January 21, 2016

Picture it: Sanders versus Trump.

Describe your visualization.

I picture a debate. Two old men are yelling at each other. One man is older and angrier than the other. America wonders how the hell did this happen?!

96 comments:

Rob said...

And then Bloomberg runs, taking votes from God knows who.

David Begley said...

Given their elder status,VP becomes real important.

Rusty said...

Entertaining as hell.
Trump will walk all over Bernie.

Hagar said...

Sarah Palin has come up with a new word, "woundedness." Did anyone else notice? Is this word needed?

traditionalguy said...

Good grief, it's Daddy!

A good feature is that with old guys it is too late to become something you're not. Sanders will still think Karl Marx is the god that must be obeyed. And Trump will still work 20 hours a day demanding that the government get its act together or it will be fired.

The trouble with Marxists is that they have zero empathy and see us as dead men walking to be taken out and shot.

The trouble with Trump is that he wants everything done well for us, and that it will just feel so unfamiliar.

rehajm said...

"America wonders how the hell did this happen?"

My visualization: Me yelling at America Because you rejected the brilliant, reasonable guy last time, Assholes.

sinz52 said...

I'm not sure that Trump and Sanders would be yelling at each other all that much.

In their opposition to free trade and railing against "the establishment," they're on the same page.

While Trump is an immigration hard-liner, Sanders does NOT favor open borders either.

While Trump is a fascist who literally once said that he would make Amtrak run on time and has no problem with endorsements from white nationalists, Sanders portrays himself as a nationalist too rather than a multiculturalist.

If, on Election Day, the choice comes down to Trump the nativist/fascist vs. Sanders the socialist, I'll write in Rubio's name.

Original Mike said...

"America wonders how the hell did this happen?!"

Obama.

traditionalguy said...

Let me get this straight, you are threatened by trains/airplanes that run on time.

Are you also threatened by public restrooms that are clean and smell good, but feel safe when they reek and are unclean?

Well then, don't elect Fuhrer Trump. He will make America a Ritz Carlton. And you will be so out of place.

Bay Area Guy said...

Trump v Sanders - how did this happen, you ask?

In the GOP, several fringe candidates who had no business running, splintered the establishment vote, while big money decision-makers rested on their laurels, waiting to see how things would shake out. Meanwhile, a large swath of 50-year old mostly white, mostly blue collar types expressed anger at the political elites, and sought out unconventional candidates. Trump, a master of publicity, a rich "outsider" seized on this opportunity, while Jeb!, the ultimate party, legacy insider, cratered like a stone.

As for the Dems, they annointed Hillary as "next in line," thwarted all competition, tried to suppress her blatant, greedy, double-dealing with the Clinton-Foundation, her criminal mishandling of her private server at State, and her tragic lies about Benghazi. In addition, after years of political indoctrination fostered in college and economic cluelessness, most Dems are, indeed, Socialists, and do agree substantively with Bernie's left-wing platform.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Brooklyn v. Queens. New York values all the way down.

But here's another scenario: Sanders v. Palin in the VP debate.

Big Mike said...

America wonders how the hell did this happen?!

I agree with rehajm -- you had your chance in 2008, America, and again in 2012. The United States sowed the wind, now we are just starting to reap the whirlwind.

If you can't handle the anger, Madam Professor, perhaps you should have considered your vote more carefully in 2008 and worked for Romney's election in 2012. Who's the angriest? Poor people out in "flyover country," whose kids can't supplement the meager family income with part time jobs because undocumented, illiterate, non-English speaking people took those jobs from them. Who's just as angry? The Americans who were told "All you Americans are fired" from their sub-mimimum wage jobs. Also coal miners in Appalachia -- you might care deeply about the people stuck in the inner city in Milwaukee, Professor, but at least the entire federal government doesn't have it's foot in their faces.

Rae said...

If something happens to Hillary - whether indictment, "health problems" or if it's apparent that she'll just lose the norm to Bernie, I think the Dems will say screw the rules and run Biden.

Brando said...

Bad as those choices would be, at least it means an end to the Clinton Restoration which I think would be worse for the country. Trump/Sanders would be a guarantee of four years of gridlock which isn't the worst option.

How would we get there? Anger. Enough people angry that they don't have enough fellow travelers to get what they want from government--on the Left, upset that the Dems can't get them minimum wage hikes or single payer health care, on the Right, upset that the GOP cannot repeal the ACA or do anything sweeping with taxes. So the obvious choice is to go with the primal scream--an outsider candidate who embodies a complete rejection of everything we've seen so far. Why they think this will get them the results they want may not even be the point--as an expression of anger, it does not need to accomplish anything more.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I visualize the TV off in such an instance. I'll read the highlight reel the next day.

Stephen said...

Two old men are yelling at each other.
Like Goldwater, John McCain was ahead of his time.

Bobby said...

Sanders and Trump wouldn't be the only names on the ballot, though. This could be Gary Johnson's chance to finally get the Libertarian Party over the 1.0% mark (which he almost did last go around).

And let's not forget- let's not forget- that Mr. Garrison and Caitlyn Jenner are also running as a ticket.

