Sanders 2020 and Trump 2016
Looking at the 2020 Democratic primaries, it occurs to me that Sanders’ position in the Democratic field in 2020 is something like Trump’s in the Republican field in 2016. If you think that sounds bizarre, please hear me out before you decide. Yes, they’re very different. But there are some striking similarities as well, particularly in the dynamics of the field.
Both men are outside whatever passes for the establishment in their parties. For the Democrats, the “establishment” is in a state of flux, but it appears to be represented by Joe Biden, who is in somewhat of a similar position to that of Jeb Bush within the GOP field in 2016. Joe and Jeb share a bit more than just their initials, too; each was thought to be the frontrunner and yet both don’t seem to engender much (if any) enthusiasm in the public. They’re different as personalities and certainly politically, but there’s something similarly tepid in their support, and they seem flatfooted in knowing how to deal with their more energetic opponents, Bush’s Trump and Biden’s Sanders.
Like Trump, Sanders has enthusiastic supporters. That counts for a lot. They are devoted to him and believe he can make it, and are willing to work hard for it. Sanders is a leftist but a sincere one, and when he speaks his supporters don’t hear the same-old same-old. One of Trump’s greatest strengths is the fact that his supporters feel he understands them and is talking to them from the heart, and the same is true of Sanders.
It’s a rare quality these days in politicians, and a valuable one. I believe it’s the main reason Sanders is doing so well right now – that, and the Democrats’ huge shift to the left duirng the last decade or more.
The other thing both men have in their favor is the number of candidates running against them. To those who oppose them, it seems as though if only the opposition would coalesce behind just one other candidate, that would be the solution to defeating Sanders (and Trump before him). This deep desire to nominate just about anyone else is partly due to the idea that Sanders (and Trump before him) cannot win. In 2016, if Trump were nominated and he didn’t win, that would mean that the dread Hillary would be elected. In 2020, if Sanders is nominated and he can’t win, that will mean the dread Donald would be re-elected. These are nightmare scenarios for each party, and although Trump won the presidency against most predictions, and Sanders could win the presidency, neither outcome seemed very likely at the outset. Thus, the fear within each party.
[NOTE: Oh, and both Trump and Sanders are from New York City. Bernie’s been away in Vermont for many decades, but to me he’s a New Yorker through and through. And, interestingly enough, one of the un-Sanders (anti-Sanders?) candidates on the Democratic side is another New Yorker: Bloomberg.]
Good analysis, Neo. Sanders does manage to pose as an outsider, despite the number of years he’s been on Capitol Hill.
A conservative from the state of Washington made a very simple but compelling statement regarding the success of Trump in 2016:
President Trump, like it or not, has communicated one thing clearly and unequivocally. It started in the last election. Hillary was going around asking people to use the slogan “I’m with her.” Candidate Trump saw that, instinctively knew it was against the American grain and took the opposite position. His message was “I’m with YOU!” He will attack other politicians, the press, entertainers. Bureaucrats. But he seems to be careful to never attack Americans themselves. Voters of any stripe are not called dumb or deplorable. Or racist or sexist.
https://twitter.com/elbh/status/1225091898383032320
Sanders also comes across strong with the “I will fight for you” image. The problem is that he has proven himself all too willing to back down at times when he had every right to stand firm, such as when one of his early 2016 rallies was hijacked by members of Black Lives Matter.
Still, voters who long for a “kinder, gentler” political atmosphere (and who don’t understand or care enough to weigh the issues) may decide that Sanders sets exactly the political tone they want. Democrats have raised Cain over the most childish of actions or statements by Trump, and I have no doubt that they’ve been counting on getting votes from those who are largely uninformed and just tired of the ruckus. What they haven’t counted on is Sanders, and not one of their own hand-picked establishment candidates, getting the nod.
One really big difference between Trump and Sanders though … Trump was toward the center – arguably, barely a Republican – while Sanders is a big leap to the left.
Remember back after the 2012 election, a certain segment of our population was absolutely sure that we lost because we weren’t far enough to the right? Democrats don’t seem to do a lot of inward soul-searching, but if there was a Democrat population who mirrored that group, thinking, “We lost in 2016 because we weren’t far enough to the left,” Bernie is what that group is looking for.
We didn’t win in 2016 by finding a far-right whackjob; we won in 2016 with a guy who would’ve been a Democrat a few presidential cycles ago, back when it was still OK to not hate our own country.
Bloomberg, although Mayor of NYC, is from Boston.
He also switched parties to run as a Republican in order to avoid what would have been a bruising Democratic primary to determine the Dem nominee to succeed Rudy. He then pushed thru a repeal of mayoral term limits to obtain a third term as Mayor. He has, right on cue, jumped the fence again and is, of course, now running as a Democrat.
“Hey you! Put that Big Gulp down and back away slowly, and nobody gets hurt. This time.”
The biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 are the alternatives. The GOP establishment might have been able to stop Trump is they’d rallied around Cruz but they simply refused to do that (which says something about Cruz).
I’m not sure the Dems have a viable alternative to Sanders at all. Buttigieg makes rich white liberals feel all soft and gushy but I don’t think he has the same effect on the intersectional Left or black and Latino voters. And Bloomberg? Authoritarian billionaire who Trump has ALREADY bested in the insult game?
Mike
MBunge:
I sort of agree and sort of disagree. Biden was originally considered the viable alternative to Sanders, but so far it doesn’t seem as though he can take hold. For Trump in 2016, Cruz really wasn’t considered a viable alternative because (a) he was seen as ultra-conservative (b) he was seen as off-putting to voters and the sense was he was unelectable on a national level. Whether or not that was true, that was the belief. After Jeb left, I think Rubio was seen as the most viable and most moderate alternative. If you recall, he and Cruz slugged it out to be the one to beat Trump, and since neither would drop out, Trump was set on a winning course.
Of course, if one had dropped out, that would be no guarantee his votes would have gone to the other and not to Trump. But we’ll never know, because they both stayed in for a long long time.
There is another close similarity between President Trump and Comrade Sanders.
Even if the Bernie Bro’s are willfully ignorant of it or lying about how evil it is … or both.
They are both 1%er’s who own multiple homes.
If you notice the ‘new’ left doesn’t rail and throw hissy fits about all those nasty, self-centered WHITE PRIVILEGED MILLIONAIRES. Of course the left won’t as they are an extremely important and no tiny percentage of the ‘new’ left’s base.
I guess they feel that come the revolution the tumbrels will roll past those McMansions having “Bernie 2020” lawn signs next to their Bentleys, Maseratis and Porsches without stopping on their way to the Guillotines.
Yes, a good analysis.
I would add that Bernie appeals to a smaller segment than did/does Trump. That and Trump radiates Joy and Bernie radiates meanness. Trump will build and Bernie will destroy.
