites do not have to contend with skin color rejection.also. So,, being poor can be temporary, being black is permanent.

Not a well constructed sentence.
But neither is your "...U.S. poor" vrs "...in severe poverty". well said.
What the H is sever poverty? A shade of poor?


The Dem machine is worn out and running out of 'oil'. Feel the Bern.


I caught that, too. Bernie knows there are many poor whites out there. In fact growing up his family was part of that segment of the population, white, Jewish and poor. He knows there are many poor people of all types trying to survive in this country. His campaign is about this very issue. I believe Senator Sanders had a slight slip of the tongue.


Neither Party represents the interests of the vast majority of Americans. These two Party's represent the oligarchs that own them. They represent the interests of the rich and powerful and the rest of us only to the extent that we are useful to them.

Bernie grew up very poor and indeed understands what poverty means. A slip of the tongue in my humble opinion is what he suffered. Be critical but remain forgiving.


It's not just the money. Those WITH money are funding a consolidated authoritarian state whose powers aim at being global in scope.

Bernie seeks to democratize government whereas the typical authoritarians push a "father knows best" approach. Hillary, like the goddess Athena emerged WHOLE from her father Zeus' head (and in denial that she was born of a mother) so fully identifies with the patriarchal state that she acts as its enthusiastic champion via support for war of the armed actual sort as well as via brutal financial protocols (constituting war by other means... including treaties like TPP and the like).

Money is the MEANS to the elites' ends: and that ends is absolute power and control over a heavily populated world... down to its most significant (and essential to life) resources.

Essentially, it's patronage to the crown all over again.


You interpret his statement as issuing a call to EMPATHY! You interpret it as him, unlike ALL other candidates giving a damn about the issue you harp on all the time. As a matter of fact, YOU have become so tone-deaf that when a politician (in this case Sanders) addresses the matter, you STILL berate him! (I realize you did this via innuendo... this way you don't have to admit what your words intend. It's a common practice in this forum.)


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Clinton consistently fares worse against the other GOP contenders. If you want the GOP in the White House, you should vote fore Clinton.