Campaign 2020

[OscarGuy]

I think we should definitely be concerned about anyone the Russians want to install as president.

[Big Magilla]

1. I wouldn't count on Wisconsin. Hopefully, it will swing back blue, but it would be foolhardy to rely solely on "hope".

2. Yes, if Sanders does become president, he can get things done with executive order, but unless the Dems control Congress, they will not be permanent and will be easily wiped out by the next Republican president just as happened with the current one.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
If Trump carries all the states he did in 2016 except for Pennsylvania and Michigan, he will still win the electoral college by two votes. Wisconsin seems to be his. The Wisconsin farmers love him. The Democrats have to turn other states blue.

I would disagree with you. Wisconsin does not seem to be his. The state assembly might lean red, but they have a Democratic Governor and Senator. And if 2016 wasn't such an anti-Hillary nightmare across the board, they probably would have had two Democratic Senators. Feingold led Johnson up until two weeks before the election (right when the Comey letter came out). We saw a Quinnipiac poll this past week that had Trump +7 over Biden and Sanders (anywhere between +8 - +11 over the rest), but a University of Wisconsin/State Journal poll just came out that put Biden, Sanders, and Warren +2 over Trump. Also, Morning Consult has consistently polled Trump at -10 for the past year among Wisconsonites.

Wisconsin is far from a lost cause.

Big Magilla wrote
But I do think the odds of (let's be fucking honest) a communist like Bernie winning the presidency are as close to zero as you can get without actually being zero, and even if that bizarre anti-miracle were to happen, the founders' genius will be sufficient to prevent him from doing irreparable harm.

I know you didn't write this but when you say "irreparable harm," what do you think he's going to do? I have no doubt that the bulk of Sanders' accomplishments will be done through executive order but this sounds like fear-mongering. He might call himself a Democratic Socialism but honestly, he just strikes me as a New Dealer. He hasn't proposed anything as radical as FDR packing the courts or the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act. What are his "frightening" left-wing ideas? A single-payer healthcare system, immigration reform (breaking up ICE, a moratorium on deportations, support for sanctuary cities and a pathway to citizenship), letting prisoners vote, and a more just foreign policy. Whether or not he's able to do any of these things is another story but what am I missing?

He just seems like Ted Kennedy dressed up as Eugene Debs.

[Big Magilla]

It's still early in the race. Anything can happen.

If Trump carries all the states he did in 2016 except for Pennsylvania and Michigan, he will still win the electoral college by two votes. Wisconsin seems to be his. The Wisconsin farmers love him. The Democrats have to turn other states blue. They have to win back the Senate otherwise even if they win back the White House they will be powerless to get anything passed that the Republicans don't approve of.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
On the other hand, if this current appraisal of Warren (from the same website) holds up, she may well turn out to be the compromise candidate everyone can support:

Magilla, she’s in third place. Soon to be fourth. I don’t like her odds.

There’s only one race on the Democratic side right now: Bernie vs. 50%. That’s it. If every Democratic but one drops out tomorrow, Bernie will lose that race. If they don’t, he eventually wins. I don’t think they’re dropping out before Super Tuesday, so...

Is anyone tracking the Lichtman keys ?

[Sonic Youth]

Trump wouldn't win in a landslide if he was running against Louis Farrakhan.

Oh yes he would.

[taki15]

Trump wouldn't win in a landslide if he was running against Louis Farrakhan. Polarization and atrocious approval ratings guarantee that.
But of course that doesn't negate the fact that Democrats are on the cusp of nominating their own version of Jeremy Corbyn.

[Sonic Youth]

I'm going to respectfully decline the first question, because it's about "electability", and I'm tired of electability discussions because no one really knows the answer. You can't prove you're right until after the fact, and until then it's just "what does your gut say?". John Kerry was considered the most electable Democratic candidate, because he had a military record and G.W. Bush did not. It made sense at the time, remember? Sure I have my own theories, but they're as unprovable as anyone else's.

Allow me to briefly elaborate, a few news cycles later...

I know I won't be the first to say this - I'm probably the 25 millionth - but the Russians stealthily supporting Sanders means they don't think he's at all electable, and they think T would win in a landslide against him. And despite all I've said about electability being a highly subjective concept, I'm afraid they may be right. (Maybe America is ready for a "socialist" president, but a Jewish "socialist" president? Never!) But if he's the nominee, I'll be happy to vote and campaign for him in order to prove them wrong. And the same goes for any of the candidates (except Bloomberg). No, not all of them are "progressive" but they're all at least committed to basic Democratic AND democratic principals. They won't be able to reverse everything the scumbag in the White House has done, but they will help lead us back in the right direction (again, except Bloomberg, who would do no more than the bare minimum.)

Magilla, you're posting some really curious things. Assuming that story about Bernie putting his girlfriend on the payroll is true... well, if I were living in Burlington at the time, I certainly wouldn't have been happy about it. But what is that supposed to prove now that we're many decades beyond that. I don't see a pattern of corruption, and believe me, four years ago I looked. So... not a deal breaker for me.

[Greg]

It looks like Sanders will have a big win in Nevada.

[Sabin]

Sonic Youth wrote
I'm going to respectfully decline the first question, because it's about "electability", and I'm tired of electability discussions because no one really knows the answer. You can't prove you're right until after the fact, and until then it's just "what does your gut say?". John Kerry was considered the most electable Democratic candidate, because he had a military record and G.W. Bush did not. It made sense at the time, remember? Sure I have my own theories, but they're as unprovable as anyone else's. I do believe this, though: I don't necessarily think any particular candidate is going to decide the election. More important is how voters feel about Trump come November. My hope is, enough will be so fed up with him that they'll settle for any Democrat. In which case, it won't matter who the Democrat is. And if it doesn't matter, then we may as well vote for the best Democrat among the candidates. Which is Elizabeth Warren. So... there's the answer to your second question.

