February 21, 2020

"I do not think that anybody — Bernie Sanders or anyone else — should simply get the nomination because they have 30 percent of the delegates and no one else has that many."

"Let’s say that he has 35 percent. Well, 65 percent he doesn’t have, or that person doesn’t have. I think that we have to let the system work its way out. I do not believe anyone should get the nomination unless they have 50-[percent]-plus-one.... A lot people in the race still, but they’ll be dropping off quick, because the money is running out. So I think you’re going to have the field winnowing fairly quickly. And you have most of the people who are not Bernie Sanders, are people who are moderates, and maybe they’ll work something out to get together and try to find that one person who can come up with the number of delegates. Maybe that’s one way to do it.... I just don’t think you can give the nomination to somebody who has 65 percent of the people that made a different decision."

Said Harry Reid, the former Senate majority leader, from his office at the Bellagio in Las Vegas, quoted in "Harry Reid says Sanders needs more than plurality to win Democratic nomination" (WaPo).

That sounds right to me, but there are times when I think it's becoming so likely that Trump will win that those who are trying to shape the future of the Democratic Party might prefer to let Bernie Sanders take the nomination and then go on to fail and fail big. That way, the left-wing extreme takes the blame, the loss can be massaged into the argument that the socialist move is a proven disaster, and the liberal moderates can reclaim control. If Sanders gets the most votes/delegates going into the convention, but the convention works out a way to give the nomination to someone else, the far left will rage on for another 4 years with a sense of entitlement that it's certainly their turn in 2024. And let's say that convention picks Pete Buttigieg, the shining new talent. Then, he'd be ruined for 2024. Save him. Let him age for 4 years. And give him a clear run at the presidency in 2024, after Trump is gone and after the Democrats prove to themselves that Americans won't vote for left-wing extremism.

320 comments:

1 – 200 of 320   Newer›   Newest»
MadisonMan said...

If it's likely that no one gets that many delegates, how will Harry Reid countenance supporting the eventual nominee?

M Jordan said...

Spot on, Althouse.

Michael K said...

I agree with your premise. Let Bernie take the fall. I suspect many in the GOP felt that way about Goldwater in 1964.

Ken B said...

You keep using that word "shining"...

jeremyabrams said...

If Bernie had not been cheated in 2016, the power brokers could perhaps broker a "moderate" nominee in 2020 even with Bernie holding the most delegates. But that's not possible now.

M Jordan said...

Good point about Goldwater, Michael. Ann makes the additional good point that Pete needs to be left untarnished. So Bernie’s the fall guy, as you put it.

Greg the class traitor said...

That sounds right to me, but there are times when I think it's becoming so likely that Trump will win that those who are trying to shape the future of the Democratic Party might prefer to let Bernie Sanders take the nomination and then go on to fail and fail big. That way, the left-wing extreme takes the blame, the loss can be massaged into the argument that the socialist move is a proven disaster, and the liberal moderates can reclaim control.

Yep!

But, they can't do that, because that's writing off RBG's seat, and the Left's ability to advance the unconstitutional parts of their agenda pretty much go away with that loss

hawkeyedjb said...

"Pete Buttigieg, the shining new talent"

I guess some people perceive him that way, but I don't see the talent. Has he displayed it in a way that has improved life for the people of South Bend?

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Do Dems still think 48.2% is a majority? Have they learned how to flip a coin yet?

rehajm said...

The issue with a Sanders sacrifice is that Trump gets four more years when Ginsburg doesn't. There's a long game to be played here, too...

rehajm said...

...what Greg said...

Yancey Ward said...

I guess "popular vote winner" is out the window? What an obvious bunch of hypocrites.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

The trouble with Bernie being a sacrificial goat is that he might win. It's unlikely, but Trump could keel over at any moment. Happens to young guys all the time, and he's no spring chicken. Bernie vs Pence might not be a shoe-in for Pence.

Remember Bill Clinton ended up President because nobody well known wanted to run against Bush I..

tim maguire said...

