Trump & Sanders

That's a sentence I would have never expected out of Matt Taibbi.  (And, this is an old article - still, Matt's criticism stands.)

I've seen other people comparing Bernie and Trump and brushed it off as sour grapes Democrats whining about Hillary's loss.  I think that's exactly what this editorial by Jonathan Capehart is, but I'll take the opportunity to parse this one.  H/T Matt Taibbi.

Two stories in the past 48 hours cement my view that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the vanquished Democratic candidate for president, and Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, share the same DNA.

  WaPo

Not even close. As Matt points out, Bernie Sanders has been working his entire adult life for the good of the country as he sees it and for his fellow human beings. Donald Trump has spent his entire adult life (and no doubt his childhood) in a self-serving pursuit of attention and fame.

These two stubborn outsiders believe they are their campaign’s best political mind.

I don't even know if that's true about Bernie Sanders, and it may be. That in itself is not a problem. It's quite possible that a person could in fact be their own best political mind in a campaign.  Why not?

And the damage that outsized and misplaced view of their capabilities has done on their respective quests for the White House is plainly apparent.

Given the outcome, why was that a misplaced view for either one? Bernie lost to Hillary for a number of reasons, none of which is that he thought he was his own best adviser. And Trump won! So, obviously, "the damage" is not apparent at all.

Despite Hillary Clinton's delegate gains on June 7, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders promised to "continue to fight for every vote and every delegate," until the Democratic convention. He also slammed GOP rival Donald Trump as "a candidate whose major theme is bigotry."

What's your point?

And ever since his Michigan win last March convinced him that he could win, the reporters note, “Sanders has been on email and the phone, directing elements of the campaign right down to his city-by-city schedule in California.” Sanders lost the Golden State by 13 points to Hillary Clinton, who officially clinched the Democratic presidential nomination.

Seriously? How quickly we forget - or choose not to take into account - that the DNC was actively trying to suppress support for Bernie Sanders and favoring Hillary Clinton.  They had no intention of having anyone but Clinton declared the Democratic nominee. As for California, how many Super Delegates voted in that state? Because, the undemocratic system of Super Delegates in the Democratic party is what gave Hillary a huge percentage - if not all - of her lead in every state where she had a lead. To dismiss Sanders' losses as anything but DNC hackery and Democratic Party system guarantees is disingenuous, at best.

Reading about Sanders’s maladroit micromanagement of his campaign immediately brought to mind that of Trump’s, which has been on full display the past two days.

Micromanagement of a campaign and micromanagement of the United States Government are two very different issues. A person has every right - even if it may not be the smartest thing to do in some (or most) cases - to micromanage his or her own campaign, but having been elected by the people, to the presidency, that same person must take advice from and deliberate on every single issue with the smartest cabinet and advisors available. Obviously, Trump has only surrounded himself with people who will kiss his ring and praise him while stuffing their pockets with money that should be going toward their agencies and policies and the people they supposedly represent. We don't know how Bernie would handle the presidency, but we're all the worse off for not having gotten the chance to find out. We've all heard Trump campaign, and we've all heard Bernie campaign. Anyone who can equate the two is a moron or a disgruntled Democrat.

Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.) rescinded his endorsement on Tuesday. The Wall Street Journal editorial board warned that if Trump didn’t start to act presidential between now and the Cleveland convention next month, “he may start to hear rumblings that delegates are looking for someone else to nominate.”

Pathetic, impotent threats. The WSJ editorial board is full of shit.  As is the man who wrote this piece for the Washington Post.

On Wednesday, influential conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who has interviewed Trump many, many times, argued, “I think the party ought to change the nominee. Because we’re going to get killed with this nominee.”

You surely are, if you don't impeach him, or rig up a national emergency to shut down the 2020 election.  Or the Democrats don't run Hillary again.

In the battle of the outsider egos storming the political establishment, Trump succeeded where Sanders failed.

A total misreading. At the Democratic Party's peril. Trump didn't have the party under whose banner he was running working against him. Bernie's mistake was running as a Democrat.  And even having done so, what happened was a long, long way from a failure.  Considering the cards stacked against him, it was an amazing success.

But the chaos unleashed by Trump’s victory could spell doom for the GOP all over the ballot in November. Pardon me while I dab that single tear trickling down my cheek.

Maybe you ought to shed a tear for your own blind hackery and inability to accurately analyze a situation.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.