Sanders’ surprising success built on Wellstone-style campaign

REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
Bernie Sanders greeting supporters after speaking on the campus of Penn State University on Tuesday.

A million years ago (last August), when the possibility that Bernie Sanders might be able to mount a halfway serious challenge to Hillary Clinton’s presumptive nomination for president was just beginning to be taken seriously, I covered a daylong confab in Minneapolis of the Democratic National Committee at which all of the presidential candidates spoke.

In the crowd, I saw state Rep. Frank Hornstein (DFL-Minneapolis) very active in the room and wearing a “Bernie for President” t-shirt, so I tracked him down soon after for an interview about why he was for Sanders.

Hornstein wasn’t interested then (and still isn’t now) in talking about whether Sanders had a real chance for the nomination. He’s doesn’t aspire to be a horse-race handicapper, he explained, he aspires to be a progressive-movement builder and a Paul Wellstone acolyte.

Wellstone, like Sanders, stood up for populist/progressive positions at the edge of the acceptable range for U.S. politics at the time, and he won U.S. Senate elections with youth-powered campaigns that eventually morphed into the ongoing Wellstone Action movement.

Sanders has far exceeded expectations for how far a septuagenarian Jewish senator from a tiny state who has never called himself a Democrat and has called himself a socialist (“democratic socialist,” to be sure) could get in a race for the nomination of the party he never really joined. He hasn’t given up yet, and far be it from me to assess his chances of winning the nomination, except to say they are dwindling, especially after his big loss this week in New York. (Nate Cohn, The New York Times’ political math guy, says Sanders would need to win 58-59 percent of the remaining delegates just to catch up with Hillary Clinton in the pledged-delegate category, and he also trails by a large margin among the superdelegates.)

It brought me back to my months-ago conversation with Hornstein, so I tracked him down Wednesday. He said he is “still not interested in being a political handicapper” but that he “would acknowledge that Clinton has a big advantage.”

Building a movement

But he also is still interested in movement-building and still thinks the Sanders campaign has played something like a Wellstonian role by bringing young people into the political process and by stretching the definition of permissible thoughts on politics and policy. He said:

“Through the Sanders campaign, a movement is being built — of people of all ages but particularly young people — who are stating in no uncertain terms that they want fundamental change in our economic and political system. So the challenge moving forward — regardless of the outcome of the campaign for the nomination — is how to increase and involve particularly these young people in the summer and fall campaign” and to continue to build on Sanders’ message.

“A strong and unequivocal message has been built around the concentration of power in the hands of a few corporate interests, and the danger that that poses on a variety of specific issues but fundamentally on the health of our democracy. And yes, it still reminds me of the Wellstone movement because there’s a populist message that’s very focused on grassroot organizing and activism. In that regard, I think Bernie and Paul have a lot in common. It’s an aspirational message that really speaks to what politics can be rather than business-as-usual politics.

“Through the Wellstone campaigns, a whole group of people got involved in a way that even built  institutions, such as Wellstone Action and other kinds of spin-offs, where people are doing what Paul admonished, which is combining good public-policy ideas with grassroots action and with involvement in elections and campaigns. It’s known as the Wellstone triangle. What he said is that you really need all three of these, acting in concert, to be effective in making change.

“Wellstone Action has trained thousands of grassroots activists, candidates and election workers over many years in many states. It’s really had a national impact, and one of its organizers, by the way, Peggy Flanagan, is now serving in the Legislature.”

Hornstein clarified that he knows of no formal, institutional connection between Wellstone Action and the Sanders campaign, but he believes many young people trained by Wellstone Action and Camp Wellstone do support Sanders, although undoubtedly some also support Hillary Clinton.

Young voters

If Sanders does end his presidential campaign, Hornstein said, it’s vital that the issues he raised continue to be addressed and that the leaders of the Sanders and the Clinton campaigns keep those young people who have been energized by Sanders’ candidacy engaged in politics through the fall. Sure, he added, “the Republican extremism” will motivate some anyway, but it’s vital that the discussion include “something positive, something aspirational.” Hornstein said:

“I want the themes and the overall framing, particularly of the economic justice, climate and war-and-peace issues that Bernie has raised so clearly and unapologetically, continue to be part not only of the Democratic Party agenda, but its messaging at all levels, in races for the statehouse.

