didn't he run as a liberal against carter?
I'm just disputing the notion dems go for the 'more liberal'
Yes but you can hardly compare 2 different people going for the nomination to a Democrat running as a Liberal against an incumbent Democrat. There's also the fact that as someone pointed out, prior to 1979 Kennedy was actually favored.
He's going to be in the primary race and he'll be ignored in a similar fashion to Ron Paul. I am completely sure of this. Only way this doesn't happen is if there's another progressive with a shot at winning worth his endorsement.
And I do believe there's a lot of good that could come with even just that level of attention.
As someone who has voted for Bernie Sanders every chance he got, I don't think he will get any real coverage. Ron Paul is probably a good analogy because I see Sanders having a huge presence in Social Media, and a lot of younger voters will probably favor him, but there's almost no way he wins the nomination. I could see him taking a few random primaries here and there (New Hampshire wouldn't surprise me) but I doubt he will get the necessary delegates. The media seems to want Hillary pretty damn bad, and I doubt we'll see Sanders get more than a handful of questions in any given debate.
Except every state in New England, and California.
He'd carry VT like 80/20 over any potential Republican candidate. People in this state
love Bernie Sanders.
Basically. After the 2000's no President is going to up and invade with ground forces anymore. Bush will be remembered for the next 50+ years as the President that brought us to Afghanistan and presented us with Iraqi WMD's. Honestly, it would be a waste to fight ISIS on the ground anyway. Air Strikes are effective enough.
As for Putin, he's to smart to do something he wouldn't get away with.