Quinn Satterwaite said...

I see massive turmoil in American Journalist as they try desperately to protect the non existent party Democratic Socialist.

And a good part of urban Dem office holders redefining themselves as Socialists too. There is enough of a liberal echo chamber that they will see this as a good thing; a inevitable wave of change.

The results will be negative for 2016 but based on the success of the Gay Marriage Propaganda Offensive, the D-Socialists will think its just a matter of time before they bring the country around to them.

Laslo Spatula said...

Vigor and Vinegar.

I am Laslo.

Michael K said...

"the Right, upset that the GOP cannot repeal the ACA or do anything sweeping with taxes"

I don't think taxes are the issue for the GOP anymore. Regulation and lawless regulation at that is one big one. Immigration and the Muslim influx are huge problems that are not being addressed. I notice that there has been no response from Freder since I provided the links to show 400,000 Muslims brought in since 2010.

The ACA is just a symbol of the fact that nothing Democrats do actually works. I can't be the only one who has noticed that.

Ipso Fatso said...

I picture this country going right down the toilet.

Caroline Walker said...

We will have the country we deserve. From the "campus rape epidemic" to "hands up dont shoot" to speech codes, confederate monument smashing, we have become a profoundly silly people.

rhhardin said...

Sanders has an invincible ignorance that Trump lacks.

rhhardin said...

A head brimming with inexperience, as Lautreamont characterized youth.

Brando said...

"I don't think taxes are the issue for the GOP anymore. Regulation and lawless regulation at that is one big one. Immigration and the Muslim influx are huge problems that are not being addressed. I notice that there has been no response from Freder since I provided the links to show 400,000 Muslims brought in since 2010.

The ACA is just a symbol of the fact that nothing Democrats do actually works. I can't be the only one who has noticed that."

Duly noted--I of course should have included immigration, as that was the initial big issue propelling Trump's support the way inequality is propelling Sanders'.

But ultimately neither side can get what they want with divided government. Both will say that the OTHER side does get what it wants (ask a Sanders fan and he'll probably tell you that the GOP keeps getting its Wall Street agenda, and blocking everything the Left wants; Trumpists (and other GOPers) will say Obama has been ruling by agency fiat) and its their own that keeps getting sold out. In a way they're both part right--we get more a status quo consensus from govt, which is why Dems have been as disappointed in Obama as GOPers were with Bush (though the Dems blame it more on GOP obstruction).

A Trump or Sanders presidency isn't going to change the 50-50 nature of this country. The next four years will be no different from the last four in that respect.

Brando said...

I wouldn't be surprised if we get a strong third party candidacy if Trump and Sanders are the two standard bearers.

Original Mike said...

"I notice that there has been no response from Freder since I provided the links to show 400,000 Muslims brought in since 2010."

Hard as it may be to believe if your weren't around here in the old days, I think Freder has actually mellowed. There was a time when he would have gone to the mat insisting he was right, long, long after it had been shown otherwise.

Bobby said...

"A Trump or Sanders presidency isn't going to change the 50-50 nature of this country. The next four years will be no different from the last four in that respect."

I agree. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

But I'm a self-confessed cynic.

samanthasmom said...

When I think about Bernie Sanders running against Trump, I imagine all of the kids who want him to win so badly they'd prop him up anyway they could. Like the young folks in "Weekend at Bernie's". I imagine Trump going along with it until just the right moment to say, "Hey, guys, you do realize he's dead, right?' Symbolically, of course. ;-)

gerry said...

Imagine - it's easy if you try - Hillary running as an independent.

It might work if they crank up her insulin pump, transcutaneous stimulator, and internal defibrillator.

Brando said...

"Imagine - it's easy if you try - Hillary running as an independent."

I could see one of her handlers pushing this, but I figure if the Dems reject her (a second time!) she won't have the heart for it. Bloomberg, though--has he said anything about running this year? I know Gary Johnson is planning on running on the Libertarian ticket, but I think the more viable candidacy (in the Sanders/Trump scenario) would be a moderate who can appeal to Dems not comfortable with Sanders' far leftism as well as Republicans who think Trump is too erratic/unreliable/unqualified.

Thorley Winston said...

I think it’s actually more fun to picture an alternate scenario where Elizabeth Warren instead of Bernie Sanders decided to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination:

I picture a debate. Two old women are shrieking at each other. One woman is older and shriller than the other. America wonders how the hell did this happen?!

Jim said...

Think about it. Trump is the third party candidate. Right now. He sure isn't your typical Republican. He is breaking all the rules, and the GOP can't decide what to make of him.
Sanders is following the playbook. An avowed socialist in the Dem party isn't much of a stretch. It is a natural progression.

Will said...

How the hell did this happen?