I have a leftist friend whom I regard as a useful representative of Bernie-think. On Facebook he frequently posts attacks on Buttigieg and Warren as being basically capitalist fellow-travelers. He attacks their supporters as well–only Bernie is pure. Biden he considers not much better than Trump. I can’t recall that he’s even mentioned Bloomberg, who would obviously be beyond consideration.
mikeski:
Bloomberg is only originally from Boston; he grew up there. But he is not identified as a Bostonian; he is a New Yorker in people’s minds. He went to New York after his schooling and made his entire career in NY, both his financial career and then his political career. Bloomberg is 77 and will be 78 in a week, and has lived the vast vast majority of his life in NY and is wholly identified with it.
Trump of course is a New Yorker through and through, despite also living in Florida.
As for Sanders, his situation is more mixed. He came to Vermont around 50 years ago, so he could be considered to be a Vermonter. But his persona – everything about him, really, including the way he talks – reads as being from New York City. There is just nothing about him that seems Vermontish, despite having lived there so many years as well as representing the state as an elected official.
KyndyllG:
Yes, I think it is obvious that (as I wrote) the two are very different. One big difference is of course their politics.
But I’m not so sure that Bernie represents something so far left in terms of today’s Democrats. The person I know who’s a big Bernie fan is a more moderate Democrat, but he’s her choice. I think the Democratic Party has moved so far to the left now that although Bernie is still somewhat to the left of it, he’s not very far to the left of it at all.
I’ve not followed Sanders’ campaigning in detail. Nevertheless I don’t have the impression of him possessing or exuding the sheer physical energy Pres. Trump has done since day one. This is a major distinction between the two, I believe. It can be a difference maker as the marathon works to conclusion.
Jeb Bush is an intelligent man with no history of gross mendacity or manifestly unethical conduct. Over the period running from 1974 to 2007, he spent perhaps 30% of his time campaigning for elective office or holding elective office and another 10% in appointive public sector positions. Since then, he devoted a couple of years to his failed presidential campaigns, but has otherwise been semi-retired, on the board of this and the board of that. He’s a banker and real estate agent who had a parallel career in politics, not a career politician tout court. One of his children has a history with street drugs and forged prescriptions (by all appearances, in her late adolescent and young adult years) and is in general something of a ruin (never married, no children, desultory jobs all her life; pretty tame nest to you-know-who).
I realize both are failed establishmentarians, but it’s not altogether fair to note their similarities without some footnotes on how they differ. Jeb Bush is wrong on some public issues. American public life isn’t damaged by his presence in it. Not so in re Biden.
Art Deco:
I think everyone here knows they differ very greatly, but that isn’t what the post is about. It is about their positions within the field of candidates in their respective parties, for Jeb in 2016 and for Biden in 2020. The only other thing they share, really, is the lack of energetic enthuiasm in their supporters during those campaigns.
“Jeb Bush is wrong on some public issues.”
Jeb Bush’s problem isn’t Jeb Bush, low energy issues aside. His problem is his father was a one-term President who broke his word in one of the most spectacular ways possible and his brother was a two-term President whose time in office was such a disaster he was significantly more disliked leaving office than Donald Trump has ever been.
Well, Jeb’s real problem is that he showed absolutely no sign of having learned anything from his father’s or brother’s failures but that’s a tough thing to admit to publicly.
And, of course, the real problem is that the GOP establishment is so feckless and decadent that it wanted to nominate the same family for President five times out of eight elections.
Mike
Sanders is a leftist but a sincere one, and when he speaks his supporters don’t hear the same-old same-old.
When it comes to comparing Sanders with other American politicians, this is accurate. However, when it comes to Bernie’s statements on Latin America, Bernie has been spouting the same-old, same-old for the last half century.
Bernie glosses over the shortcomings of his lefty Latin despot heroes, then and now. For example, in the ’80s he defended breadlines in Sandinista Nicaragua as a way to insure that the poor “didn’t starve to death,” without acknowledging that those breadlines were a consequence of the collapse in agricultural production under the Sandinista regime. Bernie defended Cuban accomplishments in education, without acknowledging that in Cuba literacy goes hand in hand with draconian censorship. (BTW, if one ranks Latin American countries for increase in literacy over the last 60 years, Cuba ranks 16th best out of 20, for two reasons. 1) Cuba’s literacy rate 60 years ago was one of the best in Latin America. Cuba was better off than Fidel fans would like you to know. 2) The rest of Latin America made good improvements in literacy. Totalitarianism wasn’t necessary. )
Recently, Bernie responded to the resignation of President Evo Morales in Bolivia over electoral fraud in the first round of the presidential election. Bernie accurately pointed out that Evo had a good record in economic growth and in poverty reduction. (Fortunately, Evo didn’t go full Venezuela.) Bernie denounced Evo’s resignation as a coup, without any acknowledgement of the reason for Evo’s resignation- blatant electoral fraud. Fraud which the OAS discovered after Evo invited it to audit the election results.
Consider the recent riots in Chile over subway fare increases. Bernie informed us that “a billionaire president pushes austerity.” The subway fare increases were the consequence of green energy contracts for the Santiago subway system which took effect in 2018. The Santiago subway system signed 30 year contracts for 42% of its electricity to come from solar energy,and 18% from wind energy. Considering how solar electric costs, is it any surprise that the energy costs for the Santiago subway system increased? The contracts were signed in 2017 with the approval of then center-left President Bachelet. So the rioters and Bernie are taking their ire out on center-right President Piñera- who is a billionaire- for the costs of green energy contracts signed during the administration of center-left President Bachelet. Maybe that makes sense to Bernie and friends, but it doesn’t make sense to me. (Another point that Bernie and friends neglect is that Chile has reduced income inequality considerably in the last 15-20 years.)
This probably makes no difference to anybody, as nearly all of his supporters know next-to-nothing about Latin America, nor are they interested in learning more. Though in fairness, these two points accurately describe most of the American electorate.
Trump can be witty and funny. Sometimes, slightly self-deprecating.
Bernie can’t.
I agree with Lynn Hargrove above. Yes, Bernie has a very hard-core group of supporters, but outside of other voters on the left, I can’t see him garnering much support in the middle, which is where the battle of a presidential election is joined.
One more thing that’s different about Trump and Bernie. Like him or not Trump has a record of achievement in real estate and entertainment–and all of it on a very big stage. Bernie has a record only of being elected in a small, left-leaning jurisdiction. (FYI, according to Wikipedia, Vermont’s population is roughly 624,000, less than half of the population of the Bronx alone.)
I’d also second the advantage that loving America gives Trump. That is what finally got me to vote for him in 2016.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Bernie has captured the rock-solid heart of today’s Democrats.
Biden’s high poll numbers (until Iowa anyway) were mostly a safety choice for the majority of Democrats, though as well a true preference for blacks and older Democrats.