Assuming Reid is talking about a floor fight at the convention to get 50% +1 of the delegates behind the nominee, it doesn't fix the problem that he is using as a wedge to take the nomination away from Bernie Sanders.

Because nothing that happens at the convention will change the fact (assuming present trends continue) that Sanders got more public votes than anybody else and whatever machinations they use to deprive him of the nomination will lead to the nomination of someone who got fewer votes than him.

rehajm said...

Harry is playing the role casual observer while setting the stage for a DNC takeover of the nomination in case the current rules need to be broken...

rehajm said...

The trouble with Bernie being a sacrificial goat is that he might win.

This, too. It might not take a Trump death to do it, either...

M Jordan said...

Two PredictIt’s markets are worth watching. In the “Which party will win presidency in 2020” Republicans have moved from being under by 10 to being up by almost 20 this morning. Big shift. Meanwhile the “Will Trump win the popular vote” market”, Trump is slowly eroding a big No. At the moment it’s risen from 22 to 43, 20+ gain.

The markets have looked around the corner and they see what’s been obvious to me for so,e time: Trump is going to win and win big.

Yancey Ward said...

If Sanders is a plurality winner with 25% of the delegates, then taking it from him might not have too much blowback, but that doesn't look like it is going to be the case- it more likely he is going to be above 40% of the delegates going into the convention if the present trend holds. In fact, he is all but certain to have a higher percentage of the pledged delegates than he will have percentage of the popular vote- he could easily win a majority of the pledged delegates with under 40% of the popular vote- I think there is a reasonable chance the party might move to take it from him even in that scenario.

rehajm said...

According to Nate, 'No one' is still favored to receive more than half of pledged delegates.

Jupiter said...

And the idiots who want Sanders to give them Bloomberg's money are not going to decide to settle down and get a low-paying but productive job just because he loses an election to Donald Trump.

J. Farmer said...

"from his office at the Bellagio in Las Vegas"

Says it all really. If you've ever seen Martin Scorsese's Casino, the gaming commission chairman identified as Harrison Roberts was based on Harry Reid.

Nonapod said...

those who are trying to shape the future of the Democratic Party might prefer to let Bernie Sanders take the nomination and then go on to fail and fail big. That way, the left-wing extreme takes the blame, the loss can be massaged into the argument that the socialist move is a proven disaster, and the liberal moderates can reclaim control.

This is the advice I would give the Democrat party (although I'm sure I would or will be accussed of concern trolling or whatever and my advice will be dismissed). At this point it seems unlikely that they're going to win no matter who they select*. So the question should be, who is the best person to lose with for the future of the party and its prospects for 2024 and the House and Senate.

*As things stand right now. I have one caveat though: There's a somewhat concerning problem with the longer term effects of Covid-19 potentially derailing the US economy and making Trump perhaps a bit more beatable come November

Anonymous said...

"Remember Bill Clinton ended up President because nobody well known wanted to run against Bush I.."

Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton was one of the greatest retail politicians of our age. None of the characters on the debate stage could shine his shoes.

rcocean said...

Bernie isn't "Extremist" and Buttigig, Warren, klochblob, and Biden are NOT moderate. In terms of actual policy they are all the same. They only differ on how to screw up the health care system. Bernie is just more honest - and not just in policy but in his personal life.

Take Buttigig, he has a husband and kisses him in public. Well, lets see that on TV. And Bloomberg should let the women he offended speak and he should release his tax returns.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Empire Strikes Back!

The Dem Empire, that is. They don't want Bernie to inherit the mantle passed down from Obama to Hillary.

However, if Bernie wins the nomination, I do not want to presume that Trump will win. It's still a 50-50 country, and will be a close election. Gotta fight for it.

Yancey Ward said...

Sanders isn't going to be weaponless, though- if the DNC moves to stop him at the convention, Sanders can go third party. That threat is real and meaningful.

gilbar said...

but! But! BUT!
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,
says that IF a Presidential Candidate gets 35% In the National Popular Vote;
they will be our President!!