“So much is on the line in 2016, and it’s absolutely clear that everything Bernie has been talking about resonates very well, not only with base Democratic voters but independent voters. There’s something very wrong and something very broken in our politics and that has to be understood and acknowledged and acted upon.”

In that context he mentioned some of Sanders’ critiques of the campaign-finance system, the role of big lobbies, the concentration of economic power in a small number of huge financial institutions and climate change.

“We are the wealthiest society in the history of the world,” Hornstein said. “We do have the resources to address these issues. We do have the resources to improve upon the Affordable Care Act and move toward single-payer health care.”

Single-payer health care

If Clinton, who opposes single-payer, defeats Sanders, won’t that discourage movement down the single-payer path? I asked.

Single-payer health care is something that, until the Sanders campaign, has been treated as “unobtainable,” Hornstein said, “so even people who favored it didn’t feel able to advocate for it.” The same is true of other Sanders positions. But Sanders demonstrated that there is an audience willing to listen to those ideas, and Hornstein expects the size of that audience to grow.

Civil rights, gay rights and the abolition of slavery were all ideas that were once considered “unobtainable,” until a movement in favor of them grew too large to ignore, he said.

“What we’ve seen during this primary and caucus season is the depth to which many people agree with the fundamental ideas that Sanders has been talking about,” Hornstein said. “Those ideas predated him and will continue after him. One election is important, but it doesn’t define or fully capture a movement.”

Hornstein said he likes Sanders and what Sanders has stood for during the campaign, and he believes the Sanders campaign helped build the movement for those policies and educated a lot of 18-29-year-olds who will sustain the movement and project those proposals into future campaigns.

I asked whether Sanders’ campaign had made the future of U.S. politics safe for people who call themselves “socialists.” Hornstein said it isn’t about labels, it’s about ideas.

“You can call them what you want,” he said “Use the word ‘socialism’ or not. It’s just a word. And Bernie has never advocated for socialism in the traditional sense of government ownership of the means of production.

“Ultimately, it’s what Wellstone always said. Government should be about improving people’s lives, and health care that covers everyone will improve people’s lives. Paid family and medical leaves will improve people’s lives.”

And that’s what Bernie and others are talking about. Not what terms you use to talk about them, Hornstein said, and added — half-jokingly, I assume:  “The arc of history bends toward justice. The arc of history bends toward single-payer.”

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (34)

  1. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/21/2016 - 11:38 am.

    Sanders’s issues are inevitable, not unobtainable.

    Obamacare, while it helped with some issues, will not control costs or produce the necessary efficiency’s. And Obamacare will continue to be plagued challenges. Likewise wages and income for the middle class will never be “granted” by owners and investors but will have to be dictated by law. In short we to return to a common sense liberal agenda, we’re not going to baby-step our way out of this. The republicans are imploding and it would be a shame to miss an opportunity with a neo-liberal meets minimum requirement president who will never be popular enough to seriously challenge the status quo; rather than some one who energizes and inspires.

  2. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/21/2016 - 11:46 am.

    I also think Sanders’s is/was inspired by Obama

    If I could ask Sanders one question it would be: “Why now?” After decades in congress, and at his age, why now? What was about this election cycle that convinced him he had a shot at the nomination? He clearly saw something that nobody else saw and I’d like to know what it was.

    If I had to guess I’d say he sensed the same support for a progressive agenda that we all sensed when Obama ran, and despite the ongoing republican apoplexy Obama has had good presidency staying more the left then the right on a lot of issues. Not only that but Sanders appears to have been inspired by Obama’s campaign strategy of campaigning in every one of the 50 states and grinding down Clinton’s lead. He’s not having much success thus far but that’s clearly his strategy. Furthermore, Obama won by inspiring new voters with a compelling vision and progressive agenda.

    • Submitted by Steven Bailey on 04/22/2016 - 08:53 am.

      $ Obama $

      Obama took more money from Wall Street than any candidate that has ever run for office. Also the TPP is a horrible and brutal free trade agreement and has been Obama’s main objective since taking office. If passed the TPP will place Obama as worst president ever. I voted for him in 2008.

    • Submitted by Brian Simon on 04/22/2016 - 02:46 pm.

      OWS

      Occupy Wall Street is a possible inspiration for a guy fed up with the status quo & looking to spark a political movement.

