Berniephobia
Berniephobia is gripping many Democrats. But hey, it’s been gripping me, too. It’s been gripping me for several weeks now, even before it got to its present fever pitch. And I don’t believe it’s plateaued yet.
I wrote the following back on February 3, and it still applies:
I think it’s always dangerous to wish for the Democrats to nominate their most radical candidates because we might think they are almost certain to be defeated. I don’t see Sanders as certain to be defeated at all, although I think his support should be at about 2%. But it is much much greater than that. Of course, Sanders is not the only one whose policies are dangerous. But he seems to be the most charismatic, and although I fail to understand that appeal, it is undeniably present.
Sanders was almost nominated in 2016, when the field wasn’t nearly as split and his opponent was supposedly highly qualified as well as experienced and brilliant, in contrast to the miserable group of candidates he’s competing against today. If that doesn’t put the fear in you, I don’t know what would. I’ve certainly got it, and so does this group of people.
Mark Levin has joined them:
My fellow conservatives, there’s nothing to celebrate about Sanders’ victory and possible if not likely nomination.https://t.co/XEYWMnWKwm
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) February 23, 2020
As far as I can see, Levin hasn’t explained why he wrote that. But I think I know. Not only is it possible that Bernie could win the general election, but his likely selection as nominee for a major US party supported by roughly half the population is an alarming sign that not only have people succumbed to MSM/Democratic anti-Trump propaganda, but that the Gramscian march has been remarkably effective. Both things are profoundly troubling.
It’s hubris to think that you know what’s going to happen in a Trump vs. Sanders matchup next Election Day. Yes, all signs are pointing to a Trump victory. I get that. But that was the exact reason so many Democrats wanted Trump nominated in 2016 – because he was a surefire loss for the Republicans and all signs pointed to a Clinton victory. How’d that turn out for them? “Pass the popcorn,” indeed.
In that same post I wrote on February 3, I noted that a good friend of mine who had heretofore been a moderate Democrat is now a big Bernie fan. I still haven’t found out why – although I still plan to ask her about it, she’s been mega-busy – but hearing her say that gave me a new perspective into the Bernie phenomenon. If this person can support Bernie, a lot of non-leftists could. And to me, that spells trouble.
After all, we’ve had over three years of relentless anti-Trump propaganda and it has to have had an effect. A lot of people, and not just leftists, hate his guts and literally want him dead They would vote for the proverbial yellow dog rather than Trump – or vote for a Socialist like Bernie to stop him.
I sincerely hope not. But I’m not getting out my popcorn popper.
Trump winning in 2016 was fluke. He could have just as easily lost several of the Dem state he won then. Can he hold off Bernie in those states? I just don’t know. And yes Bernie could win. Not something I would look forward too, to say the least.
Trump is running on the Economy, but if the Coronavirus plays havoc with world trade then the Economy could be in serious trouble. So could Trump.
I have been completely baffled by the idea, not uncommon among mainstream conservatives and some in the Republican establishment, that comrade Bernie is the best possible opponent for Trump (because there would then be a binary choice between socialism/communism and capitalism), when it should be obvious that B.S. is the only candidate who not only could beat Trump, but probably would. Masses of young people will turn out in the swing states for him, and I predict that, with his likely choice of a black woman for VP, so will huge numbers of blacks and other non-whites.
After all, we’ve had over three years of relentless anti-Trump propaganda and it has to have had an effect.
I would not gainsay that this is quite true. However, and in what I think may be ultimate mitigation, vast numbers of our people have also understood the propaganda and hatred are aimed not merely at Pres Trump but at themselves. Should these people be a large enough mass, Trump’s re-election prospects rise accordingly. Question is, well, you know.
My 90 year old mother is attracted by his sincerity and consistency. I think I’ve talked her out of that being sufficient reason to vote for him, but I’m not so sure.
At my age I probably shouldn’t be surprised by how easily people are swayed in matters that concern them, but at 65 I find myself constantly shaking my head in disbelief.
If a fight is inevitable, have it when and where it is most advantageous to you. I’d rather have a capitalism vs. socialism election with a Republican incumbent who inspires intense devotion and loyalty during a time of undeniable economic prosperity than an undetermined point in the future when the capitalist alternative is some oligarch or one of their lackeys and the economy is in the toilet.
Democracy only works if you actually LET IT WORK. The rise of both Trump and Bernie is the result of important concerns and ideas being virtually shut out of our public discourse. Bernie’s popularity is also due to the mindless mouthing of horrible ideas by virtue-signaling idiots. In either case, we’re better off fighting it out rather than continue to prop up a Potemkin village where everything is fine and nothing needs to change.
Do you want to deal with Bernie now or someone like AOC in the depths of a recession?
Mike
sdferr:
So far I’ve not met one Democrat (or Independent, actually) I know who doesn’t believe all the MSM propaganda about Trump. That can even co-exist with some skepticism about the media. The relentless drip drip drip has had its effect.
As to Democrats neo I’m not surprised. As to nominal independents I am somewhat surprised since of these that I meet quite a few have shown they’re glimpsing the contempt aimed their way, and firming their views accordingly. Still, the question remains: how many? I only expect to find out the day after election.
Roger Simon has an interesting take on the Bernie Bros:
But back to the Bernie Bros. and my theory—such as it is. I think their rise and abject devotion to Sanders is closely related to the diminished and problematic role of young males in our society that has been written about so eloquently by Dr. Helen Smith, among others.