You need a majority of voters to be the democrat nominee; but you won't for the Presidency?

I'm confused

Francisco D said...

"Pete Buttigieg, the shining new talent"

He has a talent that reminds me of a young Bill Clinton. He is a very glib liar.

Democrats need good liars because they have to disguise themselves to the mainstream public.

Ray said...

Since election 2000, when Ralph Nader probably cost Gore the election, the Democrat Party has been courting the extreme left. Like the Republicans with Christians, promising but never delivering their agenda. Because they depend on the energy of the extreme, the need to keep Bernie under the tent. But the threat of AOC and company taking over the party if Bernie is the nominee scares them also. Thus their dilemma. Too bad. So sad.

rcocean said...

People forget that we got stuck with McCain in 2008 because his 35% translated to a huge lead in delegates - forcing Romney and the others to drop out. Winner take all has its draw backs. It'd be interesting to see which Pols would strike a deal with each other. Looks like Amy and Buttigig will NOT team up, but what about Bernie and Butigig? Or Warren and Biden?

J. Farmer said...

Pat Buchanan covers some of this in Was the Debate Beat Down Fatal for Mayor Mike?

Bay Area Guy said...

@Yancey,

"Sanders can go third party. That threat is real and meaningful."

Totally, true. And, if Bernie does take the Dem nomination, Bloomy has the money to go third party, too.

Let's carve up that Democrat vote!

tcrosse said...

When it looked like Bernie had a shot in the 2016 Nevada caucuses, Harry Reid made a few phone calls to mobilize his foot soldiers and deliver for Hillary.

Achilles said...

Greg the class traitor said...

But, they can't do that, because that's writing off RBG's seat, and the Left's ability to advance the unconstitutional parts of their agenda pretty much go away with that loss


They still have Roberts and at least one of the other “conservatives” who went to Yale or Harvard will turn out to be just like Roberts.

gspencer said...

"from his [Reid's] office at the Bellagio in Las Vegas"

I guess he doesn't mind that the public at large knows that he's sooooo owned.

J. Farmer said...

Finally watched the debate this morning. I was actually pretty impressed by Klobuchar this go around. She was tough and aggressive and is far less annoying than Warren's hectoring schoolmarm. Although I am not exactly sure what she and Buttigieg thought they were accomplishing by going after each other.

stevew said...

My record of political prediction is horrifyingly bad, I'm sort of the Wrong Way Corrigan of predictions.

That said, I think our host is on the right track vis-a-vis the Democrat Party leadership and elite allowing Sanders to be the standard bearer in 2020. A sacrificial lamb, of sorts, whose loss also diminishes the stature of the far left faction.

Big Mike said...

And give him a clear run at the presidency in 2014, [sic] after Trump is gone and after the Democrats prove to themselves that Americans won't vote for left-wing extremism.

@Althouse, outside of being off by a decade you make two other mistakes. First, what do you propose Buttigieg do for the intervening four years to keep himself relevant? Get elected to Congress? Do you think he can beat Jackie Walorski this year or in 2022? Maybe you think he can beat Todd Young in 2022 and follow Barack Obama’s path of being a liberal extremist rookie senator and back-bencher to the Ehite House. Lords luck with that. ‘Cause first he has to beat Todd Young.

Your second blunder is assuming that Buttigieg is center-left. By the standards of the American center he’s an extremist. @Meade, please get her out of Madison so she realizes that Madison is not center-left but occupies a pretty extreme position.

Limited blogger said...

Today's headline is that Russia is again choosing our president... Trump.

It's been asked before, why isn't Russia choosing Berno?

rhhardin said...

Arrow's theorem says that there can be no fair election system. Meaning systems that satisfy all the fariness conditions you'd want to satisfy.

googles

In short, the theorem states that no rank-order electoral system can be designed that always satisfies these three "fairness" criteria:

1. If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.

2. If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group's preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters' preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).

3. There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group's preference.

Michael K said...

gspencer said...
"from his [Reid's] office at the Bellagio in Las Vegas"

I guess he doesn't mind that the public at large knows that he's sooooo owned.


