I've reached the point where I view national politics in America as simply an elaborate popularity contest exactly like the vote for Senior Class President in high school. People rarely investigate policy, they want someone photogenic, with the charisma of a TV personality. Reagan was good on camera from long practice as an actor. Kennedy was handsome and had an indefinable charisma and a heroic history, as well as being lucky enough to run against the dark and broody Tricky Dick Nixon.
Hilary Clinton, for all her terrific political skills, came across as the school teacher who would rap your knuckles with a ruler. And of course she suffered from years of innuendo and lies and misogyny aimed at her. She also had to overcome the baggage from her husband, who had charisma but squandered it because he couldn't keep it in his pants. The only truly charismatic Democrat I ever voted for was Obama. He hadn't been in the public crosshairs long enough for the GOP machine to fatally smear him, and he had incredible speaking skills unlike any I've ever seen before.
I would have happily voted for Bernie, but no one could claim that his speeches were inspiring. He is dead right on every policy issue that he promotes, but people don't really vote for policy, as I said above.
The final example is the abomination we have in office now. He benefited from his reputation on the Apprentice as the master businessman, and he absolutely to this day knows how to manipulate the media. He's entered a category as a public figure who is above consequences simply due to his fame and phony persona. So, just like the high school football quarterback who wins Senior Class President by promising better snacks in the cafeteria who everyone recognizes, he gets elected on fame alone. We just have to muddle along and hope someone on the Democratic side with the right combination of looks and a bit of charisma will come along and catch the public imagination.
We elect sexual predators and known criminals now, anything is possible.
I hated reagan before it was cool to hate reagan. I was 14 when he got elected governor of California. I didn't like him as an actor, despised him as a politician. As bad as Nixon was, I still believe it was reagan that was the predecessor of the worse and dumber Republican presidents to follow.
Part of the dynamic worth considering is that Reagan and his platform were extremely popular with American voters at large and GOP primary voters knew this (that is, they knew he was likely to win). Sanders, despite the protestations and cherry picked polls his supporters like to cite, has never had a platform that commanded broad popularity across America. The reason he lost so badly in 2020 was Democratic primary voters knew Biden had the better chance of beating Trump, and indeed he did. Reagan crushed Carter and Mondale, do any but the most deluded progressives think Bernie would have done the same to Trump and whoever the GOP presumably would have nominated in 2020?
Sirota is a belligerent hack & it's hilarious to see his pathetically feeble attempt to quote-dunk on you & thereby only prove his delusional and/or disingenuous hackitude.
Every Democratic Cubs' fan I know is willing to time travel back to 2016, forgo ever seeing "our" team win the World Series in our lifetime and have Trump lose those 70,000 votes that gave him the three states that put him over the top in the Electoral College. If we could only have one miracle that year we would absolutely take "Donald Trump never being President". (And, reminder, META/FACEBOOK was MAGA before MAGA was, and YOU SHOULD GET THE FUCK OFF OF IT.) Reagan was a B-movie actor who knew how to deliver a script and he was handed great ones. Also "Morning in America" was one very effective, campaign defining "super commercial". "President Reagan" was his "greatest role". The Reagan campaigns' courtship of the Religious Right was shameless, but cynical - he and the GOP had ZERO intention of delivering on their extremist position on abortion (I have this on good authority from insiders who were on the 1976 and 1980 campaigns and in Reagan's government.) Still Ronnie's example and lip service support taught televangelists how to leverage their media platforms for "conservative values" political clout and expanded their donor base beyond "shut-in" widows on social security. A case could be made that Falwell, Baker, and Swaggart were the original Team WinRed. The "anti-abortion plank" was only ever intended by Reagan and Bush1 to be a wedge issue that could deliver those single issue voters to the polls. And, however "sunny" he may have publicly seemed, Reagan behind the scenes was an apt malevolent GOP actor - do not forget his and his team's interference in the Iranian hostage crisis and the traitorously criminal scheme we call Iran-Contra.
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.
Carter suffered also from high inflation and the Iranian hostages. But the uber-wealthy had their plans in place to get Trump and massive tax breaks, which led to where we are today.
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
I think there is a clear misread of some of Sanders support when Warren was considered a likely “heir.” She actually had more overlap with Buttigieg (white college ed liberals).
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.
>> However, that’s how campaigns work. If you want to defeat the “establishment,” you must accept that the “establishment” will strike back.