Our boys have some serious problems—drugs, school drop-outs, a disturbing suicide rate. Many are lost, devoid of prospects and ambition. (Females already outnumber males in our colleges 60-40. No one but the most extreme feminist should feel sanguine about where that will lead.)
Bernie has become something of a father figure to these young men, many of whom never had one. Others that did had ones that we could call questionable role models.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/hangin-with-the-bernie-bros-on-nevada-victory-night_3248963.html
I’m not sure what’s up with the Bernie Sistahs, but Simon sounds right about the Bros.
This recent interview caught my interest.
Hmmm. America is sorta sometimes great? Is he running to the middle already? You are not deplorable, but you should be angry if you spend all your money before your next paycheck. (That is a large group of people.)
Is Bernie being a little bit brilliant here? Be afraid; be very afraid.
No mention, in the article or comments thus far, of Bloomberg.
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/02/24/famous-fidel-apologist-aipac-sod-off-oppressors/
Isn’t it amazing how liberals pick the wrong side of every dispute?
I’m like Mike. If we’re going to have a fight with socialism, Trump has the advantage of: one, he’s a fighter and two he’s an unapologetic defender of free enterprise. It also helps that Bernie is an idiot
Lee Smith, on the propaganda revisited: Declassified FBI memos undercut Mueller team claims that Papadopoulos hindered Russia probe
Exposure, exposure of the entire bloody coup is coming. Think that will have an impact? Sure, the MSM will hide it, excuse it, do what they can to attempt to cover it up, since they’re in it up to their eyeballs. But still, it’s going to get out, and where it does . . .
Roger Simon has an interesting take on the Bernie Bros:
Simon needs to examine actual labor force data. Employed men outnumber employed women in every age category bar those under 20, when young women have the most slender of advantages. The female share of the working population has seen only minimal change over the last 25 years.
He also needs to drill down into data on what sort of degrees young men and young women are earning. NB, the propensity of young men to attend college has not declined over the last 40 years; it’s just grown more slowly than the propensity of women to attend. College degrees function as (1) discrete vocational training and (2) as signals of trainability. The segments of the labor market where men predominate rely much less on the latter and that reduces the incentive for young men to attend college. Among baccalaureate recipients, women tend to predominate in occupational courses of study where they always have had an advantage (nursing, teacher training). In regard to academic and artistic courses of study, women tend to predominate in those disciplines where quantification is less pronounced (or absent). There are some exceptions to these rules: men have a small advantage among history majors and women have a considerable advantage in biology and psychology.
The Dem base needs to either exorcise the old red ghost or finally surrender to ideological possession and they choose… Bernie. I find it hard to believe but yeah they choose Venezuela.
I thought that heart attack back in October was the end of Sanders, but his undead ideology has a life of its own and it sustains him.
I thought the Dems were still in the throes of their intense affair with identity politics… wahmen and POCs nsuch. But no, they’re too far along now for that watered down shit to hit the spot; so they finally cracked the seal on that vintage socialist old grandad they’ve been hiding in the basement next to the furnace. Rank and file Blue America has decided they want three fingers of Bernie in em (as though what they want matters lol.)
How’re the left oligarchs gonna fuck over ol Bernie and his supporters this time? The convention is an event horizon beyond which it’s tough to see, but when I look in my scrying pool I see flames.
I agree with Stan & Mike that Trump is our best hope of showing that capitalism beats socialism ideologically and practically (even though Trump is not a show-case conservative on many issues), but I don’t think Bernie is an idiot in the “low intellect” or “mentally handicapped” meaning — it’s a pejorative tossed as anyone on the opposite side (and not a few times at Trump himself, from both parties).
However, anyone who maintains, after all the evidence now in, that socialism is a path to peace and prosperity is unquestionably either a fool or a knave.
His followers, on the other hand, do seem to be among the “useful idiots” of history.
Krugman is also not an intellectual idiot, but I wonder if he can even continue to be counted as a useful one after these howlers. However, there are people who still believe his pronouncements — and I suspect (sorry, Neo) that most of our Democrat friends are among them. The pushback on Twitter took care of most of his assertions, so I will only highlight one of them.
https://www.redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2020/02/24/howls-of-laughter-erupt-after-nyt-columnist-paul-krugman-suggests-sanders-is-not-a-wannabe-authoritarian/
Excellent article bringing together several strands of narrative on the Left/Right separation in the country.
https://www.redstate.com/bradslager/2020/02/24/the-press-angered-over-usa-hockey-in-maga-hats-completely-miss-the-miracle-of-that-team/
“What team are you playing for?”
I see nothing, absolutely nothing, charismatic about Bernie Sanders the man. It is what he says that is charismatic to the young who have been brainwashed by our public and private Ayers/Dohrn/Zinn educational system for the past 50 years. They have been programmed to have receptors for his utterly unreasonable (ahem) “democratic socialism”. We can fail from within in just one election, a la Chavez in Venezuela. And we will not ever recover; tyranny is like that.
Too many people on the Left will never read this post.
https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/02/24/socialism-is-thievery/
[long discourse on why that is true, and why socialism IS like slavery, and what Bernie plans to do to implement it while claiming he just wants you to get your fair share — of whatever he chooses to give you]
ALL of the Democrat candidates are seeking to appeal, to greater or lesser degrees, to people who are *bitter*, and they are stoking and encouraging that bitterness.
Several years ago, someone on a blog said something along the lines of this: “*If you are bitter, you are basically announcing to the world that you are a failure in your own eyes.”
If that’s true…and I think that it is, pretty much…then we have an awful lot of people in America today who are failures in their own eyes.