Those who have not watched "The Godfather " are oblivious.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Dems are already making excuses for losing the next election, and Russian collusion is the main one.

Achilles said...

Yancey Ward said...
Sanders isn't going to be weaponless, though- if the DNC moves to stop him at the convention, Sanders can go third party. That threat is real and meaningful.

Sanders has never even mentioned this that I can recall in the last 20 years.

He has made it clear he does what the party tells him to. I am pretty sure his wife would be in jail for bank fraud if he didn’t do what the DOJ and his masters told him to do.

Michael K said...

It's been asked before, why isn't Russia choosing Berno?

Any Democrat that wants to ban fracking would qualify.

gilbar said...

First, what do you propose Buttigieg do for the intervening four years to keep himself relevant?

Yep, if he doesn't win the Presidency (or, at Least the nomination); he is nothing but an unemployed, 40 something, former mayor of a rundown town in a rundown state

Four years from now (ihdwtP(oaLtn), it will be: Pete WHO?

rehajm said...

Sanders can go third party. That threat is real and meaningful.

One- technically Bernie's already third party...two, if that's a real threat the DNC might game theory things and figure there's a non zero chance he doesn't go third party when the DNC brokers Hillary...I mean, whoever they eventually choose.

Christy said...

Althouse, I agree with the facts of what you say, but then recognize that the superdelegates are all down ticket candidates. Except AOC, who wants to ride on Bernie's coattails? Self interest will override putting party first.

rhhardin said...

So a complaint about violating one of the fairness conditions is invalid. Every system violates at least one of the fairness conditions.

Michael K said...

Ray said...
Since election 2000, when Ralph Nader probably cost Gore the election, the Democrat Party has been courting the extreme left. Like the Republicans with Christians, promising but never delivering their agenda


Good point. That might even explain a lot of what we see.

rehajm said...

Don't worry Ann, there are other Pete in the sea...

roger said...

"But, they can't do that, because that's writing off RBG's seat, and the Left's ability to advance the unconstitutional parts of their agenda pretty much go away with that loss."

I tend to agree. The Left operates cannot afford to lose more influence on SC since this is the platform from which they can impose all manner of manufactured rights and force the country into submission to their agenda.

On the other hand, it does not look as though there is not a candidate which can beat Trump in November.

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...
Although I am not exactly sure what she and Buttigieg thought they were accomplishing by going after each other.

They occupy the same lane.

Yancey Ward said...

"Bloomy has the money to go third party, too."

Bloomberg won't do this unless he can figure out a way draw far more Republicans to vote for him. I have been toying with the hypothesis, since his debate debacle, that Bloomberg might try a third party run where he is the VP candidate and Mitt Romney is the Presidential one- this would allow both men to self-finance their campaigns with the much richer Bloomberg funding most of it.

Bleachbitandhammer said...

The larger problem for the left (not a problem for the insiders) is the massive money machine that works to make insider Democrat politicians and their children vastly wealthy and the media’s blind eye to it all. The Democrat party is too far left certainty, but the moderates who power broker much oh the control (the Reid himself) and they will do anything to stay in power. That’s why Clinton inc never goes away.

Bay Area Guy said...

I don't wanna give the Dems any pointers, but they should take a look at the Dem Primary race in 1968. .

There, Sen Eugene McCarthy got 2.9 Million primary votes, and won 6 states. RFK, before he was tragically murdered, got 2.3 Million votes, and won 4 states.

VP Hubert Humphrey got ZERO votes and won ZERO states, because he opted to bypass the primaries. He jumped into the race 2 months before RFK was shot, so that wasn't the issue.

Well, VP Hubert Humphrey got the nomination, despite ZERO primary votes. That's how the system works. The 2.9 Million primary "votes" are mostly just suggestions. The Party picks the candidate, not the primary voters.

The Dems can use this historical precedent to screw Bernie. Free of charge.

mccullough said...

