Interesting topic. I just read it in the news papers myself.
Personally: I think it's very good news. I've read his biography, and it's much better than I thought it'd be.
But here's the thing general Americans have a hard time grasping: HIS IDEAS ARE MAINSTREAM IN EUROPE!
I've said it at least three times on this forum: to us, democrats are a rightwing group, and republicans are extreme right. As such, I suspected Bernie (who calls himself a socialist) to be what we call 'center'. But he's not: he actually IS a socialist (yeah...sorry if that sounded suspicious, but I've so used to these differences that whenever the word "socialist" is tossed around, I'm used to it applying to anywhere between liberal and communist).
Bernie Sanders has announced this morning that he is running in 2020
He's going to be a very old man by that time (78)
Erm...I fail to see the problem here. That argument was tossed around last time as well, and anyone who can count knows which president now has around that same physical age.
In other words: does Sanders really need to dye his hair blonde and get a skin tan to get more votes?
...come to think of it: I'm not even sure if that's a joke.
On a small note: I've seen some footage of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I know she's not a candidate (yet?
), but as far as young democrats go: you CAN be both smart and beautiful. She's doing it effortlessly.
Further, his policies have widely been adopted by others such as Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren
That his policies get adopted by others isn't a reason to pick others instead. The original is better, isn't it?
If you're American, would you vote for him in the primary?
Do you think his policy of running without pacs is going to hurt him?
Can't answer the former due to not being American (I would if I was, but that's not a surprise to anyone reading my posts
).
Do you think his policy of running without pacs is going to hurt him?
Hmm...it's a disadvantage, but it'd be the better thing to do. Those pacs are never GIVEN to presidential candidates: they're sort of investments that companies make in order to make sure the legislation doesn't change toward their disadvantage.
The problem is: can he raise enough awareness? From what I gather from his biography, lots of news channels just refused to air him because the appeal of his ideas didn't matter as much as the influence that pacs bring.
(as such: the irony is that the ruckus surrounding Hillary Clinton blocking his candidacy probably brought his name more on people's radar than his actual candidacy).
Are his Medicare for all and free college ideas too far to the left to attract voters in a general election?
Oh, it certainly attracts votes. the question is "how many votes?". You see, I don't think any American is genuinely AGAINST medicare for all and free college...I think many just don't believe it is achievable to even start to pursuit (a small hint: EVERY COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET is better in these regards than USA. So yes: start pursuing it, damnit. It has a much better future pay-off than anything blondie has brought to the table).
When reading "The fifth risk" (by Michael Lewis), one of the recurring themes is the strange relationship Americans have with their government. It does so much for them, but it is all taken for granted if everything works out and seriously ridiculed at the slightest hint of error. That whole "right or extreme right" we Europeans see on your potential candidates isn't just because they're the only options but because there is (or was?
) insufficient demand for an actual political left government. It's already a huge improvement that someone like Sanders can become a household name.