For the record I think Bernie will be the nom and I think he will be crushed. But I think those who take Bernie more seriously will enjoy this analytical article.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/24/unthinkability_bias_comes_for_the_democrats.html
One anecdote:
In the summer of 2016, I wrote a series of pieces suggesting that Trump could win the general election; these were met such derision and invective that I took a month-long break from Twitter.
In late 2019, I wrote a piece suggesting that people were underestimating Sanders’ chances of becoming the Democratic nominee. While the response was less angry, it was still met with a degree of skepticism that seems unwarranted today.
It seems to me that the difference between Trump and Bernie is that Trump had an agenda that didn’t need to be hidden.
The regular Democrats apparatchiks are panicking because Bernie has been a shade too honest over the years.
Perhaps they watched his public access cable show.
Regardless, I suspect socialism appears popular because the downsides are not in evidence, while the glories are endlessly touted by various socialist superfans enjoying sinecures that they cannot lose, while not actually having to live in a socialist country.
I suspect that it will be less popular once the Trump campaign makes its deficiencies more known to the public, as will Bernie Sanders.
“Exposure, exposure of the entire bloody coup is coming. Think that will have an impact? Sure, the MSM will hide it, excuse it, do what they can to attempt to cover it up, since they’re in it up to their eyeballs. But still, it’s going to get out, and where it does . . .” – sdferr
https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/02/24/788513/
RedState is quoting from here:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/24/case-agent-1-stephen-somma-fisa/
And the Caller is quoting from here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/23/us/politics/fisa-surveillance-fbi.html
I can’t read the NYT story behind their paywall, but I wonder how they are spinning this to bolster the still-prevalent false-assertion that Mueller proved Trump-Russia collusion.
Here is why Case Agent 1 is important, which isn’t as clear in the above articles as it is here:
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/12/case-agent-1-fbi-fisa/
They didn’t find his explanations satisfactory because they weren’t satisfactory.
The IG’s conclusion that the evidence did not reveal that the Agent’s errors were intentional is risible.
There’s a pattern of errors here that points to either fool or knave, and the Agent preferred to cast himself as a fool, and the IG chose to accept that pretense.
Not a good look for the “premier law enforcement agency” of the country.
And by the way AesopFan, the emergence this latest tranche of damning evidence may in part account for the reappearance here of the semi-resident troll touting a story utterly at odds with the facts. Just lie some more when you can’t run away. A deluge of lies is also coming.
Xennady on February 24, 2020 at 5:42 pm said:
It seems to me that the difference between Trump and Bernie is that Trump had an agenda that didn’t need to be hidden.
* * *
Bingo.
Who’s in charge of this Party anyway? Asking for my friend, Will Rogers.
https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/24/bernie-sanders-nancy-pelosi-socialism/
“I am not a member of any organized political party — I am a Democrat. ”
– Will Rogers
I agree it is possible that Sanders can win the Presidential election, but the current data don’t have me particularly nervous. Voter turnout on the Democrat side is low and there are several moderate (I know, I know) candidates in the primary race splitting the moderate (I know, I know) vote. Although very different in ideology and personal accomplishment, the Bernie Bros. remind me of the Paulians in the prior two Republican campaigns. Ron Paul also attracted many young supporters who were willing to walk over hot coals to pull the lever for him.
I also agree that a fair amount of moderate Democrats will end up pulling the lever for Bernie in November, more than will pull the lever for Trump, but I don’t think Bernie will get the support Hillary did and I think a lot of Trump supporters are willing to walk over hot coals to pull the lever for him. I also think there are many more folks who voted Dem in 2016 that will vote for Trump, than vice versa.
But nothing is certain. It’s reasonable to be concerned. A lot can happen between now and November. Look at the impact the market collapse had on McCain’s run. Having a Socialist on one half of the ticket of a U.S. Presidential contest would be very disconcerting and reflects poorly on our nation’s citizenry.
Can Sanders win? Sure.
There are too many voters who actually believe that their ‘fair share’ will increase in a Socialist America.
Why?
Because the current American K-16 education system pushes innumeracy. Too many college graduates ( even worse amongst those who didn’t get their participation certificates ) can’t do even simple arithmetic.
I hope I’m worried for no good reason but none of us should be complacent. Even if you’re retired and living on a fixed income I hope you can send something to President Trump’s campaign.
Let’s hope the youth segment follows its historical voting propensity or lack of it actually.
“A deluge of lies is coming.” – sdferr
Rather, a deluge of more lies, since we are already drowning in them.
Heartily recommend to everyone a reading of the Lee Smith article you linked – the lies told by the FBI and DOJ in their pursuit of anything they could twist to take down Trump is outrageous.
If you have socialist-touting friends, this is a wake-up call.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1231952819978227713.html
I am alarmed that so many Democrats are willing to vote for an avowed socialist, but I am hopeful that he won’t win the general election. Maybe this will be what breaks the Democrats for a couple of decades.
The prospect of a Sanders presidency reinforced by a Democrat Congress is horrible to contemplate.
I read The Grapes of Wrath for the first time, the great American novel of the 20th century. I was struck by one basic theme in the book, that business is evil and government is wholly good. That worldview has seeped into so many minds. Bernie Sanders feeds off of it, but he is also an expression of it. I see good and bad in everything, business and government alike; but extremists like Sanders don’t look at it that way. To him, American business is the focus of evil. His ascendency makes me nervous.
As a famous man once said “there ain’t a dimes worth of difference” between Sanders and the DNC, he’s just more forthright.