I can’t hear the leftist dog whistles anymore, but from what I read Bernie has much greater emotional appeal than I realized. We should not discount this.
____________________________________________________
As I watched him, I realized that what makes Sanders unique isn’t his democratic socialism; it is his preternatural political abilities. People were riveted as he spoke and as he listened. He has extreme focus, compassion, and respect for those he disagrees with and is painstakingly honest and direct. He has been in politics for decades and has heard thousands of stories, but he was able to be totally present in that room, listening to those particular stories. A thin teenager bravely stood up to ask him a question about cancer research and revealed that she has brain cancer. I wept; so did many others in the room. When Sanders bowed his head briefly, then gave her a smile and warm hug, there was no doubt about his sincerity.
This ability of his to connect and to build trust—which he has proved he can do across race, class, and party lines—will translate into the two things I care about the most: beating Donald Trump and overcoming the corruption and dysfunction of our political system so we can have a more equal, fair, thriving democracy.
–Zephyr Teachout, “The Nation”
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/bernie-sanders-endorsement-2020/
I take the election of Donald Trump and the continued popularity of Bernie Sanders as a sign that the American political establishment’s ability to stage-manage the electoral process is breaking down.
Trump was famously opposed by essentially the entire GOP establishment, which spent untold sums attempting to stop him from winning the nomination. Sanders seems to be getting the same treatment from the Democrat establishment.
I think this demonstrates that the establishments of both parties are a flailing set of fools, but the real problem is the vast yawning gulf between what the political establishment wants and what the public wants. If the right-leaning side of the electorate was pleased with the performance of the Republican party, Trump would have been ignored- and there would have been no need to mount a hilarious, desperate effort to stop him. If the left was pleased with the Democrats, ditto with Bernie.
But the public hasn’t been pleased, to put it mildly.
Go Bernie. Give the left exactly what it wants- good and hard.
LYNN HARGROVE on February 7, 2020 at 2:10 pm said:
Yes, a good analysis.
I would add that Bernie appeals to a smaller segment than did/does Trump. That and Trump radiates Joy and Bernie radiates meanness. Trump will build and Bernie will destroy.
* * *
Bernie: You didn’t build that, and I’m going to tear it down anyway.
huxley:
I agree.
The turning point for me was hearing that a particular friend of mine is a Bernie supporter. Previously she had always been a fairly moderate Democrat. So it shocked me. I haven’t had time to talk with her about it yet, although I plan to do so. But she was a wakeup call as far as I’m concerned.
As I see it, the vast majority of Democrats would vote for anyone who ran against Trump. But for a moderate to choose Bernie at this point is pretty mind-boggling.
OlderandWheezier,
The run in with Bernie and the Black Lives Matter activists was oddly revealing. Gotta say, what looked like attacking an old man didn’t make me feel especially positive towards BLM.
But, that’s the thing, it made him look like an ‘old man.’ A frail, physically intimidated, helpless old man who didn’t know what to do— not strong, not like a fighter or a leader.
I feel bad feeling that, and don’t know what he should have done instead, but that looked exactly like weakness and appeasement.
Maybe some think weakness and appeasement should be our position at home and on the world stage. But, from the looks of that encounter, who wants to get bullied and beat up? Maybe some would like that, though my low self esteem is not that low.
Here’s a longer clip of that uncomfortable scene. https://m.worldstarhiphop.com/apple/video.php?v=wshhEYrfQ6xeGH76SHQG
Bernie has that fire in the belly sincerity, and he certainly seems to match Trump in terms of energy. It will be interesting to see how far gone the US is if he wins the nomination; ie how close he comes to being elected. I also would not discount Buttigeig…youthful, well-spoken and comes across as much less the fire breather than Sanders.
What really concerns me is how many are saying Trump is a shoo-in. Never, ever, underestimate your enemy. I think the election is going to be much closer than those on the right believe it to be at the present moment.
The Trump victory shows that anything is possible.
However, a big difference betwixt Trump and Sanders are the crowds that each can generate.
During the 2016 campaigns, Trump attracted large crowds; Sanders attracts only small crowds and I will surmise his crowds have ample representations of ANTIFA types (thugs, , communists, socialists, anarchists, total losers, etc. )
These groups are very,very committed and individuals of this pseudo-religious ideology never, ever give up. They are like neo-Nazis who claim the Holocaust never happened or those who claim Halliburton, the Mossad and Bush planned the 9-11 attacks.
True, college age voters – in their ignorance and stupidity – are big fans of Sanders and this is worrisome.
This latter point demonstrates that the voting age should be raised to 30 years of age.
“I think the election is going to be much closer than those on the right believe it to be at the present moment.” – physicsguy
Or, in the words of the immortal saga, “Don’t get cocky.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0nyOyrprIs
JohnTyler on February 7, 2020 at 4:43 pm said:
…
This latter point demonstrates that the voting age should be raised to 30 years of age.
* * *
“Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over thirty who is not a conservative has no brains.” – Winston S. Churchill (but probably apocryphal)
I always kind of liked this one, although I no longer remember the source:
“Any Hussar still alive at thirty is a coward and a poltroon.”
And remember — don’t trust anyone over thirty!
To Lynn, T Migratorius, and Captn Rusty:
I would much rather listen / read Donald Trump’s speeches for four years than Bernie’s.
And Twitter wouldn’t be nearly so much fun.
physicsguy, AesopFan: Of course, one shouldn’t get cocky. However, let’s sit closer to the fire and talk about it and not worry about the cocky or jinxes.
Which voters who voted for Trump in 2016, when Trump was a wild, untested newcomer in national politics with a bizarre reputation, are likely not to vote for him 2020?
How many more voters who didn’t vote for him before but will in 2020, now that he is more of a known quantity with successes (the economy! the economy!) under his belt?
Hillary wasn’t a great candidate but she was well-known and she had a great machine behind her plus a more or less unified Dem Party.
Barring an economic collapse it’s hard for me to see how Democrats with the current slate of candidates can do better against Trump than Hillary. Especially given that Trump appears to be eating into the Dem base of blacks and hispanics.
Are there that many young voters who will be on fire against Trump and show up at the polls? Can the Democrats work some Electoral College magic that beats Trump?
What say you?
Xennady:
“Hilarious”?
I don’t find the attempted coup to remove a sitting President, activated by the combined forces of the FBI, DOJ, Intelligence agencies, Deep State media and a significant portion of the Democrat leadership, to be particularly entertaining.
Huxley, I agree that if the election was now, Trump wins. It’s a long time between now and November, and the Dems are working 24/7. They have two great advantages : party discipline, and they never give up. Add to that their perchance for dirty tricks. Don’t let the guard down.
huxley on February 7, 2020 at 3:32 pm said:
I’ve come to the conclusion that Bernie has captured the rock-solid heart of today’s Democrats.
