2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders will not have to face a Committee like the
one Hillary Clinton faced. He has nothing in his history that any such committee could question him on. He hasn't been Secretary of State, as Clinton was, so doesn't have to explain what happened in Libya or anywhere else. Hillary has been a Senator, though, but nobody calls Senators before hostile committees.
It would be interesting to see him taking questions from a committee of Republicans, but that's not going to happen. That made Clinton's appearance before the committee even more fraught with danger for her as a presidential primary candidate.
So, we can only imagine how Bernie Sanders would have handled that committee. We've seen Hillary in tough spots a number of times, and she generally handles herself quite nicely under stress. We haven't seen Bernie under that kind of stress. I wish we could, so we could see his demeanor in such situations. That's important, because Presidents face stressful situations fairly often.
I thought Clinton handled the questioning in a way that gives me confidence about how she will handle tough negotiations with national leaders who aren't necessarily our friends. She's done that before, too, as SoS. She did just fine in those circumstances. Her experience will be useful to her if she is elected as President, I'm sure.
I wish I knew more about how Sanders would handle such situations.
liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)If he wins the nomination, look for a full scale attack similar to what Obama has endured and what Hillary Clinton has seen already.
Why are they attacking Hillary? It's not because she did something wrong, its because she did something and now they are scared shitless that she will be the next President.
If they had the same fear of Bernie, they would be attacking just as viscously.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)We've seen how Clinton handled it, this time and others, as well. We haven't seen Sanders in a similar situation, so we don't really know how he'd handle it. I'd sort of like to know. It could matter on the foreign relations stage, I think.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Not really. It was a unique and unjustified hearing which I'd not like to see repeated for the sake of the pressure test. Obama was a Senator. Never saw him grilled by goons, did not need to.
randys1
(16,286 posts)it does matter how he handles our affairs in general.
But, as a white man, Bernie can say things and act in ways that Hillary and Obama cant when confronted with vile piles of human feces.
As president Bernie would have a staff around him better versed in whatever the issue would be, as all presidents do.
The real question is what kind of manager would he be. Better than all republicans alive and dead combined, but compared to Hillary, not sure.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Right wing idiot Rand Paul has already said electing Bernie will lead to genocide to give you an idea of what the Koch bros have in store for Bernie
DCBob
(24,689 posts)+1
nilram
(2,879 posts)working on an impeachment plan for him, too.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)He bested my expectations with his performance at the debate.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)the same thing. Everyone on that stage at a podium is a Democrat and an American. Common goals, etc.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They aren't the same thing and Sanders has never been influential enough to hit people's radar in this aspect. Just saying I don't know how it could be discussed with possible realities actually being fettered out well.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)That's a problem. As President, he will find himself in such situations, certainly. I'm familiar with his acerbic and sometimes blunt style at times. I'm not sure that's the best approach in some circumstances.
Maybe someone can link to some video clips of difficult situations that required a response. I'll go look at anything someone wants to offer up.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I think I can make that a little more definitive. I don't think it is the best approach in most all circumstances at the Presidential level. But stating that will just start a fight. I'm proud of him for what he is doing. The NRN was a difficult situation for him. Check out a video of that. Still, hard to make any relevant judgment from that.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)But there wasn't enough back and forth there to get much of a picture. In Seattle, too, the response, basically, was to walk off and leave.
My point in the OP was that we don't have enough information to know how he handles extended stressful situations. That does make it difficult to make a comparison that makes much sense.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I think the following five debates will give a better answer, even if not perfectly relevant to your question. We work with the information we have.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I always do. With only three candidates participating, there should be more time for each of them to show their skills. I'll be watching.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)to allow the women to speak after Bernie, when BLM wasn't satisfied with that, they gave them the microphone and let them speak first, Bernie stood on stage behind them and waited for about 20 minutes afterward, here is a full video including a short Bernie interview on his way out.
Jamelle Bouie is Slates chief political correspondent.
If elected president (with a Democratic Congress), Sanders would end tuition for public colleges and universities, raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, invest in new infrastructureproviding jobs and skills throughout the countryexpand Social Security benefits, and make Medicare a national single-payer health insurance system. Add an ambitious plan for climate changecentered on a carbon taxand new Wall Street regulations meant to stop another financial crisis, and you have a wide agenda for redistribution that rivals Roosevelts New Deal, Trumans G.I. Bill, and Johnsons Great Society.