The only two data points I trust are that the professional Dems like Carville are freaking out, and Trump gets huge crowds at his rallies, both pointing to a win for Trump. We’ll see what the crowd sizes are for the Dem nominee later this summer. Until then, it’s guessing.
Tuvea, it’s not so much that their math skills are lacking, though they are, one can make an argument that defense spending can be shifted to education, etc. The problem with Socialists is not that they want to fund some things at the expense of others, the problem with Socialists is that they don’t understand how inefficient Central planning is compared to free markets and the affect it has on individuals’ desire to work.
The greatest shame of our public schools is they no longer teach that people should want to be free. Should want to be self sufficient.
Unless Trump has some series of unfortunate events overtake his record of accomplishments, it is unlikely that he will be defeated. Bernie has always been a back bencher, and his social justice mantra and politics of envy will not sway the majority of people that actually show up at the polls. Once the Republicans begin their campaign, independents will have constant reminders just how unworkable Bernie’s platform really is. The betting odds today are 58% in favor of Trump’s reelection. Trumps chances are probably going to improve once the spotlight is off the primary and Bernie has nothing new to say.
Sanders doesn’t have the proverbial “snowballs chance in hell” of being elected.
There are far too many factors against him prevailing;
Has a deep history of support for communism…
“Less than a month before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, four field organizers for Sen. Bernie Sanders in Iowa and South Carolina advocated violence, slave labor and the Stalinist repression of dissent, while expressing sympathy for Marxist ideology. Two even bragged about their Communist credentials.” yet Sanders has not disavowed their POV, much less fired those operatives,
Sanders wants taxpayers to pay for illegal’s welfare and medicare to which he insists they are entitled,
He’s strongly for open borders yet Sanders once warned on the Senate floor of how foreigners could take jobs from American workers and lower their wages…
He’s a yuge proponent of the Green New Deal and presented a 16 TRILLION dollar ‘plan’, yet has publicly admitted he has no idea of how we’d pay for it.
He’s declared “climate change” to be the “single greatest challenge facing our country.”, while FEC) filings reveal that the “socialist” senator hypocritically spent more on “luxury private jet charter service” than all his rivals in the final quarter of 2019,
This avowed socialist has three homes…, yet never had a paying job until 40…
Sanders is an example of the late comedian Lenny Bruce’s observation, “We’re all as honest as we can afford to be.”
In the past, Sanders often broke with Senate Democrats and supported Second Amendment rights. Yet now is for gun control.
Sanders was the ONLY Presidential candidate to attend the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) annual convention, appearing alongside an unindicted World Trade Center bombing co-conspirator and supporter of killing gay people,
Sanders is not politically agile.
Finally, Trump’s approval among blacks has hit 42% and black employment is the highest in recorded history…
Those imagining Sanders to pose a threat are really concerned about what happens in 2024 or 2028.
I’ve had Berniephobia ever since the first inkling that he would run for President.
Rufus T. Firefly wrote:
“The problem with Socialists is not that they want to fund some things at the expense of others, the problem with Socialists is that they don’t understand how inefficient Central planning is compared to free markets and the affect it has on individuals’ desire to work.”
That is certainly 100% true.
Dealing with government bureaucrats isn’t even fun for the bureaucrats. They just want their huge taxpayer funded paychecks without having to do ANYTHING.
It’s difficult to imagine how Bernie survives an actual airing of his views, especially when Trump gets a chance to open both barrels on him in a series of debates.
Sanders doesn’t have the proverbial “snowballs chance in hell” of being elected.
Geoffrey Britain: I like the cut of your jib!
Who knows what tomorrow may bring and I may get run over by a bus in the morning, but I weary of all this “knock on wood” fearfulness, requiring constant appeasements of the gods of uncertainty lest one be guilty of hubris.
Yes, it is a bad sign that a socialist is running for president this strongly. However, that doesn’t make Sanders a strong possibility in 2020.
For all the talk of Trump being doomed in 2016, yet winning, remember the certain doom was talking-heads stuff. Silver’s 538 site still had Trump at a respectable 28.6% odds to win on the day of.
2020 is not 2016 in a whole lot of ways.
Because the current American K-16 education system pushes innumeracy. Too many college graduates ( even worse amongst those who didn’t get their participation certificates ) can’t do even simple arithmetic.
the boys have left.. the women rule and win mostly by not having the competition present… they took over these areas, and other social areas, and they are enamored of Lenin and how communism was good for women (in their eyes and minds)..
nothing much us guys gonna do..
(specially us who are living antitheticals to diversity)
bed, see bed, lie in bed…
A slide used in an Advanced Placement history class at Loch Raven High School in Towson shows a picture of Trump above pictures of a Nazi swastika and a flag of the Soviet Union. Two captions read ‘wants to round up a group of people and build a giant wall’ and ‘oh, THAT is why it sounds so familiar!’
After Republican State Delegate Kathy Szeliga made a stink about it, Baltimore County schools defended the slide with more lies:
“The topics being discussed in the class included World Wars and the attempts by some leaders throughout history to limit or prevent migration into certain countries. … This lesson was not intended to make a political statement.”
The Great Socialism Gap
Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. That’s a problem.
That was headline in SLATE…
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/socialism-bernie-sanders-independents-general-election.html
Bernie just recently pledged to end fracking immediately because it is a “moral” issue. Poppycock! Fracking is neither a moral or immoral issue. It is an issue of practicality. Can solar and wind power replace fossil fuel energy? The answer is a resounding NO! The moral issue is whether you want people to freeze in the dark or to continue to enjoy a first world standard of living.
