Ethos Hillary lacks? Because the media said so? Because she has unsubstantiated “scandals” that won’t go away, but despite their stickiness have still amounted to nothing? Because she and Bernie having a voting record that is something like 90% identical meaning that they’ve largely supported the same positions? Or because she’s winning more votes than he is, and has fooled millions of Americans who simply can’t see that he is the apex of purity and she is the nadir of scum? How exactly is it that a woman who has consistently supported the same positions as your candidate, and been more successful than he has furthering those positions (incrementalism, much?) has no ethos? They’re — literally — fighting the same fight for the same team! Are there differences? Sure! But it still baffles me that a woman who has a proven track record, and nothing but unsubstantiated scandals attached to her can have lack ethos. I think you’ve taken Bernie’s authenticity, which is certainly real, and used his example as a reason to view all other politicians — but particularly Hillary b/c of the undeniable comparative aspect of this election — through poop-tinted glasses. Hillary is not as authentic as Bernie. That truth about Bernie is not synonymous with “Hillary lack ethos.” And as for consistency, well her voting record — and it’s near total overlap with his — speaks to that.

The only thing I can agree with here is that she may be a one term president, but he — if Americans had bought your argument and picked him over her — may be as well. The political gods are fickle and the winds change quickly and often without warning. Like for example how we went from hope and change in 2008 to repealing and replacing hope and change in 2010. So yeah, Hillary could be a one term president, but so could Bernie, and for the exact same reasons. Rarely does one party hold the white house for multiple consecutive terms. The last time that the white house was held by either a Republican OR Democrat for a full four terms spanning two presidents was FDR to Truman, and even that is an historical outlier for other reasons. So sure, she could be a one term president. But that’s not going to stop me from voting for the best candidate.

Finally, and I’ve made this point many times, but I fundamentally believe that Bernie’s popularity is far more reflective of the situation in which we find ourselves than it is about him or his prescriptions in particular. Put simply: an America that hadn’t suffered under the inane orthodoxy of supply-sided economics for three decades would not be crying for solutions on the opposite extreme. The best path forward for America does not lie on either the far right or the far left, it winds somewhere along the center.

Bernie is speaking to, and is finding support primarily among, people who have lived their entire lives under the quantifiable failure of GOP economic orthodoxy, and are therefore understandably drawn to its polar opposite. Perhaps it is telling that older voters who have seen the other side of the coin are slightly more tepid about all this. You may call that cynicism, and maybe there is an element of cynicism to it, but I may then call your belief that Bernie — or anyone — will usher in some sort of sustainable revolution naive. It also doesn’t help his cause that one a Nobel-laureate with a track-record of being UBER liberal routinely criticizes his policies and the math behind them as being the same kind of “voodoo economics” that the GOP has been selling Americans for decades. Ethos or lack thereof aside, it’s not a good look when someone who spent the entire length of the Obama presidency bashing Republicans weekly for their refusal to connect with economic reality re: the financial meltdown, has repeatedly decried the underlying mathematical fallacies of Bernie’s plan.

The day after the revolution, someone still has to govern. It surprises me very little that the global revolutionary mantra is “Viva la Revolucion.” Of course no one wants the revolution to die. Once the romance of overthrowing the bad to further the good has worn off someone has to put their adult clothes back on and govern. Bernie has shown zero ability to lay a realistic vision for what his governance would look like, let alone prove to anyone that he could actually govern effectively.

So I guess if your question for me is: do you think Hillary will be re-elected in 2020, my real question to you is: how do you think someone who can’t even win his own party’s nomination, who has received little support from elected democrats, and whose entire campaign is built on rhetoric absent policy is supposed to work WITHIN that system to change it? Key word: within. If you think the system is SO SCREWED that only Bernie can change it, I think you’re dealing with some cognitive dissonance. Either you acknowledge that system as it stands is screwed and therefore no one individual is going to bring change to such a stagnant system, not Bernie, not anyone. OR you realize that our system — flawed though it may be — is still a better system than most because it gives everyone a voice, and that to value that voice, we must also value incremental change and ethos. Is it not ethical to adhere to the system of government that encourages the different perspectives of different stakeholders and blends them to bring change that is palatable to everyone? Or is it better to ignore certain voices if we don’t like them and forge ahead regardless. Seems to me that their are different varieties of ethos being discussed….