You can read this as a left-liberal wishlist, but for Sanders and his supporters, its much more than that. To them, it is a serious plan to strike a powerful blow to inequality, from the wide gap between rich and poor, to the yawning divide between black and white. To be honest with you, explained Sanders in a June interview on ABCs This Week With George Stephanopoulos, given the disparity that were seeing in income and wealth in this country, it applies even more to the African-American community and to the Hispanic community.
Partisans for the senator are even more forceful. Closing the racial wealth gap is probably the single most effective thing that any politician could do to help advance the cause of ending structural racism in America, writes Hamilton Nolan for Gawker, in praise and defense of Sanders. This is because promoting progressive economic policies that work against the extreme concentration of wealth in small groups of people is something that politicians can actually do that has actual real world effects on racial inequality.
Of course, none of this would address racism, full stop. (And despite his clumsiness with racial conversations, neither Sanders nor his campaign has ever claimed it would.) It wouldnt end bias in hiring or other forms of employment discrimination, nor would it address concentrated poverty, residential segregation, housing affordability, or the broad problem of police violence. But in a world where the Sanders plan was law, racial minoritiesand blacks in particularwould have more and greater opportunity. Couple this with his outline for reducing race discrimination in criminal justicecrafted as a direct result of protests from Black Lives Matter activistsand Sanders has built an ambitious plan for tackling racial inequality across American society.
(snip)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/08/black_lives_matter_and_bernie_sanders_why_the_protesters_are_so_hard_on.html
Of course BLM never got close to Hillary, they couldn't get past security so they made an appointment for a private interview which left Black Lives Matter members dissatisfied with her responses.
However there was no excuse for Anderson Cooper to conveniently alter the "Sophie's Choice" yes or no question, "do Black Lives Matter or do all lives matter?" just before he got to Hillary, after asking that of Bernie and O'Malley, the most progressive candidates on the stage.
I wonder how Hillary would've handled it if Black Lives Matter had basically taken over her stage as she was about to give a speech to eager listeners after traveling hundreds of miles?
On that we will never know.
I believe Bernie handled it with grace and his conduct since has given evidence that he most assuredly listened to their grievances.
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)There is no amazing feat to be seen here.
A reasonably intelligent person with a staff of relevant professionals and earnest preparation should be expected to rip the fools to shreds because they had a shitty, baseless, and very incoherent case the whole way so what other possible outcome could have been expected.
What potential pitfalls were there really? What was the deadly weakness in Clinton's case relative to that of the committee that it took some amazing effort to overcome not obtainable by mere mortals like Sanders?
Is it your thought they had some amazing case she dodged and turned around and made blow up in their faces?
I don't get how a known nothing burger being shown as such because a legendary effort beyond the capabilities of almost anyone alive.
I don't agree with you much but I honestly believe if we get you a team of legal, political, and policy experts and a couple of weeks of solid preparation that you'd do fine. I say this not to be disparaging of Clinton at all but it just wasn't a test because they had absolutely no case.
The only candidate I'd have any concerns about in a similar situation is Chaffee and that only because he comes off as fumbling and wishy washy but even he'd wipe the floor with them on the merits because he'd have a tremendous advantage in that area.
Webb, O'Malley, and Sanders would all also have sent them packing to their mamas. Fucking Webb would have probably made one of the bastards cry. O'Malley would have left them stammering in an avalanche of facts. Sanders would have flipped the script and would have ended up grilling them on related areas way out of their comfort zone.
Our people and even we common citizens are nowhere near as weak, stupid, and pitiful as you are making out to feather Clinton's nest here.
I never had a moments passing concern that Clinton wouldn't easily handle this and I've never been a fan because they had nothing and everyone except the dumbest people in the country ever thought different.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)My point is that is was Hillary who went before the committee and basically shut them down. She did that publicly, and clips from it are everywhere, and will probably be used in her campaign.
That gives her an advantage with many voters. I'm not really arguing Clinton's exceptional ability, but saying that the fact that she got the coverage gives her campaign a boost.
How would Bernie Sanders have done in a similar situation. I don't know. Neither will anyone else. That's all my original post said, really. Since I'm a Clinton supporter, people have been reading into my post things I did not say. I thought she handled the situation very well, and would have expected her to do so.