The climate change hoax has become a religion. There is no proof that CO2 is causing the warming trend the Earth is in. It is based on slim evidence and a lot of faith in computer models based on guessed at and implied data. The Climategate E-mails should have put a stake through the heart of the AGW theory, but just like Communism, it keeps cropping up because progressives want power and it is a means to power. They pose their desire to take over the fossil, fuel industry as benevolent Big Guv’mint fighting the dreaded Climate Change. B.S.!!
Bernie also plans to have universal healthcare. All in the name of Big Guv’mint benevolence. Horse hockey!!
Control healthcare and energy production and the citizens must dance to the government’s tune. Government run healthcare and taking over the fossil fuel industry are a giant grabs for dictatorial power. Read Alinsky, it’s all in there.
Man the barricades citizens, our freedom is at stake.
Jeff Brokaw on February 24, 2020 at 11:02 pm said:
It’s difficult to imagine how Bernie survives an actual airing of his views, especially when Trump gets a chance to open both barrels on him in a series of debates.
* * *
We may not have to wait that long.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/exploding_cigar_ii_floridas_democrats_in_panic_after_bernie_sanders_blows_a_kiss_to_castro.html?utm_source=vuukle&utm_medium=newsfeed
Geoffrey, Jeff and Huxley,
I hear you, and would bet money on Trump not only winning, but winning more electoral votes than 2016, but think back to Obama’s first run and compare his history with Bernie’s. The footage of his pastor damming America, his mother and grandparent’s communist ties, his mentorship under Frank Marshall Davis, he taught Cloward and Piven and “Rules for Radicals” as a Community Organizer. The shady land deals in Chicago. His mysterious College matriculation. Lived in a Muslim country and attended a Madrassa. And his father’s shady political background. Wasn’t his father married to another woman when he married Barack’s mother? Obama had almost no record of doing anything in the House or Senate at the Federal or State levels.
Would you have ever imagined such a man getting elected?
A country that would elect Barack Obama President could elect Bernie Sanders President. But Trump fights, fights hard and is very blunt. This is not Mitt Romney nor John McCain.
And if Beria Bernie wins? Then it may very well be life and sacred honor time. If Beria Bernie gets a chance to redecorate the White House, the right choice for the people who voted against (which will be at least 45% of the country) him will be to resist. And by that I mean simply refuse to obey any executive order, regulation, or piece of legislation that comes out of D.C. after January 20, 2021. Does anybody posting here really want to sit through four years of an increasingly dictatorial regime and the economic wreckage it will create, while hoping that the 2024 election will be fair enough to allow change? The USA doesn’t have to turn into an Ayn Rand scenario if enough people say no. And such resistance doesn’t have to be violent, either.
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/adding-strategic-nonviolence-unconventional-warfare-doctrine
Would you have ever imagined such a man [Obama] getting elected [in 2008]?
Rufus T. Firefly: Not at first, but by the summer it was clear Obama had star power and black power, sufficient to power a messianic movement. Plus Obama ran as a centrist, not a socialist.
2020 isn’t 2008 either.
I’m no fan of Jonathan Chait. However, here he grapples with the same question from the left:
But to concede that we cannot be certain about the future does not mean we know nothing. An imperfect comparison might be to predicting the outcome of sporting events. You don’t know the outcome in advance, but it is usually possible to make probabilistic predictions. Those predictions are wrong all the time. But it would be silly to conclude that, just because upsets happen, every game should be treated as a coin flip. A huge amount of pro-Sanders commentary is based on simplistically conflating the correct claim that we lack perfect clarity with the incorrect claim that we have no clarity at all.
“If Democrats Aren’t Terrified of Bernie, They’re Not Paying Attention”
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/bernie-sanders-nomination-electable-democrats-socialist-unpopular.html
Really and truly, I might get hit by a bus later today and not realize it until it happens. I will endeavor to act with prudence in traffic, but I’m not going to obsess over it.
Nor will I be inclined to listen much to anyone always tugging my sleeve to remind me I might get hit by a bus. It’s true, but so what?
huxley, At this point in 2008, Hillary was expected to win and most Dem leaders thought she was a better horse to run than a one term Senator with no accomplishments. Many Dem leaders were nervous about Obama’s rise in popularity.
I agree with your prediction, but I think folks here are forgetting how much often changes between now and November in an election year. McCain may have even won if the economy hadn’t tanked on October.
Given that the civil war has begun (https://steadfastloyalty.com/opinions/since-2015-there-have-been-289-media-approved-attacks-on-trump-supporters/?fbclid=IwAR2GIVxdzNkcL_eUi-wHINySRhPL_6dBwh7KMtANplAspP-wyi1Y-q1DIlM) and conservatives haven’t started fighting, yet, I hold little hope that my granddaughters will live a good life.
Rufus T. Firefly,
What huxley said, especially Obama being black. Among democrat or liberal independent whites, the overwhelming though unsaid determinate was that, NOT voting for him was ‘proof’ of being a racist. That metric doesn’t apply to Sanders.
Media support for Sanders will prove ineffective, as he has a long public history that Trump and the GOP will incessantly expose. And because Sanders is a true believer he will respond to Trump with forthright support for his “democratic socialism” and be unable to rebut the attacks (see above) upon his ‘solutions’.
In 2008, my daughter, just out of college with a psychology degree voted for Obama. That was despite all that I informed her of and to that info, her response was “I just think it’s time for a change”. Well, she got one alright.
IMO, America in the aggregate will conclude that it is not time for a change. That a change from Trump’s economy to Sanders’ “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” is a very bad idea.
If the nominee, Sanders may break George McGovern’s record.