1) Take a President woefully ill-prepared to be Chief Executive
2) Add in said CEO's willingness to say "I won" and to ram 2 unpopular programs, opposed by a majority of Americans, down America's throat on partisan party-line votes
3) Completely botch the executions of said partisan divisive programs. Despite 4 years lead time.
4) Throw political pork to your campaign backers. $500 million to Solyndra.
5) Upend established bankruptcy law to reward political allies, screwing bondholders nd poisoning trust with investors and job creators who withdraw and decide to wait you out, making your recovery the worst on record
6) Be petty and divisive at every opportunity
7) Choose which laws you want to enforce.
8) Having proved yourself unable of convincing opponents of your ideas on the merits, resort to executive actions that ignore the Constitution. Don't be embarrassed on the 12 occasions the Supreme Court slaps you down unanimously.
9) Lost the House and Senate. But decide not to heed the message the voters are sending you. Double down on your efforts to ignore the Constitution and the fact that it's Congress that makes law and sets budgets
10) Consistently overplay your hand. Push for more than the whole loaf on occasions like gun control instead of settling for half a loaf, and end up with nothing.
11) Withdraw troops prematurely to help your campaign without regard to the vacuum it will create in Mid-East. Then deny your actions gave rise to ISIS.
12) Re-empower Russia through your ad-lib Red Lines and stand by as they annex Crimea and mess with Ukraine and re-establish a foothold int he Mid-East where they had not been a player for 40 years.
13) Ignore the wreckage of your own policies and talk about the stinging rebuke to terrorism that your Climate Change leadership will be.
14) Refuse to recognize the growing threat your policies have created.
15) Be good at campaigning. But nothing else. Leave the country worse than you found it. More divided. More in debt. Alliances in tatters.

That's what the hell happened

Michael K said...

"A Trump or Sanders presidency isn't going to change the 50-50 nature of this country. The next four years will be no different from the last four in that respect."

If Sanders should somehow be elected, I would agree. Trump is different in that he has actually accomplished something,

One reason I prefer governors as candidates (I liked Walker and Jindal) is that they have run something other than their mouths.

Senators don't have to actually accomplish anything, This is weakness of Cruz.

One thing I liked about Bush in 2000 compared to Gore was that I sensed that Bush had a life. He looked relaxed in the debates as though he had something else to do if he lost. Gore, as we have seen, had no life. Even Tipper left him.

Trump has a life and has gotten things done. I agree they are not the Panama Canal or World War II but at least he has done something.

Trump is actually the bipartisan they everybody says they want. I'm not sold yet but I can see much worse things than he getting elected.

Michael K said...

I might add that I think we are being punished for rejecting Romney. If I believed in God, he might be laughing at us.

Roughcoat said...

Michael K said: "I don't think taxes are the issue for the GOP anymore. Regulation and lawless regulation at that is one big one. Immigration and the Muslim influx are huge problems that are not being addressed."

You are correct, sir. My sentiments exactly. Plus, the whole 2nd Amendment thing. Plus, the fact that I live in Illinois which has been comprehensively misgoverned by that evil worm Mike Madigan and the Democrat Party since time immemorial.

Todd said...

Brando said...

So the obvious choice is to go with the primal scream--an outsider candidate who embodies a complete rejection of everything we've seen so far.

1/21/16, 8:00 AM


This.

Both sides are upset for different reasons. To the "real" left, Obama has been a near failure. He got ACA passed but that was like last time. What has he done for them this go round? Can't get guns controlled. Can't get minimum wage high enough. Can't get their student loans forgiven. Can't close Gitmo. Can't make the Israelis go away. Can't get them more free stuff.

On the right, they have just been a pile of major league fail. Could not stop anything. Could not pass anything. Could not even slow the flow of illegals. Could not punish anyone that should have been. Dem-light with lots of show trials.

Both of these candidates are the "masses" flipping off the status quo. The big middle finger to both houses. Too many are thinking either "burn it down to save it" and/or "at this point what difference does it make" and/or "these outsiders could not do any worst than this lying, thieving, conniving pack of insiders so screw it all".

After all, did not the world's greatest orator say that we are the change we have been waiting for? Well here comes some change...

Anthony said...

I know I keep repeating myself

But Sanders v Trump is how America dies.

Thorley Winston said...

I wouldn't be surprised if we get a strong third party candidacy if Trump and Sanders are the two standard bearers.

How do you figure? While I don’t think either Trump or Sanders will be on the ballot this November, if they are I think the faithful in both parties are going to turn out to vote for their party’s nominee regardless of whether they like the candidate because (a) he will picking the next 3 or 4 justices on the Supreme Court and (b) most of his cabinet secretaries and heads of federal agencies will be chosen from people who are more ideologically aligned with the vies of the base of their party than the other guy would (as I believe Reagan said “personnel is policy”). Also as loath as I am to admit it, Trump may actually pull in a lot of people who would otherwise be looking to support a third-party candidate ala Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura while Sanders pretty much makes the Green and Socialist Workers parties redundant. If it ends up being a Trump versus Sanders showdown, I’m thinking the third parties might be drawing record lows in their support.

CWJ said...

rehajm nails it right out of the box at 7:46. Romney may have been our last chance to begin righting the ship. "There's a lot of ruin in a great nation." But I fear we're running out of furniture to burn.

Brando said...