Now, Sanders might have done just as well, but he wasn't in that situation, so his ability remains unknown to most voters. In that sense, those hearings benefited Hillary Clinton. It's all a matter of how things appear to voters. Is that fair? Probably not, but it's real. The combination of the debates, where Clinton did a very good job of presenting herself, Biden's decision not to run and these hearings are going to create a very solid, substantial bump in her poll results.
The polling released early next week is going to show a major shift. Those three events are going to move Clinton up in the polls unmistakably. She will pick up most of Joe Biden's numbers, get the bump from the debates, and receive further increases because of her performance in those hearings.
How much of a boost? I can't say for sure, but I'm sure it will be in the double digits in national polling, and high single digits in the NH and IA polling. We'll see on Monday or Tuesday.
While I'm a Clinton supporter, I'm more an observer of political campaigns. I have one vote in my precinct caucus on March 1, and know that my opinion is not going to make much of a difference. I think Hillary Clinton has helped herself over the past couple of weeks, and I think that will be reflected in the polling. That's my observation.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Most people at the highest level of politics are well-practiced at comporting themselves properly at hearings and the like, and not throwing folders across the room. They're public performers. It's neither here nor there for me.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Ms.Clinton might have secured her run for President yesterday. And if she does receive the nod,it is going to be a blow out for her. So many sound bites and optics yesterday,and if her campaign markets her appropriately and hits the Rethugs with the Big Club,game match set. Say this even though I prefer Sanders Humphrey ideas over Ms. Clinton's.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)substantial lead in national polling. She certainly didn't do anything to alter that. Her appearance before that committee may well give her another boost. But that remains to be seen.
She did get some good clips to use in her campaign, though. You're right.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Great examples aren't hard to find if one is willing to exert even a small bit of effort.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)under heavy pressure. I will go look at it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He would never have to face such a hostile committee because everyone knows he is -- honest and caring.
Hillary is easy prey for the Republicans because she is known to be less honest and caring than Bernie Sanders.
Hillary is viewed as scheming, self-interested and not entirely honest by millions of Republicans. It's a big problem for her. It could easily mean she cannot be elected.
I would go so far as to say it makes her unelectable
She may not deserve to be viewed in that light, but she is by millions of Americans. I have a friend who is otherwise liberal who says absolutely crazy, clearly untrue and horrible things about Hillary Clinton. The nation has been brainswashed into believing strange things about her.
In the view of Democrats, Hillary performed well yesterday. But I bet the Republicans will make something negative of it. That's what they do best.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I guess I'll have to go with what I have, then.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)R B Garr
(16,920 posts)First he's too pure to go after, then his storming out is fine. I lol'd.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)that Bernie Sanders has been a part of, where he has stormed out of in his career?
I really want to know, out of the presumably thousands of meetings Sanders has participated in, what percentage of those he's "stormed out" of that merits having a "history.
Not anecdotes. I discount those. Everyone gets "aggravated" sometimes...
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/251413-clinton-pulls-plug-on-testy-presser-over-server-questions
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He can get short and gruff sometimes (and Hillary can too), but he doesn't have a "history of storming out."
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)of former freepers and Hillary-bashers-turned-Hillary-worshippers. Makes my head spin
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)by the press. Storming out is not Presidential -- can't believe his supporters think any good can come of it.
murielm99
(30,657 posts)You should change your screen name to Pollyanna.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)to answer your question.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=716094
There you go. I didn't even have to leave DU. He gave two examples in the thread. If you want more do a simple Youtube search.
artislife
(9,497 posts)This sounds like you "listen" to others only for the break for when you can "speak". Why do I say this? Because I bet almost every Hillary supporter here can think of at least two videos they have seen linked here where Sanders gives the what to whom.