The democrat establishment knows all of this and realize that there is a high probability that Sanders’ ‘coattails’ will have a reverse effect; dragging down House and Senate candidates to defeat as their party’s support for nominee Sanders implies approval of him.
Which leads me to conclude that if there is a brokered convention and the S.C. primary will indicate whether that is probable, Buttigieg is the likely compromise nominee. However, there is no possible nominee that can paper over the divisions in the identity politics that now rules the democrat party. They’re going to lose, big time and wiser heads know it.
I agree with your prediction, but I think folks here are forgetting how much often changes between now and November in an election year
Rufus T. Firefly: Or maybe they haven’t forgotten. Maybe they assess the odds differently even when they take such changes into account.
As I see it, these things boil down to arguments on specific merits.
If you’re wondering how Bernie is gonna pay for all his free stuff below is a link to his official website.
Why he never proposed any of this to the Senate is a question that will never be asked by the MSM.
Also, you are probably going to be asked – multiple times – to donate to his campaign.
The URL is:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/
“How does Bernie pay. . . ” blah blah blah blah?
Who pays? Commie Bernie doesn’t and never will pay shit. Bernie proposes to rob other people to pay for his fantasies. Man I curse these fattening pigs at the trough. When do we eat them?
Comparisons to 2008 make one huge mistake. The news media no longer has the same power. The news media elected Obama. The billions of dollars worth of free, worshipful propaganda had a powerful impact.
The news media doesn’t have that kind of power any more. If Bernie is the nominee, the MSM will dutifully fall in line and boost him every way possible. They will continue to slander Trump relentlessly. And it won’t move the needle.
Bernie will get over 200 electoral votes, even if he’s dead a month before the election. Blue states gonna blue. Bernie could be full on Biden-style Alzheimers and another heart attack or worse and get 200+. And even if he didn’t actually get enough votes in some of the blue states, the vote counters would assure that the D ticket prevails.
But the news media doesn’t have the same power any more.
I think non-Socialists engage in the wrong argument when we talk about the cost of social programs, like Bernie’s. All Americans, no matter their political stripes, believe there is tremendous government waste and would choose to greatly reduce government spending in one or more areas. For example, I’d like to see the Department of Education eliminated, along with all federal funding for schools, among a hundred other examples. A common argument I hear from Bernie Bros. is how much good can be done with the money that our nation spends on funding the military. I hear a lot of Bernie’s opponents talk about the cost of his healthcare proposal and throw around numbers that start with a, “t” for “trillion.” Well, O.K., but that will not change anyone’s mind.
First off, trillions are so abstract to most people it is a nonsensical number; might as well say, “gajillions.”
Second, people know nations like England and Canada have a national health service and those countries do not have Venezuela level poverty.
Third, the average American household already spends $10,000 – $20,000/year on medical insurance through payroll deduction with their employers’ plans and income their employers send directly to the plans as part of their benefits. (When I was self employed I paid about $15,000/year for my family of 5.) Would it be that different, financially, if instead of my funding it through my employer Uncle Sam funds it through my federal income taxes? A lot of young people know these arguments. They are well informed on many of these topics. I just google’d annual, U.S. military spending. Guess what? It’s just shy of the number 1 with that nonsensical “trillion” term after it. Don’t you think Bernie Bros. think that money would be better used funding health care than bombs? You’re not going to change any minds that way.
Fourth, corporate taxation. Many if not most Bernie Bros. are well versed on the concept of corporate taxation. You had better have a good argument for why Jeff Bezos can earn over $40 billion dollars in about a decade while the corporation he started pays a lower tax rate than the average, American household, or whatever other emotional language they will couch that argument in. Their argument is to make corporations pay “their fair share” and use the largess to make life better for struggling Americans. It’s hard to argue with Obama and AOC when they say, “at some point you’ve made enough money” and we see someone like Jeff Bezos. Look, I know the math doesn’t work, you know the math doesn’t work*, but when you start using mathematics as a debate topic you’re going to lose 90% of your audience.
The above are reasons that the argument has to be about freedom, not costs. Conservatives completely botched the homosexual marriage debate in a similar fashion. When someone asked me if I thought the government should permit gay marriage my response was always, “Hell no, and the government should also not be involved with heterosexual marriage, or marriage of any kind. Consenting, adult U.S. citizens should be free to live with whomever they want, however they want, as long as the arrangement doesn’t harm any other U.S. citizens’ property or freedom. We are Americans. When did we get so weak and neutered that we decided we need to petition our Uncle Sam to live with someone?” People understand that argument. I have gay friends who feel exactly the same way. But instead Conservatives would talk about the importance of the nuclear family, or quote Bible passages. So, naturally, we lost the argument.
When a Bernie Bro talks to me about shifting military spending to health care I reply, let’s get rid of both**. If the government lets me keep the money I earn I will use some of it to help people in need. Are they so weak that they wouldn’t do the same? I trust that free men and women will take care of their neighbors and countrymen and women. If they start talking about segments of the population that need help, ask them if they won’t use their money to help them? If so, why do they want to siphon some of it to a government bureaucracy, rather than having all of it go directly to those in need? Ask them if they can handle freedom and independence. When they reply affirmatively, ask them why they believe segments of the population cannot.
Freedom, freedom, freedom. Always argue towards more freedom and make the argument about freedom.
*I actually believe there should be no Federal corporate income taxation. I actually believe all taxation should be consumption based, and there should be no income taxation whatsoever, at least at the Federal level. I also don’t think it works at the State level, but the States are free to destroy the productivity of their citizens and businesses, if they so choose. And I am free to move to Florida or Tennessee.