Bellagio Harry. He’s like a James Ellroy character. Probably one of the Mormons Howard Hughes paid for blood transfusions.

J. Farmer said...

@Big Mike:

Your second blunder is assuming that Buttigieg is center-left. By the standards of the American center he’s an extremist.

Have you seen the kind of support Medicare for All gets? Demographic change has been moving this country leftward for a while now. Trump didn't win the nomination by outflanking his opponents on the right. He won by going populist. Trump himself supported universal health coverage in his 2000 book The America We Deserve. The Democrats' economic policies (e.g. higher marginal tax rates, higher minimum wage) are relatively popular, but their open borders enthusiasm and identity politics aren't. Combine these with immigration restriction, a somewhat protectionist environment, and less interventionism abroad and you have a pretty winning formula. As I've said before, the real combo is to be fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

mccullough said...

Bernie is going to win it outright. We’re starting to see twitter points now about President Bernie will be fine, don’t worry, because he won’t be able to enact Medicare for All and The Green Deal without Congress and they aren’t as crazy as Bernie.

Next we’ll hear the Twitter point: don’t worry, The Deep State will thwart Bernie

mccullough said...

I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump said he’d sign off on Medicare for All if Immigration Laws are changed and enforced.

Lyle said...

AOC is a variable you need to account for. She isn't going away and will Trumpette the Democrat party in time.

rhhardin said...

Gresham Lecture (with pdf handouts) on voting systems
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/maths-and-voting

Browndog said...

This is right up Bernie's ally:

Gavin Newsom
‏Verified account @GavinNewsom

Doctors should be able to write prescriptions for housing the same way they do for insulin or antibiotics.

J. Farmer said...

I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump said he’d sign off on Medicare for All if Immigration Laws are changed and enforced.

I'd make that deal in a heartbeat.

Bay Area Guy said...

Wall St. Journal -- Dem candidates short on cash.

Money grafs (no pun intended):

While billionaire Michael Bloomberg is already spending about $156 million on TV and radio ads across the 14 states that weigh in on March 3, neither former Vice President Joe Biden nor former Mayor Pete Buttigieg had invested in a single Super Tuesday commercial as of Thursday night, according to ad tracker Kantar/CMAG.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren combined have put less than $2 million into Super Tuesday ads. Of the six candidates in Wednesday’s Democratic debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders is the only nonbillionaire with a major paid-media presence in those states, with $11 million in ads.


Super Tuesday has 14 states, including massive ad markets in Cal & Tex.

It doesn't take a political campaign wizard to point out, that if YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY TO ADVERTISE ON SUPER TUESDAY, YOU ARE TOAST!

It's Bernie all the way, unless Bloomy can spend a fortune to stop him. Then, look out for (per Yancey) a possible Romney-Bloomy Independent run.

This is a lot of fun! However, it would not be fun, if ever socialist Sanders got the levers of power.

TreeJoe said...

Harry Reid's position perfectly encapsulates the soul of the democratic party for at least several decades now:

If the system doesn't deliver the outcome we want, we will change the system.

The foundation of america was that the system itself needed to be durable and just - and even though it would occasionally deliver unfavorable outcomes, the system would self-adjust.

The fact a recent senate majority leader for a major party doesn't think this way is a dangerous form of extremism. It's why they will suppress free speech, suppress due process, suppress any and all processes and rights in an effort to secure a desired outcome.

What a damning article presented as if it's no big deal.

J. Farmer said...

Gavin Newsom
‏Verified account @GavinNewsom

Doctors should be able to write prescriptions for housing the same way they do for insulin or antibiotics.


And just wait when the whole US has the demographics of California.

Curious George said...

There are too few moderate Democrats to take control of the Party regardless of who ends up being the nominee, and loses to Trump. That ship has sailed. The GOP, other than GOPe assholes like Chuck, see the path to victory by peeling of blue collar Democrats and blacks and Hispanics that have a brain. As far as "And let's say that convention picks Pete Buttigieg, the shining new talent..." he's no talent. And no moderate. He's a mayor of a Deep Blue town, and he can't get the black vote needed. His only talent to the lefties is that he's gay.