"If Sanders should somehow be elected, I would agree. Trump is different in that he has actually accomplished something"

I don't think that will change the calculation though--even aside from the fact that Trump's accomplishments (business, entertainment) are far removed from running a government and grappling with legal and balance of power issues that plague even experienced governors. Trump would need a united GOP in Congress and a sizable chunk of Democrats to get anything passed, and it's not like the things he claims to want to pass are unifying the GOP. This same Congress that Trump fans can't stand would be crucial in getting anything done.

Granted, there's the "lawless, executive order" route--but as Obama's fans are learning to their chagrin, this not only faces legal hurdles but it's positively small-ball. Our system cannot create Caesars unless they come in with an overwhelming wave of support (like FDR).

Brando said...

"How do you figure? While I don’t think either Trump or Sanders will be on the ballot this November, if they are I think the faithful in both parties are going to turn out to vote for their party’s nominee regardless of whether they like the candidate because (a) he will picking the next 3 or 4 justices on the Supreme Court and (b) most of his cabinet secretaries and heads of federal agencies will be chosen from people who are more ideologically aligned with the vies of the base of their party than the other guy would (as I believe Reagan said “personnel is policy”). Also as loath as I am to admit it, Trump may actually pull in a lot of people who would otherwise be looking to support a third-party candidate ala Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura while Sanders pretty much makes the Green and Socialist Workers parties redundant. If it ends up being a Trump versus Sanders showdown, I’m thinking the third parties might be drawing record lows in their support."

I think those factors usually boost each party's nominees--I wasn't a huge fan of Bush but I sure as hell didn't want Kerry elected--but there's enough who cannot fathom voting for Trump or Sanders that a third party could get about 10% of the vote. It would mean letting one of the others win, but they would prefer registering their disapproval rather than have to go with one of the party nominees.

Sebastian said...

Donald would destroy Bernie. I'd pay to see it. Though Trump is a faux GOPer himself, the blow would destroy the Dems, who have been losing at the state level, have no bench, and may just salvage the Senate. In purely political terms, they need the presidency more than the GOP.

Ann Althouse said...

"In the GOP, several fringe candidates who had no business running, splintered the establishment vote..."

It's Pataki's fault!

Ann Althouse said...

"Donald would destroy Bernie."

I agree.

AllenS said...

Hillary! will destroy Bernie before Trump gets a shot at him.

Michael K said...

The mostly likely third party guy would be Bloomberg in my opinion. He could self fund but would be a flameout because his one issue, guns, is a loser. It only works in Democrat primary season. The left hates Bloomberg for stop and frisk and because he's rich.

I also think foreign affairs is about to blow up in our faces. If Trump is smart, and I think he is, he'll get some major league foreign policy guy as VP. Bolton would be good in my estimation but I have no idea if they know each other. The Saudis have been hiring all the State Department types for decades. All the ex-FSOs are on Saudi salary. Not all but those who wanted a rich retirement package.

The Saudis are half our Muslim problem. At least half with all the radical imams they have been sending here and the radical mosques they've been funding.

Michael K said...

"In purely political terms, they need the presidency more than the GOP."

I agree. It's all they have. Obama has been loose from any Democrat restraint since 2010. They have a tiger by the tail.

Shawn Levasseur said...

People talk about Bloomberg running if the big ticket candidates are "too weird". But, I dunno. Yet another New York big government guy? I don't see it.

The Libertarian Party is likely to run former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, and they have established ballot access in most states, and always is close to, and occasionally has gotten, it's candidate on all 50 state ballots. He would have more real experience as a chief executive than the two major party candidates combined, (which was also true when he ran four years ago).

He's got a track record he can run on, and a personality that comes across as presidential, yet still enough of a personality to not be run over by the Trump ego.

Could it be that in 2016, the Libertarian Party is the one who will have the least weird candidate? It's possible (but probable? maybe not, but I have my hopes...)

David said...

"how the hell did this happen?!"

As usual, we let if happen.

eric said...

I look forward to Trumps picks for his VP and cabinet, plus Supreme Court.

Two reasons.

1) I think some of them will be wild. People you would never expect to ever be chosen, like Ann Coulter for Supreme Court.

2) I think he will pick people based on friendships and knowledge of their abilities, not partisan affiliation. Democrats and Republicans.

This will probably come back to bite him in the ass though. Trump, or any President, might think themselves bi-partisan. But the partisans never think that.

walter said...

Has Berno ever mentioned how he would make good on his many promises? I can kind of see Trump working deals..I imagine Bernie would be constantly expanding/testing executive orders etc. in service of the "revolution".
But you know..if he can dictate lower ATM fees, I'll put up with 1 state issued deodorant.

Todd said...

walter said...

if he can dictate lower ATM fees, I'll put up with 1 state issued deodorant.

1/21/16, 10:35 AM


Who still pays ATM fees? Really! I have not paid an ATM fee in at least a dozen years (if not longer). The only time I see any anyone paying ATM fees is if they make use of a third-party ATM machine. I don't know of any banks that charge in-network ATM fees anymore (in the US).

Michael K said...