      If someone can harness that energy & combine it with Black Lives Matter, they’ll be a significant political voice. Find a way to include disenchanted blue collar workers & really go places.

  3. Submitted by Pat Terry on 04/21/2016 - 01:10 pm.

    50 states?

    Sanders’ campaign manager says that Sanders did not compete in a number of states Clinton won.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/bernie-sanders-campaign_us_56f98f5ae4b0a372181aa375

  4. Submitted by Jim Million on 04/21/2016 - 02:50 pm.

    Eric

    I agree, if you are focusing on the cultivation of college people; otherwise….no.

  5. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 04/21/2016 - 03:28 pm.

    No, it’s completely different than Wellstone.

    Trump and Sanders have somehow coopted the process to become representatives of the highest order of parties they have disrespected for their entire adult lives.

    They are the beginnings of a new chaos in the political world.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 04/21/2016 - 05:14 pm.

      Right

      Paul had a much better grip on reality.
      He put in his time as an activist, but not as a deliberate outsider.

      • Submitted by Pat Terry on 04/21/2016 - 11:20 pm.

        Also

        Wellstone worked his tail off to try to elect other Democrats. Sanders has never lifted a finger. They might have similiar beliefs, but Wellstone was about action and Sanders all talk.

  6. Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 04/21/2016 - 08:24 pm.

    Why, oh why?

    About a century ago, people in Russia were following Lenin’s Bolsheviks because they believed in the bright future of communism and equality promised to them. At that time, the average education in Russia was very low and no one had had any historical knowledge of socialism. Fast forward to today’s America. What can explain support for a socialist coming from educated people and college students? There is plenty of evidence nowadays that socialism doesn’t work. And it doesn’t work because of human nature, not because of the wrong implementation. Statements like “… wages and income for the middle class will never be “granted” by owners and investors but will have to be dictated by law” sound so similar to “proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains” and “we are nothing, let us be all.” Just read this from L’Internationale:

    The State oppresses and the law cheats.
    Tax bleeds the unfortunate.
    No duty is imposed on the rich;
    The rights of the poor is an empty phrase.
    Enough languishing in custody!
    Equality wants other laws:
    No rights without duties, she says,
    Equally, no duties without rights.

    We are we so easily fooled by the empty promises?

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 04/22/2016 - 10:18 am.

      You are right that

      Communism (an extreme form of Socialism) does not work,
      and that a pure form of Socialism is contrary to the basic laws of human behavior and thus would also not work (although it’s never been tried in its pure form).
      However, it’s largely irrelevant since pure socialism is not being advocated by anyone in current American politics today.
      What Sanders is advocating is a Northern European style hybrid of socialism and capitalism, with the means of production in private ownership, but public welfare a government responsibility.

      • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 04/22/2016 - 08:43 pm.

        Yes, all socialist countries were pure socialist in a sense that the means of production belonged to the government (and that is a socialism definition). I am glad you agree with me that socialism doesn’t work due to human nature which is such that without incentives (positive or negative, i.e. more money to buy good things or punishment if nothing is produced) many people will not work. Now, that Nordic system, so admired by Sanders, does exactly the same thing: it gives people some money that is enough to live relatively well without asking for anything in return. Result is predictable: Europe is in decline – just look at what is happening with the southern European countries and even Nordic countries are starting to get in trouble (http://news.yahoo.com/end-scandinavian-dream-080000813.html, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/1206/Finland-wants-to-give-all-citizens-rich-or-poor-a-monthly-payment. Excessive public welfare will lead to people not wanting to work in the private sector which will cause its death and result in government needing more welfare…

        • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 04/24/2016 - 02:06 pm.

          Europe’s problem

          was establishing a common currency without a corresponding common political structure to support it.
          This would be a good time to give thanks to Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists for establishing a cohesive financial and political structure that allowed us to survive as a union.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 04/22/2016 - 11:06 am.

      Somehow the third stanza

      of a nineteenth century French song seems of limited relevance today
      (it was probably sung more in Russia than in France).
      You could equally well have cited the Second Stanza:

      “There are no supreme saviours
      Neither God, nor Caesar, nor tribune.
      Producers, let us save ourselves,
      Decree the common salvation.
      So that the thief expires,
      So that the spirit be pulled from its prison,
      Let us fan our forge ourselves
      Strike the iron while it is hot.
      |: This is the final struggle
      Let us group together, and tomorrow
      The Internationale
      Will be the human race. :|”

  7. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/23/2016 - 10:02 am.