But maybe they are more interested in actually debating pros and cons.
djean111
(14,255 posts)having to choose between Bernie and the GOP candidate in the GE, and this is the thing that will decide your vote.
personally, I am all about the issues. The issues will affect lives.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)as Secretary of State. International relations are a big part of the President's job. Of course I'll vote for Bernie if he is the nominee. I just wish I knew more about how he handles pressure in adversarial situations. I don't think the debate really counts. Personally, I think Hillary did a better job there, too, but that's just my opinion.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Done deal, really! I did not really care about the debate (did not watch it), because I know where Bernie actually stands on the issues, and, as I have been admonished in recent years, campaign speeches and debates can be just blather, ginned up to hook voters, but disregarded afterwards. I trust Bernie, and I do not trust Hillary. As I said, done deal, for me, and my family.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It's not important to you, perhaps, but it is to me. Thanks for replying.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The Republicans don't try with Bernie what they do with Hillary because he does not play dirty with them. He plays fair with everyone.
Bernie does well under pressure all the time.
Here is an article about life in Congress for an honest man, Bernie.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825
That's pressure for you.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)That gives us a glimpse.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I don't think he handled that in the best way, frankly, now that you mention it.
djean111
(14,255 posts)overrides differences on the issues, and that yesterday's event should inspire all of bernie's supporters to now support Hillary. Hope I am just imagining things.
The little I saw just told me how little the GOP would work with Hillary, and how much they hate her. More gridlock.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)on the committee. The committee had a goal, and she very skillfully prevented them from reaching that goal. Similar situations happen all the time when Presidents are negotiating international affairs and agreements. The ability to remain diplomatic while being firm is crucial in moving such things to a good conclusion.
Sometimes, a President has to be able to stand down an adversary and prevail. Hillary did that in that committee hearing, which lasted for hours. It's not an easy thing to do. After the hearing, the Republicans were left with nothing. Not everyone can manage such an outcome in such a situation. It's a qualification for being President, I think.
I think back to JFK, during the Cuban missile crisis. That situation ended up fizzling out for the USSR, but could easily have gone a different way. I followed that closely at the time and was deeply impressed at the skill and sheer capability that JFK used to back the Soviet Union down. The crisis was averted.
I want that kind of ability in the next President. President Obama has it. JFK had it. Bill Clinton had it. We need it.
If Bernie Sanders has it, I'd like to see him successfully using it. I will go to any link anyone wants to provide.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)people who have faced Senate hearings are known entities in terms of pressure. You know who did really well dealing with Senate hearings? Lionel Stander. You know who he was? He played Max on Heart To Heart. Got called before HUAC, drank their milkshake. Blacklisted for the effort.
Full text of his testimony is here:
https://archive.org/stream/investigationofcnyc0304unit/investigationofcnyc0304unit_djvu.txt
So Obama, never faced such a hearing. Max from Heart To Heart did. As did much of the film business.
Hillary did great yesterday. It's a bad idea to claim to need hearings to vet candidates for their skill sets, very bad idea.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I've seen Hillary under fire. I have not seen Bernie in a similar situation. I'm also not talking about committee hearings. I'm talking about adversarial situations in general, with international relations particularly in mind.
I do expect to be able to judge candidates on those abilities. Adversarial situations and responses. That's what I'm looking for. You have your criteria, and I have mine. We each have one vote.
djean111
(14,255 posts)link to something you approve of, you would make another dramatic switch of support, like you did a few months ago? I doubt it.
You should just be all satisfied with your choice of Hillary!
I do not care for Hillary's stance on many issues. That is what is important to me.
Oh, and Hillary already knew that committee is a bunch of clowns. And she has had quite a long time to prepare for that interrogation. That is a LOT different from that 3 a.m. phone call, and I do not trust a hawkish person like Hillary to not overreact just to look strong.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)There are lots more out there. Right now, Bernie is running behind. I just gave one reason for that. It's not me the Sanders campaign needs to think about, really. To win the nomination, he's going to need a lot more votes in the primaries. If he's the nominee, you can count on my support. I've said that again and again.
Again, thanks for the reply.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)which are led by amateurish GOP Houseclowns--people who barely have the skills for state-level politics--with real international crises and serious diplomatic situations. But if you wanna go there, let's start with the huge and lasting diplomatic WIN! that was Libya. Libya's regime change was her pet project. What was the triumph there? "We came, we saw, he died"? How much good judgment did that display? Our actions there ultimately culminated in Stevens' death. How was that crisis properly handled, by the State Department, the CIA, the Pentagon? What wise minds presided over that clusterfuck? It was a failure any way you slice it--it was a failure of policy, of communication, of preparation and responsiveness. Certainly not Clinton's failure alone, not enough to make her the sole target of investigations--but there was certainly an element of failure in the State Department's handling of the entire deal. Who was held accountable within the various agencies? Who in the State Department was held accountable?