…
–Zephyr Teachout, “The Nation”
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/bernie-sanders-endorsement-2020/
* * *
Bernie Sanders is high-functioning con man — the trademarks are obvious empathy and asking for names and stories; assuring them his snake-oil is better than anybody else’s.*
He lost me with this claim:
“Sanders then used those stories** to illustrate how we currently pay for health care; why it represents waste, greed, and cruelty; and why we should switch to Medicare for All, which would enable us to cut out the insurance companies’ profits and bureaucracy. The room shifted from angry and skeptical to hopeful.”
If someone can name me ONE government agency that does not exhibit waste, greed (junkets and big bonuses for the staff, for instance), cruelty (VA killing their patients), profits (from rent-seekers and lobbyists), and bureaucracy then maybe I will consider him serious, and his supporters sane.
*Yes, I know Donald Trump has the same schtick, but his snake-oil actually works.
**Anecdotes are not statistically significant.
Z. Teachout on Sanders continued:
“And his supporters are very enthusiastic. This broad, committed coalition will matter enormously in the fall, when Facebook is infested with lies, Trump’s campaign is pushing misinformation, and foreign and corporate actors are trying to twist people into nihilism and hatred.”
Notice that there is NO acknowledgement that some of those lies are by Democrats & Bernie bros; the DNC pushes as much misinformation or more; and unions ARE corporate actors.
“Nihilism and hatred” are far more visible on the Left than on the Right in this era.
“They remember the Cold War and fear the word “socialism.” Young people (by the way, under 40 isn’t that young) don’t have the same reaction. ”
There are valid reasons why both of those are true, and they aren’t “good” ones.
A 40-year-old was born in 1980, much too young to know about Communism in the USSR from contemporary events, but ignorant and/or willfully blind to its bloody past and current infestations under the more palatable sobriquet of “liberal” or “democratic” socialism.
“When I ran for Congress, a professional communications adviser made me watch Sanders answer questions on Fox News over and over because of his unique ability to refocus questions on what matters to listeners and not get distracted.”
It’s not a unique skill to ignore questions and stick with the stump speech.
I will now proceed to the companion piece,
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/warren-president-endorsement-2020/
Okay, that’s all you need to know.
physicsguy on February 7, 2020 at 7:20 pm said:
Huxley, I agree that if the election was now, Trump wins. It’s a long time between now and November, and the Dems are working 24/7. They have two great advantages : party discipline, and they never give up. Add to that their perchance for dirty tricks. Don’t let the guard down.
* * *
That’s the long way of saying “don’t get cocky” but covers the territory.
I think, perchance, that the word you want is “penchant.”
Both lovely words, but not synonyms.
“I am the Grammar Maven, and I approve this message.”
AesopFan: I was shocked anyone could praise Sanders for his “preternatural political abilities” and his “extreme focus, compassion, and respect for those he disagrees with” and that he “is painstakingly honest and direct.”
That’s not how I respond to Sanders, but some Democrats do and enough that Sanders has a clear shot at the nomination after the dust clears.
However, I don’t believe he can beat Trump. Aside from Sanders’ socialism, his support from the party will be lukewarm at best plus a lot of regular Dems who aren’t Bernie people will sit out the election. That’s how I read the tea leaves.
The key is ‘swing voters’ and independents. Most Democrats will vote for anyone who runs against Trump in the national. But those voters in swing states not tied to either party and either not in-love or full of hate for Trump will be where the election stands.
Trump has an advantage because he’s in the White House and even if you hate him personally it’s tough to complain about the economy. The attitude being why change just because I don’t like him personally? So Bernie has to somehow get enthusiastic support and – at this point – I don’t see that except for his avid followers, which are not enough to win.
But the last election showed us that no matter who is running, when it really only comes down to two candidates, anything can happen. You could run Mickey Mouse against Bugs Bunny and one of them would win.
physicsguy,
It’s not a case of overconfidence but political analysis. Short of assassination, there’s nothing the dems can do to change the current fundamentals. Trump’s 42% overall favorability rating among blacks perfectly reflects those fundamentals.
Regarding the Democrat’s vaunted party discipline and that they never give up.
Disciplined consensus is of value in direct relation to the degree to which it resonates with reality. The impeachment fiasco demonstrated that “party discipline” led straight off the political cliff. The Iowa primary demonstrated the internal fractures within the party, which are of particular significance because this is a party in an undeclared civil war.
The Democrat party can kiss goodbye it’s liberal moderates and big donor contributors if Sanders or Warren is the 2020 nominee. The Democrat party can kiss goodbye its radical base if Biden, Buttigieg or Bloomberg is the 2020 nominee.
As for never giving up, democrats have yet to learn that when in a hole… stop digging.
The Democrat party can kiss goodbye it’s liberal moderates and big donor contributors if Sanders or Warren is the 2020 nominee. The Democrat party can kiss goodbye its radical base if Biden, Buttigieg or Bloomberg is the 2020 nominee.
Geoffrey Britain: Yes, this is important. To us the Dem candidates all look about the same crazy, but within the party this is close to civil war.
A few days ago Roger Simon opined that the two-party system will be replaced by Trump Republicans, Bernie-AOC Democrats, and Deep State Democrats plus NeverTrumpers. I’m not as sanguine things will go that far, but that’s where they are heading
James Carville gave a real cri-de-couer interview on MSNBC. Carville was the master strategist behind Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. (And entertainingly played by Billy Bob Thornton in “Primary Colors” — worth watching.)
Carville is a liberal-to-the-bone Democrat but still a canny judge of political reality IMO.
Why are you “scared to death” about the 2020 election?
Look, the turnout in the Iowa caucus was below what we expected, what we wanted. Trump’s approval rating is probably as high as it’s been. This is very bad. And now it appears the party can’t even count votes. What the hell am I supposed to think?
I’ll just say it this way: The fate of the world depends on the Democrats getting their shit together and winning in November. We have to beat Trump. And so far, I don’t like what I see. And a lot of people I talk to feel the same way.
…
We have candidates on the debate stage talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration. They’re talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking. You’ve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells. It doesn’t matter what you think about any of that, or if there are good arguments — talking about that is not how you win a national election. It’s not how you become a majoritarian party.
–“‘We’re losing our damn minds’: James Carville unloads on the Democratic Party”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/7/21123518/trump-2020-election-democratic-party-james-carville
A bit more from Carville:
The real argument here is that some people think there’s a real yearning for a left-wing revolution in this country, and if we just appeal to the people who feel that, we’ll grow and excite them and we’ll win. But there’s a word a lot of people hate that I love: politics. It means building coalitions to win elections. It means sometimes having to sit back and listen to what people think and framing your message accordingly.
Democrats will do almost anything except talk to the other side as equals and attempt to build support.
Weirdly it seems a lot of Democrats concluded from Trump’s 2016 win that it was the right time go balls-out for the revolution.