    Anti Socialist!

    Look, human beings lived in socialists communities for millions of years before the emergence of empires. All over the world tribal civilizations continue to exist and existed before empires attacked them. So let’s not dismiss the socialist impulse quite so impulsively under the rubric of “human” nature. The fact is that human beings are social animals who have survived by forming communities that distribute resources, protection, and talent for the benefit of the many rather than the one. Every civilization that ever stepped away from that basic human impulse has collapsed.

    And let’s stop acting like socialism is an extension of or form of communism, this is simply historically inaccurate. We’ve discussed the history and differences between socialists and communists elsewhere so there’s no need to go over it again, suffice to say these folks don’t much like each other.

    I’m not championing socialism I’m just pointing the fact that reflexive anti-socialism is irrational. Abstract arguments about the definition of socialism are a waste of time because we can always look at what socialists are doing in the real world, and those observations better inform our discussions than abstract attacks on “pure” socialism.

    Finally, I remind everyone yet again that we live in a liberal constitutional democracy wherein any president we elect is subject to the checks and balances of divided government. Our constitution does not establish a socialist government and we simply cannot covert our government into a socialist government by raising taxes, regulating or even over-regulating business, or electing a socialist as president. The only way we could EVER convert our government into a socialist state would be to tear up our constitution and write a different one. As Mr. Brandon has already pointed out no one of any consequence is even suggesting that we do that.

    • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 04/23/2016 - 06:20 pm.

      Human nature in history

      In fact, those communities were actually communist (primitive communal system or primitive communism). Sure, humans are social animals but they are also selfish. In those primitive societies, everyone had to work for the community so what do you think they were doing with those who couldn’t or didn’t want to? And all civilizations collapsed sooner or later, regardless of whether they equally distributed everything or not (how many of those primitive communal societies are there in Europe now?)

      Of course, socialism is not an extension of communism, it is the other way around because socialism is supposed to come first (in a form of common ownership of the means of production) and pave the way for communism by creating “new” people who are not selfish and work just because it is the right thing to do. So here is where human nature comes in and tells that this doesn’t work. Communists didn’t like socialists because the latter didn’t want a revolution thus preventing communists from coming to power; the final goal was the same for all of them. It is convenient to dismiss definitions but they are there for a reason and without them no discussion is possible.

      But the main point is that European “socialist” model is still utilizing the same belief in a “better” man and that simply isn’t happening (see my links in the previous post). So yes we can look at what socialists are doing in the real world, for example in Venezuela, and decide if we want to go there. Venezuela was a democracy; it is that socialist economic policies of the government lead to current fiasco and now even democracy is under threat there… On the other hand, with the young generation thinking socialism is good on one hand and not wanting to listen to anyone who disagrees, we are in a danger zone.

      • Submitted by Matt Haas on 04/23/2016 - 10:47 pm.

        for example in Venezuela

        Or you could look at, say, Uruguay, or the dismal failure of the sociopathic Pinochet regime (this just in Latin America!) as examples diametrically opposed to your narrative, but we wouldn’t want to do that now, would we. The humorous thing about conservatives is that they simultaneously believe the sky is falling AND we’ve reached the apex of human achievement, so far as government and economics are concerned. Such hubris.

  8. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/23/2016 - 10:44 am.

    Bernie and “real” democrats

    It interesting to use Wellstone as a starting point for a discussion about Bernie Sanders because points us to the fact that until recently neo-liberal/establishment democrats essentially purged the party of progressive democrats. We have Sanders because there are no Wellstones. In fact one could argue that the most powerful democrat in congress ended up being Joe Lieberman for a time.

    I’ve been seeing this complaint that Sanders isn’t a “good”democrat all over the place for a couple weeks now and it’s interesting for a few reasons. First, on some level it seems to acknowledge that Clinton may not the best candidate, but at least she’s a “real” democrat. This kind of thinking is suicide for any political party that only 27% of the voting population affiliates with. The largest single demographic of voters now are “independents” who are not loyal democrats or republicans. If either party wants to win elections they need to capture votes far beyond the party faithful and Clinton has not demonstrated an ability to do that.