<thumbs up emoji>

[Big Magilla]

On the other hand, if this current appraisal of Warren (from the same website) holds up, she may well turn out to be the compromise candidate everyone can support:

Liz is the real deal. Most recent to come to politics of all of them. From Oklahoma and grew up with nothing, self-made woman. Has a vision and over-arching message centered around anti-corruption that resonates through all her plans. Great energy - runs to the stage, And most of all, she is UNAFRAID - not afraid of Bloomberg, not afraid of Trump. And she's a left-enough compromise between Bernie (who, unlike Liz, does not explain how to pay for his plans) and the centrists. Plus she's realistic - will fight for Medicare For All but take a Public Option - as she said last night, you take the win and come back to ask for more later. She's the candidate for people who actually want a great President.

[Big Magilla]

I came across this comment on another site.

This is just a sample of what we're going to be seeing if Sanders becomes the nominee:

Bernie Sanders is the quintessence of Reagan's ironic "we're here from the government and we're here to help" class of bureaucratic villain. His hypocrisy may be mundane, sure, we all must be so cynical that we have to accept hypocrisy as an unavoidable constant. But when you marry it with his goal of top-down, authoritarian government, not only antithetical to the founding principals of the republic but historically always a means to secure the wealth of the ruling elite and the subjugation of everyone else, I shudder at the thought of his election.

When he was mayor of Burlington he put his girlfriend on the payroll over the city council’s objections. Later after they were married, she set up a “media buying” company out of their house and started skimming 10-15% out of their media buys. He withheld promised endorsements of other candidates until they agreed to use Jane’s media buy services. And on and on. He’s a corrupt old commie bullshitter and anyone who thinks he’s “a good an decent man” is sniffing glue.

I do think it's partly generational. But while that can be true, it can also be facile. For example, my parents were hippies. Most of my childhood friends, and their parents, are or would be huge Bernie supporters, which both supports and mitigates the generational premise (ie: maybe generational, but not only recently). However there's also been a clear and undeniable project at work in the universities to push students so far left that they make the Kent State protesters look like John Birchers -- which also supports and mitigates the generational premise (ie: yes, this current youth cohort is more fired up about communism, but it's beyond just the normal young rebellious thing -- it's been manufactured. And thus could be un-manufactured.

But I do think the odds of (let's be fucking honest) a communist like Bernie winning the presidency are as close to zero as you can get without actually being zero, and even if that bizarre anti-miracle were to happen, the founders' genius will be sufficient to prevent him from doing irreparable harm.

[Sonic Youth]

Sonic Youth wrote
That said, although I can't tell you what people I know are saying post-debate, I think this will no longer be an issue. What little commentary I've heard tells me he's not being taken so seriously now.... certainly not as "the only one who can beat Trump".

Sonic, who do you think is best to defeat Trump? Also, do you have a preferred candidate in this election?

I'm going to respectfully decline the first question, because it's about "electability", and I'm tired of electability discussions because no one really knows the answer. You can't prove you're right until after the fact, and until then it's just "what does your gut say?". John Kerry was considered the most electable Democratic candidate, because he had a military record and G.W. Bush did not. It made sense at the time, remember? Sure I have my own theories, but they're as unprovable as anyone else's. I do believe this, though: I don't necessarily think any particular candidate is going to decide the election. More important is how voters feel about Trump come November. My hope is, enough will be so fed up with him that they'll settle for any Democrat. In which case, it won't matter who the Democrat is. And if it doesn't matter, then we may as well vote for the best Democrat among the candidates. Which is Elizabeth Warren. So... there's the answer to your second question.

[OscarGuy]

Let's also be honest here, a woman in politics is not permitted to make mistakes. They are immediately pounced on and ridiculed for it. Men are permitted to make mistakes and largely not be excoriated for them.

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
That's a tempting explanation but I am skeptical.

First, it's been established that most voters don't decide based on policy but other things (personality, charisma, perceived electability, etc.).
Second, Sanders himself has been unable to explain how he would fund his Medicare For All program, and it's his signature issue.
Not only that, just recently one of his press people recently said that there aren't enough votes in the senate to pass M4A and all his talk is just that, talk. Yet his numbers don't seem to have suffered at all.

1) Agreed, but like I've said: her waffling on M4a made her look evasive and dishonest, especially considering that her campaign is built on having a plan for everything. Her lack of a plan undermined her central message. But it's a combination of the two, and certainly sexism as well for being perceived as a liar.
2) Sanders hasn't but (as Okri writes) I don't think it affects him because elections are about telling people who you are and what you're about, like you say above. Trump wanted to build a Wall. He couldn't tell you how he was going to get it done but nobody doubted that he wanted it. Sanders has been unwavering in his support for M4A and this is an election where voters prize honesty in contrast to the dishonesty of Trump. Most importantly, Sanders has turned health care into an emotional issue, not an intellectual or economic issue, and people are responding to it emotionally. That's how he's getting support.

He's a good politician.

Okri wrote
I think Sanders, by foregrounding the aspirational and revolutionary, gets a pass. A good chunk of his supporters seem to think they can just bully people to vote their way.

Sanders himself is open about how he expects to get it passed. He thinks that the voting masses will pressure their representatives into getting it done. He speaks of "a political revolution, millions of people on the streets, coming together" regularly. He's not kidding. He really hopes to inspire that kind of political movement to get single-payer health care.

I really like Bernie Sanders. I don't think that's going to happen.