On the Iowa caucus thread,
Esther on February 7, 2020 at 12:41 am said:
Seems the Democrats can’t count. Meanwhile, according to a flashy article over at the Atlantic, Trump is now an evil, super genius computer geek with billion dollar tech that will take over the world, bwhahaha —- https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-2020-disinformation-war/605530/
* * *
I just finished reading that long article, by McKay Coppins, and it is a wonderful example of projection, misdirection, innuendo, and — yes — misinformation.
I thought about fisking it, but that would take the rest of the evening, and political junkies, like a lot of us here, can insert most of the rebuttals themselves.
However, if you want to get a good picture of what goes on behind the curtains in both parties, it’s an excellent reference.
huxley on February 7, 2020 at 8:17 pm said:
…That’s how I read the tea leaves.
Montage on February 7, 2020 at 8:24 pm said:
The key is ‘swing voters’ and independents. …
But the last election showed us that no matter who is running, when it really only comes down to two candidates, anything can happen. You could run Mickey Mouse against Bugs Bunny and one of them would win.
Geoffrey Britain on February 7, 2020 at 8:36 pm said:
It’s not a case of overconfidence but political analysis. …
As for never giving up, democrats have yet to learn that when in a hole… stop digging.
* * *
Predictions are worth bragging rights if the tea leaves fall your way.
And I vote for Bugs.
I never understood Sanders’ appeal, but it should be obvious by now that anyone could be President.
People are pretty bad at predicting what other people will do, aren’t they? I don’t know how you could look at how terrible experts have been at predicting major events over the past several years and still be a socialist or a progressive.
“Has the ugliness of the ugly truth increased so drastically since Plato’s time that now anyone associating truth with beauty commits a philosophical felony?” – Erich Heller
huxley on February 7, 2020 at 8:43 pm said:
…To us the Dem candidates all look about the same crazy, but within the party this is close to civil war.
* * *
All the GOP candidates probably strike the Democrats the same way, except that, now, their hatred of Trump in particular is causing them to cast bouquets in the direction of all the former Hitlers.
It’s not a new phenomenon, and it always depends on whether you’re one of the factions involved in the kerfluffle, or not.
Back in 2012, there was a lot of wondering about the religious doctrines of the church to which The-Candidate-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named belonged.
On one of the websites I read regularly, there was a lot of back and forth on the question of the bogusity or not of Mormon doctrines, from the standpoint of other Christian denominations.*
One atheist/agnostic commenter pointed out that, to him and his circle, that fretting was all insider wrangling, and it didn’t really influence their acceptance or rejection of any candidate.
Roughly paraphrased, his observation was that all of the warring factions believed in invisible deities, virgin births, and miracles, and a book of golden plates fitted right in.
* Not going down that path; it’s a different discussion.
You’ve got a perfectly reasonable analogy Neo, and it’s not the least bit bizarre. Others here, on previous threads have talked about the entertainment value of recent events and breaking out the popcorn. (OK, I know what they meant, and good on them for paying attention.) But, I’m getting a little scared.
Of course, all such analogies are a reach. I came around to Trump later in the game and I thought Silvio Berlusconi and Arnold Schwarzenegger might be good analogies for Trump’s presidency and I could not have been more wrong.
I’m with Gringo on Sanders. He can talk all day about moderate democratic socialism and sticking up for the common person, but he always seems to support the authoritarian sleaze balls across the globe. On that measure he appears to be exactly a Leninist.
Not to get on a rant, but 5 or 10 years ago a congressional hearing was held in which several professors claimed that the tax breaks for IRA’s and 401K’s was money not well spent in the past. So they advocated confiscating those funds (or some of it) for new gov. programs. There was a little push back from Republicans, but not much overall.
When these leading Dem candidates propose multi-trillion dollar programs, are they thinking along these lines? Many Dems have said in recent years, there is lots of money out there, it’s just in the wrong hands.
____
You can’t compare Sanders to Hillary because Sanders is much more appealing than Hillary in the popularity contest. Also, huxley’s idea that anyone who voted for the unknown Trump in 2016 will surely vote for the successful Trump in 2020. That’s very logical, except … I know a number of people who vaguely listen to lots of information, on the street and in the media, and then sort of average it. Well, all those people informing me can’t be wrong can they? (Quantity over quality.) As Neo said previously, propaganda works.
huxley – Carville isn’t the only worried one. Van Jones was also sounding the alarm.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/04/van_jones_weve_got_to_wake_up_trump_sent_a_warning_shot_hes_going_after_black_votes.html
Neo, love your site, including the smart commenters, I visit every day.
Could you define “fairly moderate Democrat “ re your friend? What does that mean exactly?
Has she always been for border control, now it’s open borders?
Abolish private insurance? Paid health insurance for illegals?
Abolish fossil fuels and step back in time in quality of life?
I could go on but you get it. How close or far from these positions was she? Are you sure it’s not just Trump hate?
As for Bernie being “honest”, I’d say he’s a total hypocrite. Socialism for everyone else while he in his own life is a devout capitalist, although he certainly has sucked on the government tit his whole life.
Thanks for the great, courageous work you do.
I know a number of people who vaguely listen to lots of information, on the street and in the media, and then sort of average it.
TommyJay: I can imagine that. People aren’t computers and they have lives outside politics.
Nonetheless, Trump’s poll numbers have gone up in spite of day-in, day-out attacks since he got off that escalator and decided to run.
Propaganda works to a point, but it’s not a Harry Potter magic wand.
Actually, I’m amazed Trump has weathered these storms at all. I say it’s a testament to his spirit and the human spirit.
“When these leading Dem candidates propose multi-trillion dollar programs, are they thinking along these lines?”
You want to see middle class white people burn down a city? Try to take a chunk out of their 401ks.
Mike
I noticed that Carville piece. Thanks to huxley I could read it more carefully.
At first, I thought maybe, just maybe, he was really implying that hey, this is my country too. I’ve got a nice life and nest egg and I don’t want some sociopath throwing a grenade into it.
But I fear what Carville is really saying is that it is always and everywhere about winning, and getting the power. Build the big tent. Pretend to listen to people so that they will vote for your candidate. Slick Willy and slicker Jim. Or in his mind, politics 101.
Bill:
Thanks!
As far as my friend’s politics goes – I have never had a conversation with her to quiz her about a bunch of policies. What I do know is that she has never – and I mean never – said a single nasty word to me about my politics or the right in general. That’s moderate right there, and quite unusual. She is curious what I think, and asks me questions and listens to my answers. She has other friends on the right. She’s not from a blue enclave or a place like NY or California. She likes to target shoot and is in favor of guns (perhaps even NRA member, although I have no idea about that). I know she liked Obama and voted for him, and she voted for Hillary and was not a Bernie supporter in 2016. She’s been a Democrat her entire life but is not especially political and doesn’t like to discuss politics very often or read about it. Her main source of news is CNN.
huxley – Carville isn’t the only worried one. Van Jones was also sounding the alarm.
