As a Millennial, I would say Tina Fey and Elizabeth Warren are both relevant feminist figures for my age group.
RE: Fivethirtyeight article.
This one I liked. I also supported Paul in 2012, for the exact reason alluded to--the mainstream parties represent special interest groups, not the people. Paul and Sanders both railed against the bought-and-paid-for corporate oligarchy--lobbying, campaign finance, Wall Street cronyism, etc. That one issue was enough for me, because it is literally the issue that decides all others; although TBH I do feel more aligned with Sanders/liberalism on most issues e.g. income inequality, progressive taxes, etc.
RE: When Extremists Win paper. Honestly, it dismays me that Sanders's positions are painted as "extremist". IMO, that shows how far
right America's political discourse is. I would argue Sanders is a movement to the center from the extremist right-wing corporate oligarchy we currently have.
Princeton Study: US is oligarchy, not democracy
The "extremist" label is ironic, too, given polls from Pew, Associated Press, Huffington Post, and Gallup show a majority of Americans agree with his individual policies:
"Sixty percent of Americans agree with him that the “economic system unfairly favors the rich,” which may be one reason politicians in both parties are uncomfortably trying to fit into populist garb. Two-thirds of the American public think the rich pay too little in taxes. Two-thirds think CEO pay is too high. Three of four think climate change is a serious or very serious matter."
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... tial-race/
If these are extremist positions, then Americans are extremists. But no, that's not true. It's just that Americans are overwhelmingly
liberal, while our unrepresentative government is so far to the right that positions the majority approves of can be called "extremist".
I agree with Jenny that Bloomberg would not attract many, if any, Sanders supporters. Bloomberg combines Trump's liabilities of being an out-of-touch billionaire with Clinton's liabilities of ties to Wall Street and playing gate-keeper to the establishment status quo. IMO, if it came down to two billionaires versus Sanders, Sanders would have an absolute field day with that narrative. As he should, IMO.
RE: Munger article... no offense, but honestly, this was a good laugh.
"Munger thinks he’s “a little nuts,” saying that the Vermont senator is too fixated on income inequality, which he says is simply a consequence of democracy. He thinks that people will accept their economic status if it’s justified—though Sanders‘ position appears to be that it isn’t."
So the dwindling status of the American middle class... is justified. Just a consequence of "democracy" (which we no longer have... if he said "oligarchy" then he'd be right). I don't know if I've ever seen the conservative argument for wage slavery laid forth so nakedly! Yeah, it's totally justified for CEOs to earn 500x their employees. Totally justified that productivity has skyrocketed while middle class wages have stagnated for forty years. Totally justified for people like Munger and Buffett to pay lower percentages in taxes than their secretaries. Justified for Lloyd Blankfein to get a tax-payer bailout while claiming we "can't afford" social security. Justified to sell out American workers and hand control over to multinational corporations through trade agreements. And on and on.
Okay, now it's not so funny anymore.
TBH, watching billionaires like Munger try to justify income inequality, or billionaires like Bloomberg try to buy their way into power, is exactly the kind of thing that makes me and a million other Sanders supporters reach for our credit cards for the next micro-contribution.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." -- Leia Organa