The scenario now exists that the Presidential Election Of 2016 could involve THREE New York residents competing against each other, an idea which seemed impossible to happen even with one candidate since the time of Thomas E. Dewey’s loss to Harry Truman in 1948.
We saw Nelson Rockefeller fail three times in the 1960s to be the GOP Presidential nominee; we saw Robert Kennedy’s tragic campaign come to an end in 1968 by assassination; we saw John Lindsay attempt a Presidential run in 1972 and fail badly; we saw Mario Cuomo flirt with the idea in 1992 and decide not to run; we saw Rudy Guiliani flop badly in 2008; we saw George Pataki also flirt with the idea of running, and when he finally did in 2015, totally flop; and of course, we saw Hillary Clinton fail to stop Barack Obama in 2008.
At the most, it looked like Hillary Clinton would run, as she has again in 2016, and would have a good chance to be the first New Yorker to run for President and actually be the nominee since 1948, but the idea that THREE candidates would all be from New York is amazing, considering the rise of the Sun Belt since World War II, and the slow decline of New York into political oblivion, although still even now the fourth largest state.
But now we have Clinton; we have Bernie Sanders, who is a Vermont Senator, but grew up in Brooklyn, and left for Vermont in 1968, but is still a New Yorker in the way he speaks; we have Donald Trump who is certainly a New Yorker through and through; and we have former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, originally from Boston, but a long time New Yorker, and Mayor from 2002-2014.
So the possibility of three New Yorkers running is very much alive, and if Sanders is the Democratic nominee and Bloomberg, alarmed by Sanders’ candidacy as well as Trump as a possible Republican nominee, does actually run on a third party or independent ticket, we would have two Reform Jews running along with Presbyterian Trump!
Michael Bloomberg is horrible—and I would prefer to not imagine him at all.
I am more and more thinking the two-party presidential nominations, for 2016, will be won by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
What that would be saying is that Establishment of both the Republican and Democratic parties—as well as the Corporate News Media (ABC, CBS, CNBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC)—are out of touch, being too much in that Washington, D.C. bubble, and that the voters don’t like the Establishment of either party.
What Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have in common is that they have connected with much of what their parties’ base thinks and feels is so lacking in leadership (Trump, on immigration; Sanders, on the 1 percenters) that this is upsetting to both parties and Corporate News Media. If those forces had their way, the Republican nomination would go to either Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, and the Democratic nomination would go to Hillary Clinton.
If Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders win both Iowa and New Hampshire—great potential for both—that will be very upsetting for many of the insiders.
I quite agree with this about Hillary and Bernie, which is why I think Hillary is the better choice. http://www.bluevirginia.us/2016/01/time-for-hillarys-silent-majority-to.html
I agree with you, Pragmatic Progressive, completely!
Note to Bloomberg: Don’t do it.
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/26/go_home_michael_bloomberg_if_he_runs_be_prepared_to_welcome_president_donald_trump/
For me, when it comes to Bernie vs. Hillary, it comes down to Bernie being a one-dimensional candidate.
Being one-dimensional is very much not OK at the presidential level. The challenges the country faces — both domestically and internationally — are legion, and an ability to rapidly shift from one area of focus to another, no matter where your true passions lie, is essential.
Exactly, Former Republican.
If O’Malley’s supporters can’t reach 15% in any particular caucus, how do you think they’ll split? What proportion to Mrs. Clinton, what proportion to Bernie?
I would be proud to vote for any of these three candidates. While each has their pros and cons, listening to these three talk about the issues is incredibly refreshing in contrast to the clown show on the other side.
Falwell has endorsed Trump. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/26/1475347/-Falwell-endorses-Trump-and-ends-the-charade-of-their-morality
Quite agree Leia.
Trump is planning to skip the Fox debate on Thursday. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-says-he-most-likely-will-skip-thursday-fox-news-debate
That Bundy guy in Oregon has been arrested. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-siege-arrests/index.html
Excellent piece about what “establishment” means.http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2016/01/what-do-we-mean-by-establishment.html
Donald Trump is a master at trolling, basically. Except in this case he’s not trolling a website, he’s trolling the Republican Party! LOL!
Thanks for that Southern Liberal. That’s another excellent website I recommend for the Professor’s political blog listing.
Good piece about Bernie and Hillary.
http://www.bluevirginia.us/2016/01/sanders-or-clinton-shoot-for-stars-or.html
I seconded what another poster there said about Bernie – i.e., he does better in polling against the Republicans than Hillary.
An excellent follow-up article regarding Bernie vs. Hillary. http://www.bluevirginia.us/2016/01/why-i-disagree-with-my-friend-atif.html
Excellent critique about the meme that the “system is rigged”. http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2016/01/what-sanders-means-when-he-says-that.html
I agree with that, Rational Lefty. The gridlock in Congress is not all due to one single thing.
In my state, we’re going to be having a primary in March. What’s the difference between a primary and a caucus?
I’m in agreement with Rational Lefty and Pragmatic. My view matches that of Mrs. Clinton’s view as summed up by Paul Krugman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/opinion/plutocrats-and-prejudice.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=1
Southern LIberal, a primary is an election in which you cast a vote in a booth privately.
A caucus is where citizens locally come together in a room, debate and argue, influence each other, and then cast a group vote for that locality.
Primaries have a much higher participation rate than caucuses in numbers and percentage,
If I had my way, only primaries would exist as more representative than caucuses.
Bernie seems like he would be more of a fighter. We need someone who will take the battle to the Republicans and make them pay the political price they should have for their obstructionism and other scandalous behavior.
Precisely, Former Republican. That’s why I’m so torn between choosing Hillary or Bernie.
Me too, Pragmatic. There’s things I like about both.