Temujin said...

I tend to agree with Harry Reid. I've never said that before.

Anyway- if they let it play out and Bernie has it 'taken' from him, the howls will be loud, violent, and the pain will permeate and last for years in that party.

If they let the largest delegate holder to take it (Bernie), he'll become the new McGovern.

If you're counting on Petey to be there in 2024, it's not a sure thing. He might not even be reelected as mayor of South Bend, IN. Not an impressive showing.

Plus, Stacey Abrams has announced that she has to be selected as VP this time and certainly thinks she's owed the Presidency in 2024 because...because. She'll raise hell if they look past her for Petey. Or any white guy.

Dems are not in a good place right now. They've nurtured zaniness for years. It is, as a famous actual activist once said, their chickens coming home to roost.

Jersey Fled said...

Trump is now at 50% approval at Gallop. Nobody is going to beat him anyway.

Incidentally, Congress is at 23%. Nice work, Nancy.

Yancey Ward said...

Gavin Newsom
‏Verified account @GavinNewsom

Doctors should be able to write prescriptions for housing the same way they do for insulin or antibiotics.


I wonder how many homeless the California Governor's Mansion will take?

MadTownGuy said...

I'm more concerned that Pete Buttigieg will be the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

mccullough said...

Harry was a bottom line politician just like McConnell.

The guy and his family amassed a fortune while in public office and none of them were ever indicted.

They should probably rename the Strip for him

Yancey Ward said...

On advertising- I saw my first televised Bernie Sanders ad last night here in Tennessee- it either ran during "Grey's Anatomy" or "Young Sheldon", and like ran during the local station ad time, though not certain of this.

Big Mike said...

Have you seen the kind of support Medicare for All gets? Demographic change has been moving this country leftward for a while now.

I could almost care what sort of support it gets. Intelligent people — including me but definitely excluding you — note that Medicare limits the compensation received by healthcare practitioners, in many cases (thankfully not all) to less than the cost of delivering that healthcare. This is why many doctors refuse Medicare patients. Whatever you and Buttigieg think Medicare for All means, Warren let slip that it means healthcare rationing. As a septuagenarian I am clearly going to be opposed to healthcare rationing. Althouse is approaching her seventies herself; it would be great if her much-better-than-average brain would tell her emotions to shut up and look at her political stances from the perspective of her intelligence and not her emotions.

mccullough said...

I have no problem rationing the healthcare of old people.

mockturtle said...

And let's say that convention picks Pete Buttigieg, the shining new talent.

'Shining new talent'. Just as I said the other night, politics for our hostess is just like watching American Idol. It's talent, not policies, that matter.

Automatic_Wing said...

Talking about brokered conventions is part of the "bargaining phase" for grief stricken politicos. Bernie is going to go to the convention with a yuge majority of pledged delegates.

mccullough said...

How much did the taxpayer pay for McCain’s last year of life? For Bernie’s heart attack?

For Ginsburgs multiple health problems?

It’s fucking nuts to spend as much as we do on old people.

ga6 said...

"First, what do you propose Buttigieg do for the intervening four years to keep himself relevant?"

He and his husband move about 100 miles west and fifty miles north..buy a condo just north and west of Boys Town and takeover Jan Jan Schakowsky's congressional seat. One commie for another,the citizens would welcome him with open arms..

Limited blogger said...

Fun weekend to be in Vegas. NASCAR race is there as well.

howdydoody said...

Now that it looks very possible, even likely, that Sanders will get the nomination, I am very afraid that he will win. If that happens, it will truly be a disaster. Economically, we will have another great depression with companies going bankrupt, and millions losing their jobs and homes. The military will be decimated. In foreign policy, we will lose almost all of our capacity to influence events. I guess I am naive, but I simply cannot understand how someone who has a good job and loves this country can vote for the guy.

Kevin said...