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I didn't realize we have DUers who quake in the shadow of Trey Gowdy.
underpants
(182,281 posts)It's not that the Republicans wouldn't notice it's that it doesn't matter. The whole thing was meant for them to get on TV and say the words TV tells them to say.
It's sort of like Eastwood talking to an empty chair.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)he will be accused of being a charter member of the International Communist Conspiracy, a cabal intent on bringing Stalinism to America, complete with collective farms and gulags. There will be hearings about how Bernie wants to sap our precious bodily fluids. If you're a Democratic President or a candidate for same, you don't actually have to have ever done anything for them to hold Star Chamber-type hearings.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)It's not so easy to force a sitting President to appear before a committee, though. In fact, it's extremely difficult.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 23, 2015, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)
put your little heart to rest and have no fear. You know it never happened to Obama either. I will say that other than this Bengazi horse shit those "tough spots" she has found herself in were of her own making. That should give anyone pause.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Healthcare.
She appeared before the Senate when she was being confirmed as Secretary of State and while Secretary of State she was Questions about Benghazi.
At 26, she worked for John Doar during the Nixon hearings, and so had some tangential experience from the other side of the questioning. (Before anyone asks, no, she wasn't fired.0
She is not knew to this process.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Again, that is not my point. My point is that we do have examples of Hillary Clinton in adversarial situations and stressful environments. She does just fine in those situations, and Presidents are likely to face such situations during their terms. My point is that we do not have examples of Bernie Sanders in similar adversarial situations. If anyone has such a situation to link to, I'd welcome the chance to look at it.
Hillary does well. We have seen that. We have not seen how Bernie Sanders does in such situations. I'd like to.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Constant investigations have been part of the Clinton experience.
It is almost a Pavlovian reflex on the part of Republicans.
That happens because she placed herself in the line of fire constantly since Bill Clinton ran for President.
Sanders has been in government all of his life, but never put himself in a position where it was worth their time to investigate him. Unless he wins the nomination, he isn't worth their time when there is a Clinton to fear and Loath.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)Not answering questions but standing and talking. I think he took a bathroom break.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)He won't be as careless.as.she leaving trails.of her baggage for the GOP to play games with
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)capable of destroying all life on Earth several times over and a hell of a lot closer to dealing with the terrible twos but without the realistic possibility of growing up or learning.
The possibility of her having any issue dealing with those clowns was always about zero because they had nothing and the whole world knew that in advance of the event.
The exercise was a charade put on by grifters not a serious challenge.
Does anyone here think they would have been overwhelmed by those fuckwits with staff and any preparation?
What was this mighty obstacle? Classic roadrunner and coyote stuff at most as they had less to go on than ever.
I can't believe most folks here think these idiots would present any significant issues other than keeping from getting visibly pissed.
I go around with the OP but I think he'd do just fine as just one example.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Just so you can see how he reacts?
That's like me wishing Clinton would be attacked on stage by a crazy person calling her supporters white supremacists. The hearing was the best thing to happen to her campaign since the Medicare forum assault on Bernie. She should send thank you notes to the entire band of idiots.
Hoping du holds on to what's left of its collective sanity
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Because he WILL be our nominee.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)MM: Gee I sure wish I could know more about how the candidate I kicked to the curb would handle such things... *wrings hands and looks concerned*
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Bernblu
(441 posts)When she had to use her judgement she decided to vote for the worst foreign policy decision in in modern U.S. history. Hope you're happy with the next war!
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)You know, the one Bernie voted for.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)thinking 'holding an election' would bring stability to a country. When I heard Clinton recite the fact that they held elections in Libya I could not help but think of how the Bush administration championed the same about elections in Iraq.
"I wish I knew more about how Sanders would handle such situations."
Unless you have a damn good clue of the outcome, then you do not destabilize the country by removing their dictator/leader.
Then you will not have to answer questions before a committee when things go awry.
Hillary did well yesterday in the game of US politics, but the region and people fleeing violence have not done as well.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts).....but he's not, so I'm just going to sit around wishin''
I mean, really, I don't get it. Where were you going with this?