    The complaint about Sanders not working for downstream democrats gets weird when you assume that bringing millions of new energized and enthusiastic young voters into the party, doesn’t help downstream democrats or the party in general? Not to mention complaints (not yet confirmed) that one of fundraising partnerships that Clinton and DNC set up turns out to have been a mechanism to funnel more money into the Clinton campaign rather than downstream democrats.

    Finally, the fact is that neither Sanders or his supporters have ever felt much of the “love” flowing out of the democratic party. While all kinds of privileges and praise have been heaped upon Clinton, Sanders has been lucky to get the bare minimum. At a “party” fundraiser a couple months ago here in the Twin Cities the whole affair turned into a celebration of Hillary, so much so that Sanders nearly left the building. His appearance was delayed for around 20 minutes while party leaders convinced him stay and make his scheduled appearance. It’s worth noting that vast majority of attacks on Sanders and his supporters since before the primaries have emerged from other democrats. Accusation of sexism, racism, stupidity, naivete, and delusional separation from reality have been standard fair for Clinton supporters. Common sense dictates that this is NOT how you encourage support for the party, its how you provoke antagonism, and that’s exactly what’s happened. Meantime Sanders is obviously focused on winning the nomination and rightly so.

  9. Submitted by Pat Terry on 04/24/2016 - 08:28 am.

    Democrats

    Bernie Sanders does have a difficult relalationship with the Democratic party, and that difficulty arises because until very recently he wasn’t a Democrat. He was calling for a primary challenge to the incumbent Democratic president four years ago. The party may not know what to do with Sanders, but this is mostly his doing.

    Your comment exhibits the frequently-cited Sanders campaign belief that Clinton supporters think Sanders is better, but support Clinton for other reasons. I just happen to think Clinton is a vastly superior candidate. Frankly, that New York Daily News interview made Sanders look about as smart as Sara Palin. Sanders was (unlike Wellstone) extremely ineffective during his long tenure in congress, and has frequently lied about his record.

    Sanders is bringing new people into the party, and that’s the hard part for the Democrats. That doesn’t change the fact that he isn’t and has never (again, unlike Wellstone) worked to elect other Democrats. That doesn’t happen because of “revolutions.”. It happens because of money. But now its all about him. The candidate with the biggest ego in the race isn’t Trump – its Sanders.

    As far as the criticisms, sorry, but when a speaker at a Sanders rally calls Clinton a whore or when Sanders supporters throw one dollar bills at a female candidate, you can’t let that go.

    • Submitted by Matt Haas on 04/24/2016 - 12:37 pm.

      Now it’s just sour grapes time

      For the Clintonistas (remember that term, from the last time folks decided Mrs. Clinton wasn’t a winner). Comparing Bernie to Palin is buffoonish, and the reason he has remained independent was that the Democratic party has abandoned it’s liberal ideals, circa 1980 and the rise of the DLC in the 80s and 90s. Why would he have considered himself a Democrat under those eras, they didn’t believe in anything that he did, and wouldn’t give him the time of day as far as upward political aspiration. You folks act like support of Sanders is some kind of betrayal toward your hard earned party esteem. I was 1 in 1980, as long as I’ve been alive the Democratic party has been an exercise in herding cats, and massaging the delicate egos of those who think themselves “special”. That and a collection of folks absolutely terrified that the opposition might call them nasty names and make them feel bad if they were to actually propose DOING all the things they talk about amongst themselves. Here’s a thought, if you feel like you’re a liberal, act like it, fight against those who would bury you, and quit being ashamed of those whose convictions are stronger than yours and who are willing to fight the battles you are afraid to join.

      • Submitted by Pat Terry on 04/25/2016 - 07:58 am.

        Joining the battle

        To me, “joining the battle” means actively working to pass legislation and working to elect like-minded people to help with that. Those are the real progressives. Sanders gives a nice speech, but he has never really actually fought for anything.

  10. Submitted by Matt Haas on 04/24/2016 - 12:47 pm.

    I wonder how many

    Of the “Party firsters” decrying Bernie’s lack of party loyalty were supportive of our current Governor’s insurgent campaign to gain his present office? He didn’t play nice with the down ticket folks either. Was rather humorous to hear him tell Bernie to fall in line.

    • Submitted by Pat Terry on 04/25/2016 - 08:03 am.

      I did, for one

      And unlike Sanders, Dayton has spent tons of time and money trying to elect other Democrats. No comparison.