AesopFan: I keep an eye on Van Jones. Yes, he’s a capital-R radical, but no dummy. He actually defended Tulsi Gabbard against Hillary’s weird, wine box accusation that Gabbard might be a Russian asset.
But I fear what Carville is really saying is that it is always and everywhere about winning, and getting the power. Build the big tent. Pretend to listen to people so that they will vote for your candidate. Slick Willy and slicker Jim.
TommyJay: Well, yeah! Carville didn’t want to argue about open borders, banning frackers, etc. just that he had a professional opinion — no doubt correct — that those were losing positions to take in public if one wanted to beat Trump in November.
I’m not sure which is worse: Bill Clinton’s triangulations, however insincere, but still preserving the veneer of old-fashioned, hard-fought but collegial American politics or the “Kick out the jams, mothereffers, up against the wall” stance we’re getting from Bernie, AOC etc.
I will say I don’t find Clinton/Carville politics as frightening as the latter. And I don’t think, left to their own druthers, C&C are as crazy as their offspring.
You want to see middle class white people burn down a city? Try to take a chunk out of their 401ks.
MBunge: You may be on to something!
In re propaganda and how it works, read Coppins’ article at the Atlantic mentioned earlier, and this analysis from Doc Zero.
Perhaps this is what is transforming Neo’s friend from moderate (however defined) to Sanders fan (if not quite fanatic).
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1225795855879458816.html
And on socialism (communism-in-waiting), which is what Sanders & Warren are advocating full-bore.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1225783481608871938.html
AesopFan,
When events prove out as I thought, I’ve never had a desire to beat my chest about it. I also haven’t the least hesitation in admitting to having been completely off the mark. I just calls it like I sees it. My dear departed Dad taught me that admitting to being wrong makes a better person of oneself. That’s a standard to which I’ve always aspired.
huxley,
I’m sure which is worse. The enemy who stabs you in the back is far worse than the enemy who makes no bones about it and comes straight at you.
“Et tu, Brute?”
Cruz discusses the expertise and the impact of Trump’s SOTU.
Their’s is a curious partnership, after the mud-slinging of the primaries, but Ted is pragmatic, and principled, and knows this (quoting Sir Pterry in Discworld): “Personal is not the same as important.”
Cruz: Rush taught millions of people they were not the only one.
If he had been able to campaign with podcasts like this, he might have really challenged Trump in the primaries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diZfSOhhqZY
“She’s been a Democrat her entire life but is not especially political and doesn’t like to discuss politics very often or read about it. Her main source of news is CNN.” – Neo
Well, that kind of explains her passion, but why Sanders instead of Warren or Buttigieg? (I practiced the spelling, and he’s not in my spell-checker yet.)
Artfldgr on February 7, 2020 at 9:20 pm said:
“Has the ugliness of the ugly truth increased so drastically since Plato’s time that now anyone associating truth with beauty commits a philosophical felony?” – Erich Heller
* * *
Short answer: yes.
I am inescapably reminded of the Star Trek (original) episode titled, “Is There in Truth No Beauty?” which was taken from a poem by George Herbert (which I just found out at Wikipedia).
https://ccel.org/h/herbert/temple/Jordan1.html
I just sat through the New Hampshire democratic debates, I’m collecting the whole set.
This one was a little more debate-y than the other ones, though that’s debatable.
About those misinformation campaigns —
https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/02/07/new-bombshell-fox-news-has-briefing-book-impugning-network-sources-on-ukraine/
AesopFan:
That’s what I hope to ask her if we manage to get into a political conversation. It really surprised me a lot that she was a Sanders fan. I think she just likes him, but I really don’t know although I hope to find out.
I read a couple of articles at Townhall that have at least a tangential bearing on the topic.
One is about the propagandizing of children to favor socialism.
https://townhall.com/columnists/marinamedvin/2020/02/06/marxism-sugarcoated-and-forcefed-to-schoolchildren-as-equity-n2560892
The other is on the difficulty of pleasing Democrats, because the SOTU churlishness is their normal MO. If the GOP gets this kind of reaction when delivering what the Democrats (at least used to) claim they want, then why bother to give them anything at all?
https://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2020/02/06/trump-critics-denounce-protrump-blacks-as-sellouts–while-criticizing-trump-for-not-having-more-sellouts-n2560825
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2020/02/07/are-the-candidates-afraid-of-a-democratic-socialist-in-the-white-house-one-raises-her-hand-n2560978?utm_campaign=inarticle
I’m sure which is worse. The enemy who stabs you in the back is far worse than the enemy who makes no bones about it and comes straight at you.
Geoffrey Britain: Like most things the answer is “It depends…”
I think the Clinton Democrats’ endgame for America is a PRI-dominated Mexico. Sanders and AOC IMO want outright USSR. If I must choose, I’ll take Mexico.
TommyJay: I’m with Gringo on Sanders. He can talk all day about moderate democratic socialism and sticking up for the common person, but he always seems to support the authoritarian sleaze balls across the globe. On that measure he appears to be exactly a Leninist.
That could be because Lenin was a democratic socialist.. or was before the revolution
Rossiyskaya Sotsial-demokraticheskaya Rabochaya Partiya
Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party [not all that different than the german one]
The Social-Democratic Party held that Russia could achieve socialism only after developing a bourgeois society with an urban proletariat. The second congress, in Brussels and London in July–August 1903, was dominated by the argument between the Bolshevik wing of the party, led by Vladimir Lenin, and the Menshevik wing, led by L. Martov, over Lenin’s proposals for a party composed of disciplined professional revolutionaries
these were the party members that played a major role in the first failed revolution of 1905
call it the forgotten revolution… this was the one where Trotsky a social democratic leader was elected as president of the St Petersburg Soviet (council). The bolshiviks broke ranks, and the 2nd revolution of 1917, the one that Bernie likes, took over an changed their name to the Russian communist party (bolshivik) and proceeded to supress the menshiviks…
on the other point
all those people informing me can’t be wrong can they?
Ask the germans who thought they were right about what they were doing around 1935…
I prefer the one that comes straight at you.. that i can respect… THEN pound them given i grew up in a inner city slum warzone and you cant tell that and what it gives you from looking at me or my life…
https://www.city-journal.org/red-states-economic-demographic-advantage
But the Democrats’ presidential candidates prefer to double-down and make those policies nation-wide.
PowerLine had a story about Rush Limbaugh in their headlines, which linked to Rush’s “Obama: I hope he fails” program.
It’s worth reading again.
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2009/01/16/limbaugh_i_hope_obama_fails/
The post recommended at PLB is
https://freebeacon.com/columns/the-era-of-limbaugh/
Flicking the remote around the television post debate, I happened on an earnest panel discussion on msnbc.