"Could it be that in 2016, the Libertarian Party is the one who will have the least weird candidate? "

I think foreign policy, the weak point of Big L Libertarians, will blow up by November, Libertarians believe in open borders and that will close that door to any successful candidacy.

Lucid said...

It cracks me up when people who voted for Obama complain about Trump. I think rehajm and the others are right, we could have elected the competent candidate, but we elected Obama again. There would have never been candidate Trump without Obama.

walter said...

Todd said..Who still pays ATM fees? Really! I have not paid an ATM fee in at least a dozen years (if not longer). The only time I see any anyone paying ATM fees is if they make use of a third-party ATM machine.
--
Depends on your location, if you are in an area your bank has no ATMs, many options will require a fee. But yes..the worst fees are usually tiny 3rd party machines placed in hopes of sapitalizing on convenience over cost. Common in bars etc..so it's likely just another pander to millenials. Of course, if somehow he succeeded in mandating an arbitrary fee, some will go away. It's like there are consequences to "good intentions".
Obviously this a small concern..but another look into the mind of Berno.

Original Mike said...

"if you are in an area your bank has no ATMs, many options will require a fee."

Let's see, you could elect a Socialist as President with a $20-billion "free-stuff" list or you could change your bank.

Bobby said...

Michael K,

"I think foreign policy, the weak point of Big L Libertarians, will blow up by November"

I'm actually a registered Libertarian and I could not agree with you more. Too many Libertarians start with the objective of wanting a smallest government necessary (which I support) and then talk themselves into thinking that international problems don't exist or are not very significant so they can adopt a foreign policy that would justify shrinking the military, intelligence, diplomatic and development communities. There's plenty of space to shrink all four bureaucracies, of course, but that's not the smart way to do it.

"Libertarians believe in open borders and that will close that door to any successful candidacy."

If we're talking the Libertarian Party gaining some ground as a Third Party (say, to 5%-10% of the electorate), then the 'open borders' plank probably won't matter that much-- with Trump and Sanders both running on strong anti-illegal immigration platforms (which is a majority position, to be sure), the Libertarian Party would have some space to draw from the minority position (i.e., the 18% who think illegal aliens should be given immediate amnesty, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, who advocate for reduced illegal and legal immigration). There's enough room there, even with that issue weighing us down, to get 5% to 6%.

If we're talking the Libertarian Party using this moment to grow out of irrelevance and emerge to replace one of the Two Major Parties (as was most recently done by the Republicans in the 1850s), then I agree with you completely -- the 'open borders' position needs to be replaced with something much more sensible. But then that is probably true of most of the Libertarian Party's positions: we could absolutely improve our viability by taking less-absolute, less-absurd stands on a variety of issues. But that won't happen until we grow the Party large enough that the ideologues are outnumbered by pragmatists and libertarian moderates.

Paddy O said...

"Think about it. Trump is the third party candidate. Right now. He sure isn't your typical Republican. He is breaking all the rules, and the GOP can't decide what to make of him."

This was Schwarzenegger's trick in the California Governor recall election. California GOP tends to promote establishment candidates without broad appeal in their commitment to remain a minority party in the state. Schwarzenegger could never have won a GOP primary for any office, but the craziness of the open recall election gave him the way in and make use of his broader appeal. His Republican credentials were seemingly solid, and his regular guy, rising from obscurity to fabulous success, was inspiring. He won solidly. Twice. Make of his job as governor what you will.

Brando said...

"Let's see, you could elect a Socialist as President with a $20-billion "free-stuff" list or you could change your bank."

Not to mention banning ATM fees as a government imposed rule can have several effects, none of them good. They forget that the banks are out to maximize profits, and if they cannot charge ATM fees for other bank's customers, they will stop letting those customers use their ATMs or charge the other banks to allow it. This would likely be reciprocal, and then banks would have to increase fees in other areas. Ultimately, it means less service or higher costs in other areas, not "fat cats" simply making do with lower quarterly dividends. I wouldn't expect the Sanders Fans to get that. They also think the solution to the astronomical cost of higher education is to give out more free loans.

cubanbob said...

Various commenters above have mentioned Trump and Supreme Court nominations. I don't know about his relationship with his sister who is a retired federal judge (or her political/legal orientation) but presumably she would either know or know of any potential judges Trump would be selecting for the appellate courts or Supreme Court and presumable he would discuss the choices with her. If I were in such a situation I would.

As for Trump vs Sanders why not an equally possible scenario Cruz vs Sanders? Imagine that, having to chose between a Cuban Canadian America versus a New York City Communist for President.

At least with Cruz any court appointments will definitely be on the more limited government side.

Between Cruz and Sanders, who is the likely winner? Althouse what say you? Eric, Brando, Garage among others, what say you?

Original Mike said...

"I wouldn't expect the Sanders Fans to get that."

That's a joke, right?

Brando said...

"Between Cruz and Sanders, who is the likely winner? Althouse what say you? Eric, Brando, Garage among others, what say you?"

