http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/24/why_trump_might_win_130653.html While the article is titled "why Trump might win," he makes some astute observations about how this election cycle has unfolded, why the pundits have been so wrong, and ultimately why Trump and Sanders are doing so well. I'm not interested in discussing the candidates in this thread, but the premise of the article.
From my POV, the issue is the over promise and under delivery by both parties. Also, that we elect rock stars who are clueless about governing well. The one thing that Sanders and Trump have in common, as Reich points out, is they appeal to a large slice of the population that feels screwed over by the system. In Sanders' case, it is effectively distribution of wealth. Those on the left have beaten this drum long enough that the masses actually believe it is a problem. In Trump's case, it is illegal immigrants taking the jobs from Americans. There is clear dissemination of bad information behind it all, but this does not mean the status quo is good for us all. Both have more in common: 1. They have successfully identified bogeymen to run against. In Sanders' case, it is corporations and rich people. In Trump's case, it is he illegals. In both cases, it is the trade deals. The bogeyman thing is not new to politics. Republicans ran against the USSR successfully for years (and gays and criminals...). Democrats' rhetoric has traditionally included "I will fight for..." (against some bogeyman). 2. The trade deals Job killers. Job exporters. Etc. This clearly has struck a chord with a lot of voters. 3. Appeal to middle class whites The proof is in the polling data. Public policy aimed at improving the situation for minorities has had a negative effect on middle class whites. You can see the gripes about it here, by a number of posters. Both are old white men. 4. Running against the party establishment. Yup, the system is rigged. Another bogeyman, as well. 5. The pundits completely underestimated the viability of the two candidates The revolt by the voter is also against the biased media. Trump at war with Fox News, Sanders supporters claim the media is in the bag for Clinton. 6. Hope and change, hopes dashed and change for the worse. The people have seen enough of progressives running things. The hope this time is "real change" is required to effect real change. 7. The bulk of both candidates' supporters do not agree with the candidates' policy proposals. Trump supporters routinely say they don't believe Trump means what he says about the most controversial things. Misogyny, the wall, etc. Youth voters who support Sanders are opposed to most of Sanders' proposals when polled.
A similar case made by politico: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-policy-democrats-republicans-politics-213909
It'd be interesting if Trump/Sanders joined forces somehow. Trump decides to get behind wealth redistribution, Sanders embraces immigration legislation reinforcement, and they walk to the white house hand in hand.
What always amazes me is that people seem to maintain a belief that government can change things for the better for the masses. To my way of thinking, government is only really good at screwing things up. Look at Social Security as a prime example. As a self-employed person, I've been feeding almost 17% of every dollar I earn into the system for more than 30 years. Now, unless our "representatives" actually do something constructive (read "screw over the younger generation"), there's a good chance the system will go bankrupt in my lifetime. If I'd had the option of putting even 10% into a retirement plan and giving the rest to the government to piss away, I'd be far ahead of the game. And don't even get me started with the miracle of ObamaCare.
That would be...."interesting" is the only word that comes to mind. I believe that Trump would make a deal with the devil himself to assure his chances of stoking his ego by becoming President. Sanders strikes me as a true-believer, so I don't see him as trusting The Donald for anything.
Trusting? No, not a chance. But if he thought that the Vice-Presidency would be his best chance to get some of his ideas pushed through (remember, the VP is the president of the Senate), and he really did think that another 4-8 years of Clintonism would be a terrible thing, he might consider a partnership with Trump as the best option in a bad situation.
I thought about this idea a while ago. There is enough of an overlap in policy ideas that the two could coexist. It would be genius for Trump to at least make the offer, and make that public. However, Trump seems more interested in Sanders running as a 3rd party candidate.
Along some of these same lines Mark Cuban is open to being Hillary or Trumps VP and has considered running in 2020. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/mark-cuban-open-being-trump-or-clinton-s-vp-n578241 Im not sure if this new trend is good or bad. Getting career politicians out of the driver seat is good, but replacing them with reality stars might not be the best idea either.
Political races remind me of Hollywood movie trailers. Campaigning candidates and movie trailers that create the highest votes/ticket sales are the ones that create the most drama. And also have spun the best special affects that distort reality. Actual results seldom live up to the promised hype.
It's a bit like sleeping with a 400 lb crack whore to get back at your wife for asking you to take out the garbage. Yeah, that'll teach her. barfo
This is Reich in one phrase right here; "the most dangerous nominee of a major political party in American history" Over the top, but, I can't think of thing the man has ever said where I could agree.