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Which is not unusual for this poster.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Later he posted an OP that essentially rubbed Bernie supporters' noses in some piece about Hillary's supposedly unstoppable momentum.
He likes to play mind games with people here.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)thesquanderer
(11,955 posts)"Unlike my opponent, I've already proven I know how to handle a scandal!"
(Yes, I know, Benghazi is a fake scandal.)
Considering how much good this did for HRC, BS should be begging Gowdy to let him testify about something too!
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)With Bernie's demonstrations and protests I don't think she has had the resilience of Bernie.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)hardcore Sanders fans. It's an election, not a history class, and people vote based on things they see and can remember. Bernie Sanders has been an activist on social issues for a very, very long time. I know that, and you know that, but it won't matter to enough voters to swing the primary elections, frankly, or the general election, either.
I admire Senator Sanders very much, but I don't think he is a viable presidential candidate. I never have, really. I hope he continues his long career in the Senate and keeps standing up for what is right.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)The bubble will be burst for her. She will not win the general election because she will lose the base and she doesn't appeal across the political spectrum. She has too much baggage and for those who think the Republicans have finished with her - dream on they have millions to play with. Enjoy the temporary remission while you can.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)like the hearings Hillary has gone through suggests he is not as ready for the Office of President as Hillary is. Sure Barrack Obama also did not have much political/government experience which was a strike against him but he was a very special candidate and overcame that. But Bernie is not in his league.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)The Clintons have been attacked for over 20 years, and Hillary seems to be as toughened as ever. Bernie's only political experience has been in Vermont, and has little experience dealing with scrutiny in the national political stage. Bernie can't even deal with a definition of Democratic Socialism when questioned!
I like Bernie, but when it comes to this, Bernie's not in the same league at all!
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)You're right about that. He's very direct and has considerable impatience when pressed to deal with things that aren't on his current agenda for discussion. The BLM thing at Netroots sort of demonstrated that, I think. He has a strong message, but lacks a certain amount of flexibility in on-the-spot adjustments to the conversation.
I love his ideas, but don't think he's all that good at getting them across to an audience that isn't focused on what he's focused on. In speeches, he tends toward the pedantic and can be seen as a little irascible. That doesn't bother his fans, but a presidential campaign is about getting more and more fans. Everyone has different issues that are important to them. Not everyone is willing to listen only to discussions of issues that aren't.
This is a presidential primary election. Campaigning has to cover the full range of issues of concern to voters. It needs to be extremely flexible and able to deal with questions on an impromptu basis. I don't think Sanders is as good as Clinton in speaking off the cuff, frankly, nor in dealing with sudden changes of topic.
Watch the polling, and you'll see the difference those things make over time, I think.
Yes, I'm a Clinton supporter, but I'm also an observer of campaigns with over 50 years of doing that and commenting on it.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)This was just one year ago. Bernie has a lot of growing up to do.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)I see what you're saying, though. An incident like that during the primary campaign would probably be fatal to his campaign. We've seen campaigns die for much less than that. I'd guess that Bernie Sanders understands that completely and won't make such an error at any campaign appearance.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)However, he did endure Anderson Cooper's hardball questions, so that may show that he strengthened significantly. Still, that could be a campaign ruiner if someone's able to break him like that.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)He talked, again, about what the State of Vermont is like with regard to firearms. For a presidential candidate the particular wishes of one state aren't really relevant. In fact, I believe they should be irrelevant when it comes to legislation that affects the entire country.
Presidents deal with national issues. Legislators have to deal with constituents in their own state. That's a real difference. I thought that his answer on the gun control issue failed to recognize that. I noticed it as soon as he brought up Vermont. O'Malley called him on it in his response. I don't live in Vermont, so I don't really care much about gun ownership in that state. I'm interested in gun control as a national issue. I think most people are, really.
That was a small fumble, of course, and it may have gone unnoticed by most people, but it will come up again in ensuing debates. I hope someone pointed the fumble out to him so he can change his response a bit.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)But since he isn't dragging along a freight train full of baggage filled with the dirty laundry from self-inflicted, unforced errors, it certainly is less likely.
But if you want people to buy that "I was a Sanders guy till those meanie Sanders supporters turned me out" bullshit, you might want to at least pretend to know something about the man. He can handle himself just fine in ANY situation, including taking on the turds on the right. Had you ever been serious in supporting him, you would know that.