Evidently, 10,999 other Tucsonans had the same idea on Friday, Oct. 9—go see what this Bernie Sanders is all about. Sanders was in town for a campaign stop, just having received a congressional endorsement from Congressman Raul Grijalva, who introduced the Vermont senator. It was, in many ways, a typical Tucson progressive gathering explaining our own home-grown values: immigration reform, keeping undocumented families together, protecting the religious and land rights of the Apache at Oak Flat and more.
However, while I stood there with my family, it was obvious that this is something more. In fact, Sanders has been attracting record crowds at campaign stops across the country. Yet, political junkies—Democrats and Republicans—all say Sanders can’t win this presidential race. I know folks who show up at this particular record-breaking rally of an estimated 11,000 people (7,000 were anticipated by the campaign) who are Hillary Clinton supporters, yet they wanted to hear what Sanders had to say. It was, as our blogger David Safier wrote on The Range, one of the widest cross-section of people he’d ever seen at such a gathering. Safier’s blog post, which deftly captured the nature and spirit of the event, is in this week’s print edition (But you can find the story here).
It’s too early for the Tucson Weekly to issue endorsements on this campaign, but I can say the evening was striking and I heard ideas from Sanders that I’ve been wanting to hear from a candidate for a long time. It was inspiring. Yes, the political junkies are right—this is a difficult road for Sanders. But not for the reasons you think—not the media, not the corporate interests and not anything that targets Sanders as a socialist from the other candidates. Nope. What Sanders has going against him are the 11,000 people who showed up on Friday and the thousands of others who’ve showed up in other cities: voters.
— Mari Herreras, mherreras@tucsonweekly.com
This article appears in Oct 15-21, 2015.
Democratic voters are surprised to find their candidates are socialists? Nobody else is.
At least no matter what label they have. Democrats get bills passed and America on the move. What can the Republicans show when they lead? Nothing so far. The Republicans are in destruction mode, like they are doing to the states and nation.
The Democratic Debate was really good, issues were discussed, unlike the attacks the Republicans did on each other for 6 hours. Who would want them leading our nation. We need leaders, smart, intelligent leaders, not attack dogs of the GOP.
And it is amazing to hear the Republicans say the Democrat debate was boring. They said they were falling asleep during the debate. When those are the Republicans who want to hijacking our nation, without any good agenda. They don’t need to discuss issues, because they only mission is to destroy America. We just need to see on the Republican side, who is getting the highest poll numbers, Those that are most radical and saying how they will destroy this nation. It is a crazy in the USA right now. A Terrorist revolution by the Republicans. Wake up voters to what the Tea Party and GOP really stands for. It has changed to the most extreme.
Running as a socialist democrat, Bernie has no chance of winning a national election.That should come as no surprise. A recent Gallup poll of Democratic voters suggests more are comfortable with a qualified candidate who is an atheist, Muslim or evangelical Christian than with a socialist.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fi…
If, mirabile dictu, Bernie is nominated, we can expect a replay of the McGovern electoral debacle. As a Sanders supporter, I have to admit this discomforting fact.
So this leaves Hillary Clinton as the top dog and inevitable nominee of her party. The problem here is that (I suspect) a substantial number of progressive Democrats and Independents will not vote for Clinton and may, in fact, sit this one out. As Clinton continues to “evolve” – flip flop – on issues important to progressives she becomes even more a caricature of a pol who will say and do anything to be elected, often coming around to positions held by Sanders since Day 1.
Hillary has been so wrong on so many issues, disastrously so with her vote authorizing the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq and continuing – as of the last debate – defense of her vote in favor of the Patriot Act. Her ties to Wall Street defuse enthusiasm for any “5 point plan” she may have for reining in the banksters who Sanders sees as public enemy number one. A late comer to the Keystone Pipeline and the emerging trade agreement deals (now ostensibly against both) does little to burnish her progressive credentials.
I understand Sanders wants to forego discussion of Clinton’s email problem, wisely suggesting there are more important and substantive issues to debate while the federal investigations continue, but here Bernie and I part ways. For those in the HC camp believing this is a controversy manufactured by right wing Republicans, I ask: “If this was Condoleeza Rice acting as Secretary of State under GW Bush, would you dismiss her culpability as easily as you casually grant Clinton a pass?” Think hard, be honest.
While Hillary may well be the inevitable nominee of the Democrats, she is far from universally supported by rank and file party members and by the Independents she will need to win a general election. With the SCOTUS hanging by a thread, the Democratic party machinery needs to being forth a better, cleaner candidate with a chance of winning.