I think this would cleave more neatly into the Left/Right divide, as Cruz seems to represent what the Right says they always wanted, and vice versa for Sanders and the Left. So as usual, the Blue and Red states would stick to their recent pattern, and the question for purple states (which Cruz would have to win a greater number of purple electoral votes, as the Blue electoral votes greatly outnumber the Red ones) is who can pump up turnout more. On that alone, Cruz would have an advantage, because Sanders may find it harder to get the black vote to turn out compared to Obama.

However, where would moderates in purple states go? Are they more scared of Sanders or Cruz? On that, Sanders may have the edge because moderates may be able to tell themselves that at least Sanders would have a GOP congress to stop them (they are more likely to overlook that Cruz is as likely to hit roadblocks with a GOP congress). Between that and the fact that Cruz needs to win more of those "up for grabs" electoral votes, I think Sanders has the edge over Cruz, and would pull out a victory.

Just my prediction--also doesn't take into account if we hit a big recession this year or a strong third party candidate emerges, which could shake it up a lot more.

Bay Area Guy said...

Dear God:

I haven't asked for much. In fact, in my 50 years on Planet Earth, I have wrestled with Your existence, and tried not to ignore or dismiss You or the teachings of Your Son, despite some of my uncertainties and skepticism.

But I have one prayerful request.

Please allow Bernie Sanders to win the Iowa Caucus.

The thought of Hillary smashing against the wall every single China plate and glassware in her stylish kitchen at Chappaqua, along with the sheer panic of the Democratic party establishment would bring us sheer joy and prove Your existence.

Thank you, God, for listening.


Brando said...

""I wouldn't expect the Sanders Fans to get that."

That's a joke, right?"

No joke--I think in their minds there are wealthy, 1%er business owners making massive profits in monopoly-esque situations gouging the little guy, and that if the government forced them to they would grumble, take slightly lower profits, but play ball. It explains their approach to the finance industry, health care, and energy production, as well as the minimum wage.

Original Mike said...

@Brando: My apologies. I read "wouldn't" as "would".

walter said...

Berno's recent twit feed...featuring CAGW crazy Bill McKibben and energy questions for Hil

Bruce Hayden said...

The Republicans, more or less, have started to accept the real possibility of a Trump nomination, and a lot of the more establishment types seem to prefer him to the burn-it-all-down Cruz. No so the Dem insiders with Sanders. I think that they are still in serious denial in regards to Hillary, whose legal problems just seem to keep getting worse. Some think that they could slide in Biden or Warren at this large dare. I think that would be the worst thing that they could do. Sure, it is the top down party with all those super delegates which would make it feasible. But it would seriously piss off a large percentage of the Sanders supporters, and a lot of them would likely either stay home or vote for Trump. They would see this as cheating by the establishment. Which is why, I think that the Dems should hold their noses and vote for Sanders in the general election, if Hillary gets knocked out. He probably wouldn't win against Trump, but could, I think, keep the Reps from running the table, and keeping control of the Senate (I don't think the House will be in play).

Brando said...

"@Brando: My apologies. I read "wouldn't" as "would"."

No problem--I was wondering if someone was going to defend the Sandersites' grasp of economics! Though I have read some articles defending that line of thinking with the theory that we've done things like this before (e.g., raise the minimum wage, cap fees) without the sky falling, so surely the fact that we can't always see the negative effects must mean they are minor or nonexistent. I'd counter that no employer publicly announces things like "we hired three people this year, it would have been five people but X, Y and Z actions by government increased our costs by W amount, so we could only hire three" but that doesn't mean those actions did not have such effects.

jr565 said...

If there is a contest between Trump and Sanders I know who I'm voting for. Trump may be a democrat but he isn't a socialist.

Then again, maybe its good to get Sanders in power just so we can see how bad socialism can really muck up the works. Sometimes you need to hit rock bottom before you can rise again.

jr565 said...

Its like Porky Pig versus captain Caveman

Brando said...

"Which is why, I think that the Dems should hold their noses and vote for Sanders in the general election, if Hillary gets knocked out. He probably wouldn't win against Trump, but could, I think, keep the Reps from running the table, and keeping control of the Senate (I don't think the House will be in play)."

I don't know that Sanders is really such a bad deal for the Dem establishment and moderates--in some ways, he's a better candidate for them than Hillary as he doesn't have the weight of scandals following him around, and he excites their base more than she does. (He doesn't seem to do much for blacks, but I think Hillary's power with them is overrated as well). And is anything he proposes really a threat to the Dem establishment? His Wall Street reforms would get nowhere (thank you, GOP Congress) and would probably be some watered down mush. In fact, anything radical that he proposes would get pretty much nowhere.

I agree the House is not in play this year, but the Dems have a good shot at the Senate.

walter said...

"In fact, anything radical that he proposes would get pretty much nowhere."
Except that he would fill his departments like Obama did...EPA being an important one.

Michael K said...

"we could absolutely improve our viability by taking less-absolute, less-absurd stands on a variety of issues. But that won't happen until we grow the Party large enough that the ideologues are outnumbered by pragmatists and libertarian moderates."