Surprisingly, Chris Mathews was angrily condemning Socialism! “In the Cold War,” he fulminated,” if the Communists won, I would have been one of those shot in Central Park.”
He continued with something like, “ we have to find out what Sanders means by Socialism, is it Denmark, because that’s ok. Denmark, nothing wrong with Denmark. But that’s not Socialism, that’s Capitalism with social programs. We got to find out, what does Sanders mean by Socialism?”
Pin drop. The old youngs on the show looked at him with their hipster nerd glasses and expressions that said, “ok boomer.”
Central Park might still be a plausible future scenario.
Here’s a recap and link to that Chris Mathews thing, I guess I wasn’t the only one who noticed. The “justice Democrats” think his comments were bad, very bad.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/chris-matthews-goes-off-on-socialism-on-msnbc
There’s often a kind of synergy of articles that come up from the depths of the webz at nearly the same time.
Consider this train of thought: there is a net flow of migration from Blue States to Red States because the Republican environment is more congenial to economic growth than the Democrat — even progressives would rather live where they can have a better life; voters can (or should) see that turning the national government back over to the Democrats will negatively affect their lives & fortunes; but some Democrats really don’t see the connection between their ideology and the consequences of enacting it.
The train is curiously duplicated in current events in Israel.
Arab Muslims are moving from possibly-Palestinian areas of Israel into definitely-Jewish ones because they would rather live where everything about life is better; they absolutely see that turning the government over to the Palestinian leaders is a negative move; but they don’t see how they are sabotaging their preferred living conditions by their ideological positions.
https://www.meforum.org/60382/israeli-arabs-say-no-to-palestine
Democrats (and elites of all factions) never want their actions to have consequences that impact themselves.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/02/virtue-signaling-can-carry-a-cost.php
Neo,
Thanks for the reply. As Aesop’s Fan noted, CNN as an only source must be the issue, since its wall to wall orangmanbad over there! I don’t know how much real Bernie info she really gets from them, as I never watch CNN.
Even granting that, while she may be intelligent, I’m guessing she lacks critical thinking skills. As a very senior level headhunter, I can tell you with certainty that high intelligence does not always indicate possession of critical thinking skills. For one thing ( but not the only thing), critical thinkers are virtually all highly curious and hungry for info and data, and are self driven to multiple sources, including those with opposing inputs. Then they digest and form conclusions and revise their initial opinion/solution/decision based on their critical thinking ability, sorting through irrelevancies, contradictions, lack of follow up, and get to the critical nubs of data and form a well founded conclusion, by their own brains and instincts, usually a superior conclusion. It’s impossible to do that relying on only one source of data, particularly, in this case, from tv talking heads reading from the same script.
I have several smart liberal friends who don’t have a clue of what’s really happening on many subjects ( politics, “ climate change”, the economy, trade/tariffs etc). It’s astounding what they don’t know, but are convinced they are correct because they are told things by their info sources that they want to believe. Once you want to believe, it become intellectually dishonest, corrupted thinking. Empirical data counter to your desired set of facts are brushed aside, and you remain willfully ignorant, no matter your IQ.
It’s not possible to get an informed world view through solely the legacy media. Most of what they put out is subjective interpretation or spin that supports their lemming brained narrative. The diverse internet outlets provide much better access to wide points of view and critical thinking skills can enable the individual to home in on a number of trusted sources, to get the real scoop and decide what to make of the info. And thus make better informed decisions.
I check out realclearpolitics.com early to see what the big picture playing field looks like, as it covers the full spectrum left to right. I don’t actually read much of it because I can tell what a certain author from a certain organ will say without reading beyond the headline e.g. Mo Dowd, Paul Krugman, David Brooks, all NYT are one trick, Orangeman bad purveyors. They twist everything to that conclusion. So I no longer need to read them but I do check out the daily macro playing field. I like that they often pair opposite views in adjacent articles, worth checking out interesting ones. I pay zero attention to the RCP Polling Averages—GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. The polls are so different combining their results into an average is mathematical fantasy.
I checkout a Breitbart, Foxnews, Powerline, Althouse, NewNeo, Scott Adams, Don Surber, Conservative Tree House, Ace of Spades, the new Dan Bongino site, anything Victor Davis Hanson writes, Instapundit, Legal Insurrection,and a number of others off and on depending on topics. I don’t read any actual newspapers anymore, I can get their main drifts through excerpts or links from the sites I watch. I especially read the comments, as there are many opposing points of view, subtle and large, contained in the comments that add to the thought value of the piece being discussed.
That’s why I think people like Neo provide great value, a rational platform to hash around info with a bunch of smart, information driven, and independent folks who don’t need to toe a party Line. The fact that they are engaging the info, and many here clearly also have other sources they are bring to bear in their thinking is greatly enriching to all of us, whether we totally agree or disagree. It will almost always be a rational discussion. Fertile grounds for learning what’s really happening and developing an expectation of what alternative forward scenarios might look like.
Sooooo, back to Neo’s friend, she needs to open up her info source horizons to get broader data, and form her own opinions. Stop letting people at CNN who are almost certainly well below her intellect, who also are further handicapped by the raw emotion they bring into their thought processes, tell her what to think and accepting that as the truth.
“I don’t find the attempted coup to remove a sitting President, activated by the combined forces of the FBI, DOJ, Intelligence agencies, Deep State media and a significant portion of the Democrat leadership, to be particularly entertaining.”
I wasn’t talking about the ongoing efforts to overthrow the elected government.
I was talking about the GOP establishment’s futile efforts to stop Trump from winning the nomination in 2016.
I certainly didn’t find them hilarious at the time, but now that I can safely say they failed, I do find them hilarious.
I think that a Sanders Candidacy would be interesting in that he and Trump are so far apart ideologically. Because Bernie is openly and unabashedly Socialist, such a race provides the opportunity for a national debate on fundamental American values and how it sees itself in the long term.
If it plays out like I think it could, it could be a massive rejection of Socialism that might last for a generation or so.
Tucker Carlson has done us a tremendous favor, by notifying us of the existence of, reporting on, and highlighting an extraordinarily destructive Democrat bill making its way through the House, their H.R 5383, “New Way Forward Act,” which was quietly introduced on December 10th 2019—a stealth bill sponsored and co-sponsored by more than 40 Democrat House members–which has been called “the most radical bill ever introduced in Congress”–but which the MSM kept totally quiet about.*
Why such silence by the MSM over a major bill which would, if passed, entirely remake our judicial and immigration systems and, indeed, our entire country and society; a bill which would have deep and pernicious effects on every aspect of our lives here in United States?
Well, to help insure that few knew about this bill, or would rally their forces to oppose it.
* See https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-criminals-would-be-protected-from-deportation-under-bill-aoc-and-other-house-democrats-back
See also https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/07/gop-experts-new-way-forward-immigration/
No, I don’t expect this extraordinarily radical, subversive, and destructive bill to make it through the Senate, and to be signed by President Trump.