**Of course I would not completely defund the military. It’s one of the few powers actually enumerated to the Federal government in the Constitution, but debating amounts devolves to angles dancing on the head of a pin discussions. Just cede the territory so you can get to the foundation of the debate; does the arguer believe adding a layer of bureaucracy will increase available funds?
People like to say that Bernie vs Trump would be the “ultimate” Socialism vs Capitalism showdown, but there’s a major problem with this: the belief that Bernie and his allies will sincerely show us what socialism is, and what it promises, and that they won’t obscure it with lies.
The fact is, Bernie already tries to mask the horrors of socialism. He advocates for “Nordic” socialism, and then advocate for policies that these Nordic “socialist” states have rejected. He highlights the “benefits” of Castro’s regime, and downplays the evil.
In short, he’s going to make Socialism look like rose gardens — which is why he’s so dangerous.
stan, huxley, Geoffrey Britain, jeff, et alia,
Since my father is an inveterate gambler and his behaviors often impacted our household, and I was fascinated by mathematics, I always enjoyed studying probabilities. In my early teens I heard Voltaire’s quote, “a lottery is a tax on stupidity.” I worked out the maths, and it made sense to me, so for years I did not buy lottery tickets. I still rarely do. However, at some point in adulthood I thought more about lotteries and realized Voltaire was ignoring an important aspect. What’s the cost to participate and what does that cost mean to one’s personal finances? If the odds of winning are a million to one, or a billion to one, or, even a trillion to one, they are still greater than zero. The man who does not buy a ticket has zero odds of winning. The man who does has some chance, no matter how infinitesimal.
Looking at the odds of a million to one shot in a weekly lottery (average U.S. male life span is about 80 years, got’ta be 18 or older to play = 3,224 weeks) Voltaire is obviously correct. There are tremendous odds against you winning any week, or over the course of your lifetime. But someone will win. And that someone, by definition, has to come from the pool of people who purchased a ticket. He or she cannot come from the pool of non-ticket buyers. So, what really matters is the cost to play, and that’s what changed my mind. I had reached a point in my life where one dollar a week was meaningless. It had no import. I was probably losing that much in the cushions of my couch and car.
This is the point I’m making about Bernie winning the Democrat nomination. It is almost a certainty the candidate from one of the two major parties who will win this Autumn’s Presidential contest. It is also almost certain anyone who is not the choice of the two, major parties will not win. This has been the case for what, all but the first two elections? It is much less certain which of those candidates will win. You are all smart, and you’re using sound reasoning to project that the current odds are very much in Trump’s favor, but we can also point to campaigns where a candidate had a similar projected lead in February, only to lose in March. It’s rare. It’s unusual. But it’s not unprecedented and it certainly is not even close to impossible. There are factors, many of which outside of a candidate’s control, that can change those odds. Even if the odds are a million to one, if Biden does not get the nomination he is akin to the guy who didn’t buy a lottery ticket and if Bernie gets the nomination he is in the pool of possible winners. For over two hundred years in our nation the winner of the Presidency has been one of two, and only two people, from that pool. Do his odds seem long now? Yes. Do they go up immensely if he gets the nomination? Yes.
And, let’s not ignore the unpredictability of Trump. He is likely the most volatile, less predictable person we have ever had in the Oval Office. That has to be factored into your odds calculations. We have probably never had a candidate of one of the two, major parties more likely to score an own goal due to his personality, even if outside factors don’t negatively impact his campaign. He says a lot of nutty and sometimes awful stuff. He also seems to thrive on confrontation and abhor stability.
This is not a done deal and the fact that an avowed Socialist may be one of the two possible outcomes of only two possible outcomes should be a concern.
Alpheus,
Let’s also not forget DJT is nowhere close to the ultimate capitalist, vis a vis personal beliefs and policy goals.
Rufus T. Firefly: I buy a lottery ticket to be hit by a bus every time I walk out onto the city streets.
Do I need you to remind me of this any time I mention the errands I expect to accomplish?
huxley,
Of course not, but being hit by a bus is one in a vast array of things that can happen to you on any given day, and it is of immensely low odds, unless you are a bicycle messenger in a major city. It is pretty much a statistical certainty that either the Dem nominee or the Republican nominee will be elected to the Presidency this November. President Trump is 73 years old. Would it be that unusual for a man that age to die, or contract a fatal illness? Do you feel confident Vice President Pence would trounce Sanders if those were the contestants? We are in the midst of the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. What are the odds the next contraction occurs in the following 8 months, as opposed to any other, 8 month window? How quickly could a pandemic hit our shores and cause chaos and confusion? These are not bizarre, random things. Septuagenarian death, recession, disease.. these things are common.
This is a good article on the impact of the Lehman Brothers collapse less than ten weeks before the ’08 Presidential vote. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/how-the-lehman-bros-crisis-impacted-the-2008-presidential-race/
It specifically looks at positive and negative press coverage of the two candidates. With the negative coverage President Trump has received during three, very good years, how negative do you think the media will go if they have a crisis to amplify?
My point regarding the statistics is; if there is not a Socialist or Communist at the top of the ticket of one of the two, major parties in a Presidential election there is almost zero chance of a Socialist or Communist winning. If there is a Socialist or Communist at the top of the ticket for one of the parties (Barack Obama?) the odds are well within the range of possibility. What’s the lowest percentage of popular vote any major party candidate has received? Looks like Warren Harding with a 26% margin? Reagan is the only candidate in the past 40 years to top 10%. A 10% margin is not a slam dunk. As you know, Trump’s popular vote margin in ’16 was negative.
