The goalpost moving for the party loyalists and the MSM has been hilariously clumsy and obvious. First, there was lily-white Iowa, the “pure expression of democracy” they thought Biden or maybe Mayo Pete would win decisively (until it looked like Sanders would have a strong showing, after which the narrative shifted to “could be multiple winners”). Then the lily-white NH primary was the real test, because suddenly the caucus system they loved so much wasn’t as pure as a normal vote (e.g. the one where the first return in Knob Gobbler or wherever briefly had Bloomberg as the projected winner after five people voted). After that failure, they “discovered” that racial diversity in the electorate is the key issue, and that Nevada will show that Uncle Joe can make a comeback thanks to his support from African-Americans. Now that Sanders won there, the Third Way establishment line has become “wait until Super Tuesday. That’s where we’ll really see that Bernie is unelectable. There are too many sensible moderate centrists for him to win.”
After a Sanders win on Super Tuesday the scramble will really begin for these hacks. The more ham-handed of them will just go dirty, intensifying the red-baiting that’s already started and inevitably moving to anti-Semitism (rural PA is where the desperate appeals to bigotry will likely start – see Clinton in 2008).
The other more “clever” types, whose disingenuousness is matched only by their arrogance in assuming that everyone else is too stupid to see through them, will take a different approach.
Some of them see the writing on the wall and are already pretending they supported him all along, even as they plan to undermine him with chin-stroking concern tr0lling.
This will be especially true if Bloomberg decides to do an independent run – the establishment lackeys will hedge against their own party’s candidate in public and vote for Bloomberg in private, even if it means a split vote and another term for Biff (they tend to be financially comfortable older white cis-het males living in solid blue states, so what’s the worse that could happen to them if that happened, amirite?).
The party leadership got so spooked by Reagan that they threw Keynesian economics out the window in favour of a lukewarm version of neoliberalism. Then some of them started benefiting from it, to the point where they forgot the pitfalls of the “free” market and the kinds of social democratic programmes needed to pull us out.
I think thats pretty accurate. I remember the Reagan years touted as “the end of liberalism” and i suspect the DNC bought that. “We can’t be liberal anymore, we just need to be slightly less conservative than the other side.” On the one hand, Il Douche ended the illusion that the right was “conservative,” now we just need to reclaim liberalism/progressivism for ourselves.
I don’t believe the country is prepared to support a Democratic socialist, and I agree with the theory that Sanders would lose in a matchup against Trump. In a general election battle between two divisive figures who both preach the politics of grievance, I believe Trump will win the battle to the bottom and remain the last man standing.
“The politics of grievance.”
As if the grievances of Sanders voters aren’t absolutely legitimate.
If he wins Super Tuesday- it’s pretty much over. I guess there could be some odd change in the voting where someone comes from behind and wins every primary afterwards. But I wouldn’t bet my lunch money on that.
It also would show that he’s winning among the existing voters - not really relying on new voters. Which South Carolina will give a good indication for. A strong showing there - where others have been expending all their resources - shows a breadth of support.
Looking forward- how would battleground states be targeted in the general? In the case of a Sanders win should a ton of resources be put into rust belt states that went to Trump? Should less go to Florida? Is the concern that Latinx communities there are opposed to a democratic socialist valid? Has the Puerto Rican diaspora to there changed that equation?
Trump probably believes that Sanders will be the easier candidate to take down, because he can just point to him being a democratic socialist and Jewish… I think he thinks that Sanders winning the nomination will destroy the democratic party, too.
I went to Daily Kos to see the general reaction to a surging Sanders. Haven’t been there in years. Not a lot of notice there this morning of a surging Sanders, at least in the main stories. And what little there is seems…grudging.
I guess that once-significant site will become even less so if Sanders wins the nomination. Maybe it’ll fold completely.
Reagan was how the “New Democrats” managed to creep in and take the party away from what had been the establishment. Clinton’s victory against Bush the Elder seemed to validate the approach, and the bluedogs held power pretty much until 2008. We’re in the midst of a correction; Warren’s policy positioning is what was mainstream when Teddy Kennedy was the grand old man of the party, and Sanders is still well within the norms of the party in the 60s and 70s.
Carville’s griping is hardly surprising, since he was the mouthpiece of the party faction that is now hopefully being disappeared. Chris Matthews is harder to explain, since he cut his political eye teeth working for Tip O’Neill, who was deeply committed to policies now favored by Sanders, like national health care and workers’ rights.
Trump is trying to sow divisions within the democratic party by saying he “hopes they treat Sanders fairly. Lets just say that the way the DNC is playing games again with the primaries is likely to hand Trump another f-ing victory. The BS they pulled against Yang won’t hurt us too much because although his supporters where passionate, there were not that many of them (although we need everyone). With Bernie, however, if they screw him again, Trump is almost certain to win again because enough of his supporters won’t vote for whomever was anointed by the DNC.
I can. I’ve been saying it all along, but a lot of people have a whole lot of their worldview invested in giving these people the benefit of the doubt.
It was always a lie to string along the marks and try to gaslight people into getting in line and doing what they’re told.