I don't disagree. I consider myself to be libertarian of the small l variety. I have performed abortions, for example, and think they should be "safe legal and rare." I think most drugs could be legalized although cocaine is probably too dangerous and the new amateur chemistry stuff is made up of unknown ingredients.

The big problem with Libertarians has always been the delusion that other people in other countries think and want the same as we do. I think we may be getting past that watching the panic in Europe. I was there last summer and changed plans to avoid Greece during the immigrant flood.

My preference is that libertarians take over the Republican Party. I thought the Tea Party was a big step but it bogged down under relentless attack by Obama and the IRS. Maybe if a few IRS and EPA officers went to jail, it would revive.

Brando said...

"My preference is that libertarians take over the Republican Party. I thought the Tea Party was a big step but it bogged down under relentless attack by Obama and the IRS. Maybe if a few IRS and EPA officers went to jail, it would revive."

I think the problem with the Tea Party was that it grew to encompass anything on the Right, including religious conservatives, which is fine if you want to grow a movement but has the problem of making it hard to define itself. It started out as more a libertarian critique of the GOP, and then sort of got co-opted by the rest of the GOP to the point where in most people's eyes it became shorthand for "extreme right wing"--with "right wing" being a wide range of things.

I would like to see the GOP move more in a consistently libertarian direction--including not just economics in general, but overseas intervention, drug policy, civil liberties, etc. I don't really know how that'll happen though--right now it seems a rather fringe part of the party.

Original Mike said...

"I was wondering if someone was going to defend the Sandersites' grasp of economics! "

Freder's here. It would be easy to goad him into it.

Bobby said...

Brando,

That's the thing, right? To libertarians, it seemed like most of the "Tea Party" movements emerged in opposition to a rapid series of trillian-dollar spending bills-- TARP, ARRA, PPACA-- and a ballooning budget deficit. That was definitely something we approved of. But by 2010 and 2012, the "Tea Party" were endorsing traditional "social conservative" candidates like Sharron Angle, Mike Lee, Joe Miller, Richard Mourdock and others. It looked to us that the "Tea Party" was all about shrinking the role of government in fiscal policy, while demanding government intervention in social matters -- and that's not libertarian, at all.

Original Mike said...

"I think the problem with the Tea Party was that it grew to encompass anything on the Right, including religious conservatives, which is fine if you want to grow a movement but has the problem of making it hard to define itself."

I've always thought that from the beginning the MSM portrayed the Tea Party to be religious, racist, etc. and the country bought it. My understanding at the time it formed is that it was fiscal.

Original Mike said...

"But by 2010 and 2012, the "Tea Party" were endorsing traditional "social conservative" candidates like Sharron Angle, Mike Lee, Joe Miller, Richard Mourdock and others."

Is that right? Who, exactly, was doing the endorsing?

Bay Area Guy said...

Sanders -- the Socialist -- reminds me of Mr. Magoo. Over the past 75 years, he has blissfully missed the economic creation of the biggest middle class in he history of mankind -- right before his very eyes.

It is astounding to be a Socialist in the modern era of universal college, destination weddings, Iphones, Ipads, E-Trade, Laptops, Cable tv, etc.

Hillary -- the scold -- isn't a Socialist. She likes those 6 figure speaking fees. She's a feminist Authoritarian. She wants to emasculate all the men who refused to ask her out on a date, and wants to her revenge (against us), for all the humiliating cheating on her husband Bill did during their 40 years of a political marriage.

I offer a big "No Thank You" to both these Democrat loons. I would actively support Trump in a heartbeat, before I voted for these two clowns.

Brando said...

"Is that right? Who, exactly, was doing the endorsing?"

For the formal "endorsements" it was specific groups like Tea Party Nation, etc., but as far as rank and file go it was more a matter of how people at their rallies identified themselves. Though it was probably as much in the other direction, with those candidates identifying themselves as friendly to those groups. But there was nothing greally formal in the sense of a "tea party endorsement" any more than there is a "feminist endorsement".

Brando said...

"I've always thought that from the beginning the MSM portrayed the Tea Party to be religious, racist, etc. and the country bought it. My understanding at the time it formed is that it was fiscal."

They did--and the Left did so with glee--but when the movement started in the late Bush years (it was associated with Ron Paul and a reaction to TARP) but as it grew it spread its focus. At a lot of the rallies people were defending Medicare, for example, when that's not really a very libertarian sentiment.

Bobby said...

Original Mike,

Sharron Angle was endorsed by the Tea Party Express, who also endorsed and supported Joe Miller in his takedown of Lisa Murkowski. Mike Lee was endorsed by the Tea Party Groups of Utah. Richard Mourdock was endorsed and supported by 45 (forty-five) Indiana-based "Tea Party" groups. It's all in the public domain.

Brando said...

"That's the thing, right? To libertarians, it seemed like most of the "Tea Party" movements emerged in opposition to a rapid series of trillian-dollar spending bills-- TARP, ARRA, PPACA-- and a ballooning budget deficit. That was definitely something we approved of. But by 2010 and 2012, the "Tea Party" were endorsing traditional "social conservative" candidates like Sharron Angle, Mike Lee, Joe Miller, Richard Mourdock and others. It looked to us that the "Tea Party" was all about shrinking the role of government in fiscal policy, while demanding government intervention in social matters -- and that's not libertarian, at all."

