Facepalm. Of course. My regrets.

Bernie is an outlier in all kinds of ways. His entire political career prior to 2015 was spent outside the two major parties. He was 74 years old in 2015. Other than Ron Paul, no one in the post-war period has succeeded at building a notable presidential candidacy at such an advanced age. (Paul was 76 in 2011 and 72 in 2007; Ronald Reagan was 73 in 1984, as was Robert Dole in 1996; John McCain was 72 in 2008; Donald Trump was 70 in 2016). He was 40 years old ‘ere he drew a salary from a political office; that’s not unusual among working politicians; what is unusual is that his entire work history prior to that was in hourly jobs. Bernie was the odd leftist who actually was of the working class.

You had the rag trade 3 generations back, but for some time It’s been quite unusual for Jews past a certain age to be found in hourly jobs, at least outside of New York and Miami. (He was also intergenerationally downwardly mobile, atypical among Jews of his vintage). He’s a man from the most urban ethnos, but has lived his adult life in Vermont, the most rural state, and one with few Jews when he arrived there in 1965. He was nearly 50 when he was first married. His wife is a gentile (atypical for a Jewish man of the 1941 cohort, though not rare), as is the mother of his only child.

And he explained why he would not consider running as a Democrat, given their platform.

“If I ran as a Democrat, which I would not do, I would have to be disingenuous given the platform that they are moving towards, which is a level of … [a] health care government takeover, of free college for everyone, a job for everyone which tallies about 40-trillion dollars,” Schultz told Dana Perino.

Well, he didn’t call them either liars or imbeciles, but suggested their proposals are something between unrealistic and ridiculous.

“In August 2000, Lieberman was selected as the nominee for Vice President of the United States by Al Gore, the Democratic Party nominee for President.”

Cannot find the reference right now. Have seen social survey research which indicated that Perot drew about equally off the other candidates. About 65% of his support would have to have been drawn off Bush voters for his candidacy to have had a decisive effect on the outcome.
* * *

What matters is not the total vote Perot took from each candidate, but how much in each state.
He won no electoral votes, and only one state would have shifted (maybe) from Democrat to Republican if he hadn’t run.
I voted for Perot in Texas because I knew Bush would win there, and I wanted to demonstrate my displeasure with GHWB, but knew there was no danger that Clinton would carry the state.
Until we change the rules in the Constitution (or the “my state goes with the total popular vote” frenzy meets their triggering threshhold), each third-party challenger has to win on a state-by-state basis to make a difference.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/11/08/perot-seen-not-affecting-vote-outcome/27500538-cee8-4f4f-8e7f-f3ee9f2325d1/?utm_term=.712a5b874212

PEROT SEEN NOT AFFECTING VOTE OUTCOME
By E.J. Dionne Jr. November 8, 1992

Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush “margin” without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

In most states, the second choices of Perot voters only reinforced the actual outcome. For example, California, New York, Illinois and Oregon went to Clinton by large margins, and Perot voters in those states strongly preferred Clinton to Bush.

On the other hand, Texas and Florida went to Bush, and Perot supporters in those states preferred Bush to Clinton. In Texas, home state to both Bush and Perot, the billionaire took about three votes from Bush for every two he took from Clinton.

Only in a few southern states that Clinton carried — notably Tennessee — did the majority of Perot supporters go against the grain and prefer Bush to the Democratic nominee.
…
In the nationwide popular vote, Clinton’s margin over Bush would have been about the same without Perot in the contest.

In the actual vote, Clinton won 43.7 million popular votes to 38.2 million for Bush and 19.2 million for Perot.

According to the VRS estimate, without Perot in the race, Clinton would have won 51.4 million to 45.6 million for Bush. Total turnout would have been smaller, because many Perot supporters said they would not have voted if the independent had not run.
…
But the analysis does suggest that enough Perot voters were opposed to Bush that without the independent in the race, Clinton would have secured an absolute majority of both the popular and the electoral vote.

Given Schultz and Bloomberg’s politics, i.e. lack of an resonating message with wide enough appeal, I don’t see either having any chance at all.

I know that was said of Trump but he did have a message that deeply resonated with the majority of Americans that were appalled at the idea of a Marxist Pres. Clinton. Appalled at the GOP’s broken promises…

Good point. I had a feeling I was forgetting somebody.

Sanders is culturally Jewish but not observant, which is the case with many American Jews.

My read of him is that he’s more of a liberal, than a leftist, and has more in common with Alan Dershowitz than he does Harris. There’s honor in taking one for the team (the team being America, not the Dems). Given his common sense remarks about the economy & his own background, he is likely to think that Prez Trump is performing his job pretty responsibly & may not be disappointed in helping him get a second term.

and guess who is the only one with Jewish grandchildren