      • Submitted by Matt Haas on 04/25/2016 - 10:28 am.

        Really

        Yeah he spent TONS of dollars during that gubernatorial campaign, whilst giving active coordinated campaigning with actual folks looking to win seats the finger. He’s a good governor, but you are dead wrong about this. He campaigns for allies, nothing more.

        • Submitted by Pat Terry on 04/25/2016 - 02:46 pm.

          Long term

          I’m not sure why going to the primary was giving the coordinated campaign the finger. He didn’t oppose legislative candidates. He just opposed the terrible governor nominee, who would have lost in the general election.

          Over the course of his political career Dayton has spent TONS of dollars for other Democrats. Which is in stark contrast to Sanders, who has a long career of doing absolutely nothing to support other Democrats.

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/25/2016 - 11:20 am.

        Yeah, and in return the legislators stabbed him in the back

        Please, don’t try to pretend Dayton and the DFL are tight, some of us know better.

  11. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/25/2016 - 12:22 pm.

    Clinton IS the weaker candidate

    “Your comment exhibits the frequently-cited Sanders campaign belief that Clinton supporters think Sanders is better, but support Clinton for other reasons. I just happen to think Clinton is a vastly superior candidate.”

    The fact is Clinton came into this as a divisive character with historically high unfavorable and distrustworthy numbers, the highest number in the field to begin with while Sanders had the highest trustworthy and favorability ratings. Conservatives hate Clinton for a variety of reasons real and imagined. Liberals don’t Clinton because she’s simply not very liberal. Every major policy HRC has enthusiastically supported from her health care proposal in 1994 to her vote for the Iraq War was a republican initiative. This leaves her with a support base primarily drawn from mainstream democrats. In other words she came into this with a three-way split and the divisions have just gotten deeper as her campaign stumbles along. All of this was predictable and it was predicted yet Clinton and her supporters appear to have been taken completely off guard by her reception.

    If Clinton gets elected she will the most un-liked, distrusted, and divisive president to ever step into a first term as president. Why in the world democrats would think a candidate with such huge liabilities will unite the party, and bring millions of independents into the fold for downstream races is simply baffling.

    It’s clear at this point that if Clinton gets the nomination it will not because she ran a great campaign and is universally loved by liberals throughout the land. If Clinton gets the nomination it will despite her mediocre campaign, and simply because Sanders will not have overcome the barriers and disadvantages built into the democratic nomination process. I’m not whining about the process I’m just making an observation. Hillary Clinton has had a lifetime to establish her credibility and liberal status and she’s simply failed to do so. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, there you have it.

    Her campaign itself has thus far wobbled between being a walking talking does of Valium to being a series of self inflicted wounds. In terms of policy her campaign has been a: “Me too” game of catch up on everything from student debt to living wages. Then we have a series of attempted attacks on Sanders that pretty much backfire because her own position is simply weaker than Sanders on everything from campaign financing to the environment. She’s gone from being a gun toting church goer against Obama to being the champion of Sandy Hook against Sanders.

    Her vote for the Iraq War was never a secret but for some reason democrats seem to think that the most unpopular war since Viet Nam will just evaporate from everyone’s memory. The vast majority of Americans now think that Iraq was a bad idea that has made things worse yet democrats think someone who voted for it is a “strong” candidate? The truth is she’ll never get out from under that vote because the war and the vote were a huge mistake. All of her explanations for that vote either point to a serious flaw in judgement or character, yet Clinton’s campaign thinks they can run her experience? Whatever.

    • Submitted by Pat Terry on 04/25/2016 - 02:52 pm.

      Clinton

      Yet she has received millions more votes than Sanders has. If it wasn’t for the massive voter supression of caucus states, we wouldn’t even be talking about Sanders at this point.

      I’m glad Clinton has won because I want to see the Democrats keep the presidency, but it would have been fun to watch the Republicans completely destroy Sanders. He’d be lucky to win Vermont when all was said and done.

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 04/25/2016 - 06:10 pm.

        Well…

        Right now Sanders defeats ALL of republican challengers by wider margins than Clinton, and I think Clinton actually loses to Kasich in a couple polls. And Sanders has shown that he can be just as tough as he needs to be, without making any major blunders or misfires like insulting an entire generation of young women or fabricating heroic anti-aids stories on behalf of deceased former First Ladies.

Leave a Reply