And give him a clear run at the presidency in 2014, after Trump is gone and after the Democrats prove to themselves that Americans won't vote for left-wing extremism.

Fantastic idea. If we were dealing with rational people.

The Democrats are not a party, but a coalition.

The idea that part of the coalition can be extinguished for the good of the whole does not compute.

And after Trump is gone, what common enemy unties them?

Dude1394 said...

You are incorrectly assuming the democrat party is moderate and not radically left-wing. The condoning of antifa, the use of a corrupt DOJ/FBI and their cheering for it, open borders tells me they are corrupt and just as radical as Bernie. That is it's trajectory.

Yancey Ward said...

Aunty Trump wrote:

"Talking about brokered conventions is part of the "bargaining phase" for grief stricken politicos."

While I am still not convinced Sanders is going to be the nominee, I do agree with your sentiment here- it is very similar to what the GOP elite were doing in late March of 2016.

Kevin said...

PowerPoint Pete isn't going to age well.

PowerPoint will be even less attractive to voters in 2024.

Jersey Fled said...

Mayor Pete is Beto 2.0

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Wouldn't sore loser rules keep both Sanders and Bloomberg from running as a third-party candidate?

ga6 said...

Additional thought After getting Jan'seat he runs for Dickie Durbin's senate seat...Set for life...

J. Farmer said...

@Big Mike:

I could almost care what sort of support it gets. Intelligent people — including me but definitely excluding you — note that

It's sad that in your 70+ years of life you never learned the difference between describing something and advocating for it.

Freeman Hunt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Limited blogger said...

Pete's smart ass response was something like "...I'm a WORD guy...". Meaning another component of the Microsoft OFfice suite.

Are you sure this guy was a McKinnsey consultant?

Kevin said...

The reality is the political landscape is going through a great realignment. There are no more Democrats and Republicans.

There are the Global Socialists lead by Sanders and AOC, and the American Nationalists lead by Trump and TBD.

Has been so for quite some time. The choices are just becoming more clearly-defined.

mccullough said...

Mayor Pete has some game. I don’t like technocrats because they are very smart stupid people.

But Pete has very good political skills.

Inga said...

“@Meade, please get her out of Madison so she realizes that Madison is not center-left but occupies a pretty extreme position.”

“Althouse is approaching her seventies herself; it would be great if her much-better-than-average brain would tell her emotions to shut up and look at her political stances from the perspective of her intelligence and not her emotions.”

What a condescending jerky thing to say. Do you think Meade has control over Althouse? She loves living in Madison, where should she live so she could see as clearly as you with your feeble eyes? Maybe you should tell your dementia to shut up, because that’s what seems to be driving your brain.

Static Ping said...

Everything Harry Reid says is in bad faith, and I do mean everything.

Buttigieg is not a moderate. The closest they have to a moderate is Bloomberg and he has authoritarian tendencies. Gabbard is a moderate but they hate her.

I suppose on a technical level, the candidate with the plurality is not required to be awarded the nomination, but good luck with that.

Browndog said...

If you base the degree of how left-wing the democrat party is based on their public rhetoric you're a fool.

What do they want to do? What would they do if they could?

These are the questions you should ask yourself, if you dare.

JPS said...

rehajm,

"if that's a real threat the DNC might game theory things and figure there's a non zero chance he doesn't go third party when the DNC brokers Hillary."

Can you imagine how angry Sanders' supporters would be? But I bet some Dem power-brokers would absolutely draft Hillary if they thought they could pull it off without fracturing the party's vote.

Remember, Democrats: She won three million more votes! A little tweaking of electoral strategy, a little more vigilance against Russian Election Interference (and the NYT is already on the case), and restoration is yours.

DavidUW said...

In the intervening 4 years, Pete will carpetbag to some Dem congressional district anywhere in the country he can in order to keep warm till 2024. He’ll still fail the next time around. Just look at the reaction of the Iowa Democrat caucus goer when she finally learned he was gay married.

mccullough said...

Bernie may still be a nationalist. He was against illegal immigration for sound reasons until very recently. The Intersectional Grievance Studies stuff is not really his thing either.

