Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

The corruption of Washington politicians.
Healthcare
Nafta, trade, jobs
De-industrialization
Solidarity with working class, etc etc

I wouldn't exactly call making a lot of false promises "hopping on board".

It goes back to the notion that "fascism is a populist movement without a left option".
Fascism has historically coopted language from the left and is doing it today. Here as well as Europe. The latest is the yellow vest protests in Paris where you see both socialists and fascist competing for the messaging and neither ceding the public space to the other.
Trumps no dummy in certain arenas, though it helps some people to think he is. His record is cunning self preservation and he'll steal any credit for something that's popular. He used the language of populism on his campaign trail. Mixed in with racism and xenophobia but a good deal was populist. My guess is he saw how well Sanders was doing started talking about the issues that he saw Sanders succeeding with. Issues that the Democratic establishment failed to take seriously at the time.
That may be changing now. The public is there on this issue but, unfortunately, the parties donors aren't. See Joe Manchin for an example.

I'm hesitant to link all of those directly with Sanders because I am somewhat convinced that Trump wanted to address NAFTA, trade, jobs and healthcare all along. Here is what he was talking about long before Sanders even announced his candidacy.

"The America We Deserve" - Donald Trump, 2000

Yeah, I get what your saying Jeff.
Populism can come in different shades but the american form, to my understanding of it, has generally been inclusive and economically progressive.
Trump's been blending that tradition with the other, darker variant.
He did, in fact, spend much time on the campaign trail going after the same subjects as Sanders was. Healthcare, jobs, wages etc...
You may recall his reaching out to disaffected sanders supporters after he lost the primary and the SH!t storm was brewing over the fixing of the primary confirmed by the leaked emails.
To me, it's a sign of Trumps shrewdness and Clinton's obtuseness. That's not an endorsement of what Trump was selling. Just my simple interpretation of the campaign.

As it was, I was on a crap-ton of Bernie Facebook groups during that period and it's awfully difficult to interpret it as Trump reaching out to Bernie Bros for me, because I was seeing Bernie Bros talking about Trump before the Democratic Convention.
Scads of them had already made up their minds that the nomination was corrupt and tilted against Bernie and that they were in a mood to put Trump in just to teach America a lesson.

Never mind that, by refusing to be a Democrat, Bernie was up against Rule Numero Uno in the DNC:

1. Choose a Democrat as candidate, no choosing OUTSIDE the party.

Rule Numero Dos:

2. Protect the chosen DNC candidate at all costs.

I've expounded on this innumerable times, you cannot be outside the party and expect that party to help you in a POTUS race. It just doesn't work that way, it never has and it likely never will.

But anyway, a month or even two months before the convention, a lot of hardcore Bernie or Bust Bros were announcing their intention to vote Trump if Bernie lost the primary, again...just to teach us all a lesson.

That's the point where I lost a lot of respect for the Bernie Bros: Not for Bernie, because he was honest and would have worked to fulfill his campaign promises. But anybody who really thought Trump would or could fulfill any of those ideas he usurped from Bernie was an idiot. And the Bros who voted for Trump in a fit of pique over the primary were self-destructive idiots as well.

Ok a coupla points.


1st. There has been a good look at the historical rate of party switching and the evidence of this 'Bernie Bro' (T.M. Hillary 2016) defection happenned in any significant number above that historical average can't be found. But yeah, you were on a posting page so i guess what? Evidence? Ok. Nailed it Jeff. 538 has done some good number crunching on this vote shift for 2016 but don't let em fool ya. Fake News!
2nd: you should look into the origen of 'Bernie Bro'.

3rd: the ridiculousness of your argument that it's ok for the party to rig the primary Jeff. Seriously? I'm as cynical as the next guy but for all the faults of the republicans (a long list to be sure) one thing that's interesting is that they don't mess with their primaries to the level of the Democratic Party. They leave the fraud and grift for the general election.
You wanna know why they don't? Because it angers a certain percentage of their base. Democratic Party leadership, on the other hand, has been carving off chunks of it's left flank for decades now.

4th: Bernie ran on the democratic ticket. If you want a protect at all cost rule to be a rule then enforce it Jeff? If that's the case ( in Jeff world but I'll play along) then why let him into the race from the start?

One possibility was that he could be used as a foil for Hillaries anointing. My guess is they let him in believing they could present a farce as a real competition but, suprise suprise, what they got was, in fact, a real competitor who's ideas and positions were very popular. At that point they could have fought a real primary battle or choose to rig the primary. They chose to rig the primary. They leaks only confirmed what Sanders supporters knew. Indeed, as many down ballot progressive primary candidate knows. It's all about the money and the DNC is there to protect that. That is the North Star of the party leadership Jeff. It guides their every decision and will be our neoliberal tombstone if we don't wrest control from these classist greed heads. Your 'they godda be party members' rule is nonsense. They have primaried good progressives with republican candidates that reflagged themselves democrats for DCCC support. Your rules are just that. Yours.

It's like climate denial. Hillary supporters just can't admit what a lousy candidate she was. Your simply enabling a party that needs serious reforming.

I'm a Hillary supporter and I'll be the first to admit that she's a lousy candidate. It's her biggest weakness. Campaigning.
But I still think she would have been the perfect follow-up for Obama.
Instead we got a fellow whose strongest suit is campaigning. Once elected he had nothing to back up the sales pitch. No understanding of how the game is played and no respect for the rules. But a great candidate!

Both parties need serious reforming. Neither is liable to get it.

Because money.

Ya' think?!? Campaigning M-F and taking weekends off.

You'd think that Hillary acted like the gig was hers.