Of course not, but being hit by a bus is one in a vast array of things that can happen to you on any given day, and it is of immensely low odds, unless you are a bicycle messenger in a major city.
Rufus T. Firefly: And there’s the rub. We must consider the specific odds for specific events with specific arguments — not handwaving about things being possible.
Assessing those odds is wickedly problematic. You claim that my being hit by a bus is immensely low odds. Happily I agree. Still, I have endangered myself vastly more by going out into the traffic than staying at home. Rather like your claim that we are vastly more endangered by Sanders being nominated than not.
We are dealing with hypotheticals here and I sure don’t see a clean way to assess them. Probably Bernie becoming president is more likely than my being hit by a bus. But how much more and how much more serious should I be about the possibility?
For the record I have been struck by lightning twice and lived to tell the tale.
Look, if our society is so far gone that a majority of people will vote in a Bernie Sanders then it’s done already. That vote is just the final nail.
2020 is a post-glasnost election: millions of Americans who sensed in their gut that something was wrong with Politically Correct culture – but were unwilling to say so – now know that millions of their neighbors feel the same. That is the inevitable conclusion of the 2016 results.
The spell that magnified the power of the left’s culture shapers has been broken. Their power to dictate and coerce is greatly diminished.
Their own furious panicked overreach as they try to put the genie of common sense back in the bottle has only accelerated this. And many plain Americans are shocked at how politicized their lives have become. So they’re paying attention to the culture war like never before.
These millions may still not be willing to say anything, but in that booth they’ll know this time that they’re neither crazy nor racist nor alone – and they will vote from their guts: for personal liberty and equal opportunity instead of the PC pecking order. For family instead of deviance.
It will be relatively easy for Trump to discredit Sanders as a hypocritical limousine liberal. But it’s that silent majority that will determine the election.
BWP on February 25, 2020 at 8:55 am said:
Given that the civil war has begun …
* * *
That list originated with John Nolte, and he keeps it updated.
What must be considered, however, is that he only counts the ones that make the national news or blogs somewhere – how many events of violence and vandalism have gone un-noted outside the immediate locale, if they were even reported to the hometown police or paper?
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/02/14/rap-sheet-389-media-approved-hate-crimes-trump-supporters/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=best_of_the_week&utm_campaign=20200215
@ huxley
For the record I have been struck by lightning twice and lived to tell the tale.
Oh, so that explains it…
(kidding!)
huxley – great article by Chait; he seems to still have a few brain cells.
As a fan of heuristics (my B.S. included probability & stats along with computer programming), I liked his example here:
A related fallacy is arguing that, since crime has gone down, we can release all of those criminals we have in jail.
Okay – story from one of my profs for you and Rufus.
Back in the heyday of bombs on airlines (in the 1970s, before the Islamic version began), a math&stats professor refused to fly to conferences, explaining that the odds he had calculated of being on a plane with a bomb in the luggage was too high. One day, however, a colleague spotted him in the ticket line, and asked him what he was doing there.
“Well,” said the wary traveler, “I calculated that the odds of being on a plane with TWO bombs were extremely low.” He held up his briefcase. “So, I brought one of my own.”
Another joke for you, from a statistician friend of mine.
What’s the difference between an accountant and a statistician?
An accountant has personality.
If you look at the audience at Bernie rallies, it is very heavily weighted to the young. I don’t see that there are enough of those kids outside the coastal states to change the Electoral College vote. (Of course, that’s why Bernie and his Bros and all of the Dems want to eliminate it.) I think Trump could even pick up a couple of blue states. South Carolina and Super Tuesday will tell all. If Biden is out after that, it’s going to be Bernie or, if the DNC can work it, an open convention.
Another accountant joke:
A balloonist is lost. He lets out air and descends to where he sees a man standing by the side of a field. “Where am I?” he yells to the man on the ground.
“In a balloon, 25 feet above farmer Jenkins’ field,” the man yells back.
“You must be an accountant,” the balloonist replies.
“How did you know?” says the man on the ground.
The balloonist answers, “Because you told me something that was perfectly accurate but utterly useless!”
Ben David,
That’s how it seems to me, also, but didn’t Romney get more votes than Trump? Vote tallies don’t point to the electorate making a statement against the cultural shift towards PC. Vote tallies point to a greater number of Obama voters rejecting Hillary than Romney voters rejecting Trump.
“That’s how it seems to me, also, but didn’t Romney get more votes than Trump?”
The Wiki says Trump actually got about 2 million more votes than Romney.
Mike
Rufus:
I used the word ‘glasnost’ because there was a rapid collapse of the old order once the Soviet cognitive/social barriers were shattered. Trump was elected by the long tail of patriots that built slowly since Reagan and the Tea Party. The past 4 years of toxic, polarizing discourse have galvanized the larger mass of apolitical what-me-worry folks who were successfully disuaded from the Tea Party. Look how Romney et al are regarded now.
We are also experiencing a form of perestroika as Trump rewrites conventional wisdom in trade and foreign policy, and brings results without the sky falling.
Things have shifted quickly during this first term.
MBunge,
I just read an article at Forbes and you’re right. The article points out the information immediately following the election was incorrect. I had heard that data, but not the later revised data.
Ben David,
I hope you are correct. As others have pointed out, the media landscape is different this campaign, and Trump has been very adroit at circumventing main stream media’s (former?) monopoly. It would be wonderful if, rather than a one off due to a unique candidate, we truly are at the onset of a new information age where more Americans make better informed choices in elections.