How the Democrats win in a Landslide

[_honorentheos]

And I'll end up voting for Sanders if he wins. But I don't think he's advocating for good ideas, was an incredibly ineffective rep and Senator, and has the real potential to be dangerous to democracy and individual liberty.

Would you articulate how exactly Bernie is a threat to democracy and individual liberty? What exactly do you fear here?

Personally, I believe people have more freedom when they have their basic needs met. That's just me.

Let's talk it out by starting with the changes that would happen if Sanders is elected and ends up with a cooperative Congress.

What do you think he will change and how will he change society in order to implement his proposals?

[_moksha]

Sander's base is energized by promises he cannot deliver. This might dawn on them during the debates. They tend to be way sharper than Trump's base.

[_Some Schmo]

Let's talk it out by starting with the changes that would happen if Sanders is elected and ends up with a cooperative Congress.

What do you think he will change and how will he change society in order to implement his proposals?

That's one of the biggest problems with your premise: the idea he'll have a cooperative congress.

My view of Bernie has always been the view of a smart marketer: start outrageously high and then reduce what you want to make people think they're getting a deal. Another way to put that is that he's going way left to shift (correct) the Overton Window in the US.

Do I think this country's going to sign up for universal health care? Free college tuition? Not in my lifetime.

[_honorentheos]

When Trump was the presumptive nominee, we heard similar arguments. It didn't matter if he was elected, the House and Senate would check his worst impulses.

Didn't turn out so great. That's part of the concern here. We get the same messages - don't take Bernie literally. But take him seriously. Don't worry about the details of his proposals, it will work out through the process...

Bernie, like Trump, is a disruptor of the system. It isn't wise to assume the system will do what we want it to do. Instead, let's take him literally as well as seriously and ask - how would things play out if he had his way?

[_honorentheos]

I wanted to touch on this again, too.

My view of Bernie has always been the view of a smart marketer: start outrageously high and then reduce what you want to make people think they're getting a deal. Another way to put that is that he's going way left to shift (correct) the Overton Window in the US.

I don't think there is any reason to imagine Bernie is a smart marketer. He is an ideologue whose appeal to many people is his refusal to change to accommodate other views. I don't get why so many people want to ignore what he says for what they think he is saying.

Like Trump...

[_Some Schmo]

I don't think there is any reason to imagine Bernie is a smart marketer. He is an ideologue whose appeal to many people is his refusal to change to accommodate other views. I don't get why so many people want to ignore what he says for what they think he is saying.

Like Trump...

I've listened to Bernie a lot. I'm under no illusions much of what he talks about is what he thinks is going to happen, but aspiration. The guy's been in congress a long time. I think he knows the challenges.

Your comparison to listening to Trump cheapens your argument.

[_Some Schmo]

Bernie, like Trump, is a disruptor of the system.

This is a brilliant illustration of a false equivalence.

My daughter, like Jerry Rice, can catch a football.

It isn't wise to assume the system will do what we want it to do. Instead, let's take him literally as well as seriously and ask - how would things play out if he had his way?

If we actually had universal health care, made some serious moves to mitigate climate change, and gave kids some relief on college tuition? I think it'd be damned great.

[_honorentheos]

Again, how will this actually come about? What is going to happen that makes the US implement those programs? How will they be enforced? Details.

I'd love to have $10million, too. The issue is what I would do to make that happen.

It's not a false equivalency to point out that much of Sanders appeal isn't that different to what made Trump appealing to disaffected conservatives. Sanders is calling it a movement, not a campaign. Let's take that seriously and verify we know what that means rather than being easily sold on big promises leading to consequences we shouldn't complain we didn't see coming.

Take it seriously Schmo. How would it work if Bernie could do what he wants to do?

[_Some Schmo]

Take it seriously Schmo. How would it work if Bernie could do what he wants to do?

Well, I guess that's why I don't take it seriously, because I don't think he has what it takes to make it happen: the revolution he's mentioning. I suppose my biggest complaint about Bernie isn't the ambition of his goals, but the level of popularity he thinks his goals have in this country. If I thought he'd listen to me, I'd tell him to adjust with the incoming data.

It's entirely possible that I'm reading Bernie incorrectly, and that he really believes he can make it all happen. I just don't think he can raise a revolution. It has to happen organically.

So to answer your question directly, it could only work as the result of a massive uprising. Bernie has made that point himself over and over. He knows he can't do it alone. I don't see the revolution happening. Most people in this country are asleep at the wheel, or too fed up with Washington to give a damn any more.

[Guest]

Revolutions, movements that change the fabric of society, don't require a competent leader. They just need oxygen and fuel. The movement is the heat. Sanders is providing the fuel in the form of a movement and means to gain power. He will have executive power and and the means to make big changes. For example, check out what the left leaning The American Prospect calls the Day One Agenda:

https://prospect.org/day-one-agenda

I think the lesson we should have learned from Trump is presidential elections matters even if we think the Presidency is impotent. Turned out being a radical in the White House matters.

That said, I thought this recent article in The Atlantic was pretty good:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... er/607570/

But if Sanders in fact can generate record primary turnout among young voters, that would be evidence that he could expand the electorate in November. If Sanders’s popularity remains high when faced with a negative ad blitz financed by Michael Bloomberg or some other wealthy donor, then Democrats can be more confident that he’ll survive a barrage of Republican ads. If Sanders can steadily win converts among core Democratic constituencies, then party members can be more confident that the party will enthusiastically unite around him in November.

The question to ask now is how Sanders will pursue this harder, better path. He could treat the 2020 race as a replay of the 2016 contest, with Joe Biden standing in for Hillary Clinton as the establishment figure too cozy with billionaires. But this strategy is unlikely to work well. As we saw this week, Democratic voters have grown wistful for the Barack Obama years. The 2020 primary is defined by Democrats’ desperation to end Trump’s brazen corruption, cruelty, and incompetence and start repairing the damage he has caused.

Sanders will likely fare better by drawing a contrast with Biden’s own foibles. The former vice president is on his own bad path to the nomination. Political handicappers had good reason to count him out after poor performances in Iowa and New Hampshire. He has not built a campaign apparatus that can win in the fall. A lot of his debate performances and campaign stops have elicited more cringes than cheers. Many would now crown Biden the presumptive nominee, without him demonstrating that he has the agility and acuity as a campaigner to thrive in a long, grueling general-election campaign. He needs a thorough test of his own: He has to withstand months of scrutiny as the front-runner, and make sure voters and party leaders don’t develop a case of buyer’s remorse. Had Elizabeth Warren stayed in the race, she would have forced Biden and Sanders to sharpen their campaigns—and made a credible nominee should either or both of them falter. With her withdrawal yesterday, Biden and Sanders may both be tempted to assume they can win votes as the lesser of two inadequacies.

Especially because the election is likely to be close, the Democratic Party courts catastrophe by choosing its candidate based on a technicality. Democrats should be glad that Sanders can no longer seize the nomination without thoroughly making the case for his candidacy. They should hope that Biden is forced to prove his mettle through hard-fought contests in the months to come as well. This year, the shortest path to becoming a presumptive nominee is also the riskiest.