Nice. I wonder how many tankies would block me on Bluesky if I quoted this there. ;)
I've reached the point where I view national politics in America as simply an elaborate popularity contest exactly like the vote for Senior Class President in high school. People rarely investigate policy, they want someone photogenic, with the charisma of a TV personality. Reagan was good on camera from long practice as an actor. Kennedy was handsome and had an indefinable charisma and a heroic history, as well as being lucky enough to run against the dark and broody Tricky Dick Nixon.
Hilary Clinton, for all her terrific political skills, came across as the school teacher who would rap your knuckles with a ruler. And of course she suffered from years of innuendo and lies and misogyny aimed at her. She also had to overcome the baggage from her husband, who had charisma but squandered it because he couldn't keep it in his pants. The only truly charismatic Democrat I ever voted for was Obama. He hadn't been in the public crosshairs long enough for the GOP machine to fatally smear him, and he had incredible speaking skills unlike any I've ever seen before.
I would have happily voted for Bernie, but no one could claim that his speeches were inspiring. He is dead right on every policy issue that he promotes, but people don't really vote for policy, as I said above.
The final example is the abomination we have in office now. He benefited from his reputation on the Apprentice as the master businessman, and he absolutely to this day knows how to manipulate the media. He's entered a category as a public figure who is above consequences simply due to his fame and phony persona. So, just like the high school football quarterback who wins Senior Class President by promising better snacks in the cafeteria who everyone recognizes, he gets elected on fame alone. We just have to muddle along and hope someone on the Democratic side with the right combination of looks and a bit of charisma will come along and catch the public imagination.
We elect sexual predators and known criminals now, anything is possible.
To be fair, Bernie would not have done any *worse* in 16 or 24
I hated reagan before it was cool to hate reagan. I was 14 when he got elected governor of California. I didn't like him as an actor, despised him as a politician. As bad as Nixon was, I still believe it was reagan that was the predecessor of the worse and dumber Republican presidents to follow.
Part of the dynamic worth considering is that Reagan and his platform were extremely popular with American voters at large and GOP primary voters knew this (that is, they knew he was likely to win). Sanders, despite the protestations and cherry picked polls his supporters like to cite, has never had a platform that commanded broad popularity across America. The reason he lost so badly in 2020 was Democratic primary voters knew Biden had the better chance of beating Trump, and indeed he did. Reagan crushed Carter and Mondale, do any but the most deluded progressives think Bernie would have done the same to Trump and whoever the GOP presumably would have nominated in 2020?
Sirota is a belligerent hack & it's hilarious to see his pathetically feeble attempt to quote-dunk on you & thereby only prove his delusional and/or disingenuous hackitude.
I still remember him as a belligerent Republican hack. He's no progressive!
2016 is never going to end, for many, many reasons.
I blame the Cubs breaking their curse. *jazz hands*
Every Democratic Cubs' fan I know is willing to time travel back to 2016, forgo ever seeing "our" team win the World Series in our lifetime and have Trump lose those 70,000 votes that gave him the three states that put him over the top in the Electoral College. If we could only have one miracle that year we would absolutely take "Donald Trump never being President". (And, reminder, META/FACEBOOK was MAGA before MAGA was, and YOU SHOULD GET THE FUCK OFF OF IT.) Reagan was a B-movie actor who knew how to deliver a script and he was handed great ones. Also "Morning in America" was one very effective, campaign defining "super commercial". "President Reagan" was his "greatest role". The Reagan campaigns' courtship of the Religious Right was shameless, but cynical - he and the GOP had ZERO intention of delivering on their extremist position on abortion (I have this on good authority from insiders who were on the 1976 and 1980 campaigns and in Reagan's government.) Still Ronnie's example and lip service support taught televangelists how to leverage their media platforms for "conservative values" political clout and expanded their donor base beyond "shut-in" widows on social security. A case could be made that Falwell, Baker, and Swaggart were the original Team WinRed. The "anti-abortion plank" was only ever intended by Reagan and Bush1 to be a wedge issue that could deliver those single issue voters to the polls. And, however "sunny" he may have publicly seemed, Reagan behind the scenes was an apt malevolent GOP actor - do not forget his and his team's interference in the Iranian hostage crisis and the traitorously criminal scheme we call Iran-Contra.
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.
Carter suffered also from high inflation and the Iranian hostages. But the uber-wealthy had their plans in place to get Trump and massive tax breaks, which led to where we are today.
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.
I think there is a clear misread of some of Sanders support when Warren was considered a likely “heir.” She actually had more overlap with Buttigieg (white college ed liberals).
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.