That's right, completely ignore and forget about personality. About Reagan's like-ability to a large swath of voters, including Democrats. Mrs. Clinton lost to Trump, not because she's a woman, but because of her personality, and Trump was (and is) relatable to too many. And Mrs. Clinton beat Bernie with superdelegates and the entire force of the DNC. I'll vote for a moderate because to not do so would be malpractice against Republicans. But I'd rather vote for AOC, who, by the way, does have a personality. Just as I would have voted for Mamdani. Who do we run - if there even elections - for President in 2028? What candidate do you believe can win, since that's the only criterium. And wasn't it you who wrote a column about nobody being able to actually pinpoint electability? I know someone did.
I was around and walking upright in 1980, and I think it’s fair to say the comparison of the maniacally sunny Reagan to the congenitally dour Carter is a big reason for the results-Carter named it himself when he said there was a malaise over the country, and most people took him for the face of it.
Politics is extremely personal in this case, which is why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or frankly any woman) probably wouldn’t resonate with anti-establishment, anti-HRC 2016 primary voters the way Sanders did.
I dispute this. I was all in for Bernie in 2016, it was the first time I donated money to a political campaign. My family went to hear him speak. But when 2020 came along, I was very disappointed that he didn't step back and let Warren take that lane. She is smarter, younger, (remember age was a big deal in 2020), and had better, more fleshed out plans but it seemed like he was running on ego. If he had gotten behind her to begin with.....well that is not the world we live in.
Your take is the exact same as mine...Once Warren was in the mix it was clear she should have taken that 'mantle'...Sanders was/is VERY good at that 'one thing' he does which is a very IMPORTAINT thing, but Warren had had the ability to navigate a broader spectrum of the KINDS of things a POTUS would need to be able to address
Reagan and the conservative takeover of the GOP had a lot to do with Reagan’s personal gifts as a politician (Goldwater was by contrast a very obtuse politician—1964 was a bigger rout than it needed to be because he felt no need to sell his positions to anyone not already committed to them—Reagan could make all his right wing beliefs seem “common sense”.). The conservative movement also spent decades working to win converts, and finally benefited from an exodus of right wing Democrats (including Dixiecrats) to the GOP.
Sanders by contrast seems more like Goldwater in that he speaks well for those who are already very liberal but I don’t see him selling moderates on liberal ideas. Maybe the Far Left would benefit from some demographic movement the way the Far Right did (white noncollege voters shifting left?), maybe a Reagan of the Left (talented politician who can bring more converts to the fold) will emerge, but for now the “Bernie wing” seems like a distinct minority in the Democratic coalition.
Well, maybe. Reagan wasn’t just “better” at politics. As you noted, he inherited a conservative movement with decades of institutional buildup behind it: donors, media, think tanks, activist networks, and a country already turning against the liberal consensus by 1980. But Bernie Sanders had *almost none of that*. He was a one-man band especially in 2016, trying to drag an institutionally moderate (and IMO stagnant) party to the left while labor was weak, progressive infrastructure was fragmented, and Democratic elites were actively hostile to his agenda.
(Also: Reagan himself was constantly called unelectable, extreme, and fringe before he won.)
In my opinion, the more accurate comparison is that Reagan was the *culmination* of a movement, and Sanders was the start. Time will tell if that's true or not, though.
That's right, completely ignore and forget about personality. About Reagan's like-ability to a large swath of voters, including Democrats. Mrs. Clinton lost to Trump, not because she's a woman, but because of her personality, and Trump was (and is) relatable to too many. And Mrs. Clinton beat Bernie with superdelegates and the entire force of the DNC. I'll vote for a moderate because to not do so would be malpractice against Republicans. But I'd rather vote for AOC, who, by the way, does have a personality. Just as I would have voted for Mamdani. Who do we run - if there even elections - for President in 2028? What candidate do you believe can win, since that's the only criterium. And wasn't it you who wrote a column about nobody being able to actually pinpoint electability? I know someone did.
I was around and walking upright in 1980, and I think it’s fair to say the comparison of the maniacally sunny Reagan to the congenitally dour Carter is a big reason for the results-Carter named it himself when he said there was a malaise over the country, and most people took him for the face of it.
Politics is extremely personal in this case, which is why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or frankly any woman) probably wouldn’t resonate with anti-establishment, anti-HRC 2016 primary voters the way Sanders did.
I dispute this. I was all in for Bernie in 2016, it was the first time I donated money to a political campaign. My family went to hear him speak. But when 2020 came along, I was very disappointed that he didn't step back and let Warren take that lane. She is smarter, younger, (remember age was a big deal in 2020), and had better, more fleshed out plans but it seemed like he was running on ego. If he had gotten behind her to begin with.....well that is not the world we live in.
Your take is the exact same as mine...Once Warren was in the mix it was clear she should have taken that 'mantle'...Sanders was/is VERY good at that 'one thing' he does which is a very IMPORTAINT thing, but Warren had had the ability to navigate a broader spectrum of the KINDS of things a POTUS would need to be able to address
She was younger, but even so still 70ish at the time (about the age Reagan made his first run, actually). She’s 76 now.
Reagan and the conservative takeover of the GOP had a lot to do with Reagan’s personal gifts as a politician (Goldwater was by contrast a very obtuse politician—1964 was a bigger rout than it needed to be because he felt no need to sell his positions to anyone not already committed to them—Reagan could make all his right wing beliefs seem “common sense”.). The conservative movement also spent decades working to win converts, and finally benefited from an exodus of right wing Democrats (including Dixiecrats) to the GOP.
Sanders by contrast seems more like Goldwater in that he speaks well for those who are already very liberal but I don’t see him selling moderates on liberal ideas. Maybe the Far Left would benefit from some demographic movement the way the Far Right did (white noncollege voters shifting left?), maybe a Reagan of the Left (talented politician who can bring more converts to the fold) will emerge, but for now the “Bernie wing” seems like a distinct minority in the Democratic coalition.
I see Bernie as the dude who got the ball rolling and we will forever be in his debt for that...
Well, maybe. Reagan wasn’t just “better” at politics. As you noted, he inherited a conservative movement with decades of institutional buildup behind it: donors, media, think tanks, activist networks, and a country already turning against the liberal consensus by 1980. But Bernie Sanders had *almost none of that*. He was a one-man band especially in 2016, trying to drag an institutionally moderate (and IMO stagnant) party to the left while labor was weak, progressive infrastructure was fragmented, and Democratic elites were actively hostile to his agenda.
(Also: Reagan himself was constantly called unelectable, extreme, and fringe before he won.)
In my opinion, the more accurate comparison is that Reagan was the *culmination* of a movement, and Sanders was the start. Time will tell if that's true or not, though.