Yeah--after a while it didn't really mean "libertarian" in most people's ears--even among libertarians and conservatives. But then, as it was never really a formal organization but a mass movement, they couldn't really police who joined and what its new members wanted.

walter said...

I heard McCain refer to them as hobbits...

Bobby said...

Brando,

But that's the thing- fiscal restraint and opposition to TARP, ARRA, and PPACA can come from conservative or libertarian quarters alike. As far as I know, none of the "Tea Party" movements ever represented themselves as being libertarian. Libertarians simply made the mistake of wanting to believe the "Tea Party" was a libertarianesque movement and perhaps some of them were, but the vast majority of their groups- as evidenced by the candidates they endorsed and nominated- clearly were conservatives.

Johanna Lapp said...

For the first time ever, the Libertarian is the least crazy and cranky party nominee.

Amanda said...

After all the feathers settle, they would end their debate on what the both agree on, Universal Health Care.

Brando said...

"After all the feathers settle, they would end their debate on what the both agree on, Universal Health Care."

Most people would like universal health care, they just differ on how it should occur. Some prefer to have it controlled by the government, some would prefer the free market, and many would like some hybrid. This isn't some goal owned by the Left, any more than "world peace" or "an end to hunger".

Bill Peschel said...

I'm not going to panic. There's still time for this to shake out.

The greatest unknowns are the VP candidates. Bernie's 74, Trump's 69.

Reagan was 69 (a week or so shy of 70) when he was inaugurated.

I doubt anyone's going to run as a challenging third-party. Bloomberg has the money, but he has no image outside Manhattan. If Guiliani couldn't leave much of a mark with his record, Bloomberg can't.

I could see Biden brought in at the last minute. That used to be the case a hundred years ago (Garfield went to the convention as a delegate and had no plans to run; he was a compromise candidate). Considering that Hillary could/should be indicted, and if support for Bernie doesn't approach a majority, I could see a scenario in which Hillary bows out for unspecified health problems, and Biden agrees to take her place on the ballot to ensure the "will of the voters" be heard.

He would at least test the party faithful's support for Bernie; and if it isn't there, well, the establishment can go palms-up and say, "What can we do? The voters have spoken."

If nothing else, a Biden-Trump race would mean a) the press will Palinize Trump even more, giving GOP moderates / elites the cover to cross the aisle.

(Do I think that will happen? If I had to bet, no. Our political leadership is not smart enough to game this out.)

Shawn Levasseur said...

Johanna Lapp: "For the first time ever, the Libertarian is the least crazy and cranky party nominee."

Well, Gary Johnson hasn't been nominated yet. That happens at the LP convention in May, at which I plan on attending as a delegate, doing my part to make sure that Gary is the nominee.

I'm sure that he'll be the nominee, but there are competitors, including none of the above (always an option as per our bylaws).

damikesc said...

I could see one of her handlers pushing this, but I figure if the Dems reject her (a second time!) she won't have the heart for it.

"Sore loser laws" in several states would likely be a major impediment.

I also think foreign affairs is about to blow up in our faces. If Trump is smart, and I think he is, he'll get some major league foreign policy guy as VP. Bolton would be good in my estimation but I have no idea if they know each other.

I'd pick Richard Grenell (Romney's foreign policy guy who left when the Left got their shorts in a bunch over him being gay). He's telegenic, brilliant, and known how to work with exceptionally successful businessmen candidates, clearly.

Just my prediction--also doesn't take into account if we hit a big recession this year or a strong third party candidate emerges, which could shake it up a lot more.

We probably will. And we have nothing to fight it with since the Fed has kept interest rates at about zero to finance Obama's terrible economy. Imagine how bad shit would be if the rate was even 2%.

Paul said...

Sanders is just an old communist. Ain't worth spit and in any debate he will look like a stupid old man.'

Trump? He made billions.. and still does. Hired lots of very smart people and knows how to run an empire. Sanders barely knows how to run his mouth.


And if you stupes vote for Bernie, and he wins, just remember what happened with Obama. Votes matter.

Michael K said...

"the problem with the Tea Party was that it grew to encompass anything on the Right,"

I think a bunch of old politicians saw potential payday and signed up. I was most disappointed with Dick Armitage who seemed to think it would provide a retirement package.

One attraction of Trump is that he doesn't seem to be on the take.

John Clifford said...

I picture Sanders versus Cruz. Hillary's email scandal blows up on her, Trump shoots his mouth off once too often and says something he can't back away from or hand-wave away, and many of his voters realize that Cruz is what they hoped the Donald would be. Joe Biden won't jump in, because her folks won't work for him, and the MoveOn crowd won't stand for the Dem establishment usurping Bernie.

We get a 49-state blowout after Cruz wipes the floor with Betnie in the debates, repeatedly... snd the undecideds see Bernie for the decrepit old Marxist dreamer that he is.