This is a very poorly written report on the Sanders speech and campaign. The writer’s conclusion that the “voters are against him” is not supported by the article. It seems to be the opinion of the author but we are left to speculate on how it was arrived at.
Dan R. Anderson, this is the editor’s note, not an article. It is exactly the opinion of the author.
But I have to agree: as much as I like Bernie, I do not think he’ll be electable in the general. With the House in the hands of the right wing of the Republican party, and the Supreme Court already leaning to the right, we just cannot afford to elect any of the current Republican candidates as president, and let our government as a whole drift further out of balance.
So yes, Hillary Clinton has more than her share of baggage but I still think she’ll make a good president.
Why would anybody trust a Clinton at this point, unless you enjoy the abuse?
If you collect SOCIAL SECURITY or MEDICARE that is democratic Socialism! Are the voters that ignorant?
SSI and Medicare are a poor return on a lifetime of investment by you and your employer. If you had simply saved and invested 12% of your income and got a 2% return you would have been money ahead. And actually helped the US economy. It is more commonly referred to as a Ponzi scheme. It goes in to the general fund and gets spent on other things leaving it nearly insolvent. I know, “let’s punish the rich for the politicians theft of our money.” They have taxed jobs out of the country, and next they will tax the wealthy away, leaving a third world hell hole. Just doing the peoples business. Ha.
Democrats have made the liberal leap to “everything for free” to include non citizens.
Damn they have become awful generous with my money. All to buy votes.
Yeah, like everyone has the funds to save and invest 12%. Not only that, if a crisis comes along and you have to use that money which you can so easily save…what happens then? I guess for those of us who have been unfortunate enough to experience this type of situation deserve to suffer and die so that we do not have to offend the elite with our bitter pestering for fairer financial equality.
Get a clue! No one can guarantee that you’ll get a 2% return anyways.
I would hurl insults at you, but TW just might remove this post if I did.
Sorry there ACDC but the 12% I referenced is already being saved by workers and the employer. Plus you can’t access it until 65-68 with age moving out even further based on theft from funds and mismanagement. I still don’t understand why you would hurl insults.
It’s simply math.
Just keep paying attention to only part of my comment like you already have. Don’t bother to address the other issues I mentioned.
Social security is a good program which helps those in need when necessary. In order to keep it maintained, there must be constant deposits put into it. Yeah, it’s far from perfect, but it is still a better option than not having it at all.
I will not bother to ask you to get a clue for a second time because I have learned that is a waste of time.
I think you are confusing retirement income with disability income. I didn’t advocate dropping the safety net of disability protection. We can and should do much better with that.
Let me try asking a question of you in another way.
Based on your life history and current income status, is free college for all a priority over any of your needs?
The government is talking about expanding, but not in weak and depleted areas. They are adding more under funded programs.
Is that what you want?
One thing is sure, the mainstream media doesn’t get Bernie at all. I think the editor’s point is that he must overcome the typical voter apathy/low turn-out that keeps us stuck in Republican la-la land because what he is laying down is truly revolutionary and long overdue; and can only succeed with a huge public mandate.
The most ironic words out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth uttered at the debate (which the MSM just knows she won) was something to the effect “The wealthy will pay!”; ironic due to her propensity toward large wall street donors. Likewise the irony of the onerous social cost of her husband’s policies from the 90’s; bank deregulation, the Clinton Doctrine, (perpetual war), mass incarceration and more.
The ‘baggers may find Social Security irksome to their high moral values, but I can assure you, many of us who were busted out in the 2008 Wall Street shakedown, (thanks Bill) will have little else in our golden years.
Bernie’s message is very clear, campaign finance reform is the key, once the .1percenters are unable to buy legislation, everything else will follow
The opinion that Sanders will not get sufficient votes to win (what? the nomination or the presidency itself) is meaningless unless some semblance of a reason is given why that is so. The contrast to the other reasons doesn’t make sense- media, corporate interests (which equal corporate money) and the socialist label are all things that have a strong influence on- wait for it- VOTES!. And the literary conceit or twist that the 11,000 people who showed up (many of whom might very well vote for Sanders) are actually the reason he won’t be elected because they are voters who in general (but for no specified reason) won’t vote for him- is just plain lousy writing.
The author might have been better off just saying “For no reason in particular it is my opinion that Sanders will not win the (election or primary).”