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

It is different, but it's not perfect.

"Nothing's clean Howard, but we do our best."

Come on guys, what is this?
Can we all just...try to get along?

Just got back... guess I touched a nerve.

I’m not that sensitive, so I don’t have any comment about any personal attack. But calling Sanders a loser over and over because he didn’t sponsor any major legislation didn’t look rational to me. It’s just my opinion, and I linked an article to support my view.

It wasn’t a personal attack, it was an observation. After reading my link, do you still hold the opinion that Sanders is an empty footnote in history?

YOU. ARE. EMOTIONAL. AND. IRRATIONAL.

If this isn't a personal attack, I don't know what else is.

Just got back... guess I touched a nerve.

I’m not that sensitive, so I don’t have any comment about any personal attack. But calling Sanders a loser over and over because he didn’t sponsor any major legislation didn’t look rational to me. It’s just my opinion, and I linked an article to support my view.

It wasn’t a personal attack, it was an observation. After reading my link, do you still hold the opinion that Sanders is an empty footnote in history?

Son, if you thought that was a personal attack you have no idea of what I am capable of delivering. But the Admin has spoken and I'm going to delete that comment.

I had hoped we could be friends but I'm happy the other way too.

Like everything else political, I think whether or not one views a candidate, a person as being charismatic is a personal opinion. For my purpose it was pitting candidate against candidate. How one's charismatic personality can attract voters to him that otherwise may not have voted for him.

The top four according to Larry Sabato was FDR, JFK, Reagan and Bill Clinton as having dynamic charismatic personalities. I'd have to add Obama to that list, while in my opinion, Obama had less charisma that those four. I was also talking about attracting voters from America as a whole, not just one's supporters.

Supporters of certain candidates are usually entranced by that candidate. But how that candidates fairs with those who aren't his avid supporters is where charisma comes into play, especially with independents, the non-affiliated voter.

I do think Sanders had more charisma than Biden, but we're talking about the Democratic primary voters. Less than a third of all voters nationwide. Sanders didn't have a chance to test those waters and to see if he could or couldn't attract the independent voter. He was tested only by Democrats for the most part although some independents did vote in the open primary states. The primaries are more about name recognition and political stances, ideology, party loyalist.

You haven't yet got into the battle for the less political, the less to non-partisan and non-affiliated voter. They haven't had a chance to weigh in yet.

There's no doubt in my mind that Biden isn't charismatic in the sense of a Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, JFK or even an Obama. But not being Trump may be enough. Hillary certainly wasn't, her personality wasn't the type to attract independents. Neither was Kerry or Gore, two statues. McCain didn't have it either nor Dole or G.H.W Bush. If you don't have it, you better hope you get matched up against someone with less charisma than you which happened in 1988, Bush vs. Dukakis, 1968 Nixon vs. Humphrey, 1976 Carter vs. Ford and so on.

Perhaps the most important thing is how a candidate and as president later on can connect with the people. Once again the best at this were the four Larry Sabato pointed out. FDR, JFK, Reagan and Bill Clinton. then in fifth place, I'd put Obama.

Now that's interesting. Footnote in history. Possible. Is Goldwater a footnote in history? He was the one who started the conservative movement by being blown out in the 1964 presidential election. His movement didn't take hold until 1980 with the election of Reagan. But his movement, I'll call it traditional conservatism has morphed into something completely different, a different type/s of conservatism Goldwater wouldn't recognize. Once known as the father of Conservatism, most modern day conservatives call him a libertarian because his brand wasn't neo or religious conservatism. Barry wanted to get those religious nuts out of the Republican Party.

Sanders, footnote, perhaps? That depends on how his ideas catch on with the American public, all of the public and not just a faction within the Democratic Party. He could be looked back on as the father of a new progressive movement. Or relegated to just a footnote when talking about Democratic Primaries. The one who lost to Hillary and then lost to Biden. Some primary losers are remembered and become more than just a footnote. Reagan challenged Ford in 1976, he lost to Ford and Ford lost to Carter. Many historians put the blame for Ford's loss on Reagan's challenge. But Ronnie won the presidency in 1980, so that's what he is remembered for.

Teddy Kennedy is also well documented in 1980 for challenging Carter. Again, historians always list Teddy's challenge of Jimmy as one of the reason Jimmy lost in 1980. But Ted Kennedy's fame is being JFK's and RFK's brother. Much more than his challenge to Carter.

Sanders, a footnote to history is possible, maybe even probable. It all depends whether a young fresh faced progressive picks up his ideas and runs with them and wins. Time will tell.

The father of a new progressive movement? I pity the "new progressive movement" if its father is the ineffective loser known as Bernie Sanders. I guess he is better than AOC (not so hard to be better than that one). If she's the heir, God help us.