But what I do expect/suspect is that this bill will move the “Overton Window,” and put certain of its proposals into circulation and discussion, to make certain of its elements much more “thinkable” and therefore possibly–in some way, shape, or form–more acceptable and possible.
“… their current policies are, economically and demographically, unsustainable.” — from AesopFan
Boy, isn’t that the truth. There are various games that can be played with the monetary system and debt that slow the process, but many of these policies are just plainly unsustainable in the long run.
huxley,
I think Bill Clinton was deeply dishonest and sneaky (i.e. less integrity than an average politician), but in a purely political sense, Hillary was/is the really toxic member of the duo. With the passing of time, I think Clinton wasn’t a half bad president. I’d take him any day over Bernie; even the best version of President Sanders I could imagine.
Coolidge once said “the business of America is business.” Well, once a country succeeds in securing itself against violence foreign and domestic, creating a solid business environment is every country’s business. And Bill Clinton, founding member of the Democrat Leadership Council understood that. Maybe in a way that Carville and Van Jones will never understand.
AesopFan: About those misinformation campaigns —
https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/02/07/new-bombshell-fox-news-has-briefing-book-impugning-network-sources-on-ukraine/
I went on that link and followed her link to read most of the “brain book.” Wow! My impression is that it is nearly impossible to figure out who is honest and legit in Ukraine.
All these characters claiming to be honest while claiming that others are crooks. And the money that seems to be sloshing around from the Ukraine to U.S. bank accounts. Where does it come from? Who’s behind it all? My first guess is that most of it is Russian disinformation aimed at creating havoc in our political system. My further guess is that the money comes from Putin and his oligarch buddies who are using Ukraine as a front to pedal poisonous disinformation. Whatever is going on, it is devious and difficult to understand. It appears that Giuliani, John Solomon, and others trying to unravel Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 elections may have been misled by these sleazy characters. At this point, based on the “brain book” info, I wouldn’t trust anyone from the Ukraine.
“AesopFan: About those misinformation campaigns”
“Misinformation” is just another element of the anti-Trump hysteria. Are we supposed to believe 2016 was the first time American voters have ever been told something other than the God’s honest truth?
This obsession with “misinformation” is just another way the media and the Left say “You people are stupid! You don’t understand what you did! That’s the only reason you didn’t do what we wanted!”
Mike
Late! (as is so often the case, and will be especially this month).
I’d like to see a Trump vs Sanders election, AND a massive rejection of the Dems, meaning a big House win for Reps.
I fear Sanders could win (20%), tho I think it’s about 20% for any Dem right now.
College educated/ indoctrinated young folk are mostly enthusiastic anti-Rep Dems. They will be anti-Trump for any Dem. Tho possibly with a little less enthusiasm – tho also possibly with even more rage.
I certainly find more Joe – Joe similarities (Bush 2016 – Biden 2020) than Trump – Sanders. But the enthusiasm of Sanders, combined with an all too common anti-rich bias among normal workers, means he can win.
It also means “socialism” will never be politically defeated. Taking the money from the rich, to help the “poor”, will always have some level of popularity. Robin Hood, like David vs Goliath, will always be a hero. And Scrooge will not.
College discrimination against hiring Reps is an existential threat to America and it’s ideals of Life, Liberty, and Property (from the Constitution), as well as Pursuit of Happiness (from the Declaration).
AesopFan, “If he [Cruz] had been able to campaign with podcasts like this, he might have really challenged Trump in the primaries.”
Cruz 2024! What I hope he has learned is to ditch the religious overtones of his 2016 campaign and stick to only our civic religion, that is, the Declaration and the Constitution. Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians (whether “evangelical” or otherwise), agnostics, and atheists could get behind that.
# 1—Chris Matthews told the truth for once, this time about the dangers of Socialism and Bernie, and he is getting trashed on social media.
See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/02/boom-chris-matthews-implies-commie-bernie-sanders-may-start-assassinating-opposition-leaders-if-president-video/
#2—See Bloomberg here from a couple of years ago, telling his audience–of the “Intelligentsia” gathered in the audience to hear him–that the people in the Midwest (and around the world) are not able to understand nor, from his attitude, apparently do not have the capacity to, understand the “nuanced “ view of individual’s rights, things like “self-identifying females i.e. males wearing women’s clothing, being allowed in school locker rooms with their daughters—held by those on a higher moral and intellectual plane—the “Intelligentsia” like him.**
** https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2020/02/06/watch-michael-bloomberg-in-2016-trans-rights-loser-midwest-locker-rooms/
Bill:
I focus on this particular friend because I think she does indeed have much more than average critical thinking skills, although she’s not driven by relentless curiosity. She definitely has more interest in hearing my point of view than almost any other Democrat I know, for example, and she often will think about what I said. However, nothing I’ve ever said has made a dent in her devotion to being a Democrat. And this Bernie thing had me completely puzzled, As I said, I was in a setting where we really weren’t able to have a discussion of any sort about it. I hope to do so in the future and get a better understanding of what’s going on with her.
Neo it would be great to hear what you find out when you have your conversation with your friend.
Bill on February 8, 2020 at 10:22 pm said:
Neo it would be great to hear what you find out when you have your conversation with your friend.
* * *
Seconded.
A case study in depth would be very enlightening, while staying within the bounds of Neo’s discretion, of course.
“As a very senior level headhunter, I can tell you with certainty that high intelligence does not always indicate possession of critical thinking skills. ” –Bill
Thanks for the interesting information gleaned from your profession.
It’s not a surprise to most of us that high IQ and practical smarts are not always highly correlated — sometimes the reverse, in fact.
Bill,
LOL I have almost the exact same routine! I check out RCP to get the ‘drift’ for the day and if there are no interesting looking articles move on to Scott Adams, etc. I save Neo to kick back with at the end of the day and read every word, comments included. If you haven’t found him yet you will want to take a look at the Manhattan Contrarian, every bit as enjoyable as Neo, but he only posts one item every couple of days. The Diplomad is worth your time, too.
Neo,
Is your friend the parent of a young adult? That could be a factor. The student loan issue generates a lot of sympathy.
There are some otherwise sane people who watch CNN and the MSM out of habit. I have a very dear friend that is like your friend – she believes everything she hears on CNN. I did challenge her to watch an equal amount of Fox (Carlson, Ingraham, etc., not news) for a month – but if she did, she never mentioned it so I think not. I often wonder what it would take to wake these people up. And she is a 1%er, wealthy – complains about her taxes – and still doesn’t get the connection!
I vote for Bugs too.
Bugs Bunny is America’s Trickster God, and Donald Trump is an avatar. What is his Twitter trolling but a high-tech version of getting Elmer Fudd to repeatedly blast himself with his shotgun?