I agree AOC is anti American. She wants to turn the US into a third world shithole pronto.

Ann Althouse said...

“ First, what do you propose Buttigieg do for the intervening four years to keep himself relevant?”

This is something Meade and I have talked about a lot. It’s my main reservation in thinking about what Democrats might want to do.

I’m not in the position of advising them.

And I think there is a real danger of Sanders getting elected. Play that old “Donald Trump is not going to be President “ montage and think “ Bernie Sanders.”

It could happen.

Amexpat said...

There's a lot of sound reasoning in Althouse's post. But the general consensus in 2016 was that Trump would get trounced in the general election. If that occurred, establishment Republicans would have regained control of the party. Instead, the GOP has now become Trump's party.

While unlikely, there's no guarantee that Bernie wouldn't win. If he did, he and the AOC generation would transform the Democratic party. A possible upside to that would be the creation of a new mainstream moderate party.

Jersey Fled said...

The far left and the center left can't continue in the same party. It's going to take more than identity politics to keep them together. It is inevitable that by 2024 there will be a split and a third party.

Because of Trump, the Republican party is now the populist party. It's pretty clear there will be a far left Socialist party, based purely on ideology. Where will the old school Democrats go?

howdydoody said...

Ann said:

"And I think there is a real danger of Sanders getting elected. Play that old “Donald Trump is not going to be President “ montage and think “Bernie Sanders.”

"It could happen."

This. But the results this time would truly be terrifying.

mccullough said...

Why “danger” instead of “chance of Sanders getting elected”!

I agree it’s possible. I think if Trump loses he’d be the least pissed if he lost to Bernie. My preference if Trump loses is that it is Bernie who wins.

mccullough said...

I’d prefer Bernie to the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama bullshit.

Curious George said...

"Inga said...
What a condescending jerky thing to say. Do you think Meade has control over Althouse? She loves living in Madison, where should she live so she could see as clearly as you with your feeble eyes? Maybe you should tell your dementia to shut up, because that’s what seems to be driving your brain."

Yep, that fucking bitch has a mind of her own. Right Inga?

tommyesq said...

Pete Buttigieg, the shining new talent

Not sure about this one - while I think he did pretty well this last debate, if he loses (and is not the VEEP pick for the Dem nominee) he goes back to being the ex-mayor of a small town in Indiana - in other words, out of the public eye, unlike the senators who will keep being senators. Unless he takes a talking head gig, he may well be forgotten by 2020. If he does take a talking head gig, I am not sure anyone has transitioned from that back to high elected office?

Limited blogger said...

Fonzie just went by on water skis.

mccullough said...

The old school Dems are dying. They are old. Joe Biden was elected the year I was born and I’m almost 50. The shit he says now to pander is unbelievable.

I doubt most people know who Dick Gephardt or Tip O’Neill were. No one knows who Scoop Jackson is.

Curious George said...

"Ann Althouse said...
And I think there is a real danger of Sanders getting elected."

In your mind what's the danger?

Jersey Fled said...

Pete never had a high elected office to go back to.

tommyesq said...

I was actually pretty impressed by Klobuchar this go around. She was tough and aggressive and is far less annoying than Warren's hectoring schoolmarm. Although I am not exactly sure what she and Buttigieg thought they were accomplishing by going after each other.

I really felt that Buttigieg and Klobuchar were effectively debating each other to become the VEEP nominee. They are not super-old and provide a midwestern compliment to the octogenarian east-coasters still in the race, and probably don't want to Mondale themselves in this election.

mccullough said...

Mayor Pete could revive the Apprentice. He’s the only one of the Dems who would have won as a contestant.

The Dem primaries are basically The Apprentice: Political Edition. Trump’s fingerprints are all over it. It’s like he finagled a spot for Bloomberg at the Senate because the show was getting boring. And now the ratings are gold.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

The Democratic Party could run the rotting corpse of Vladimir Lenin and would win California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, ....

Within the margin of fraud and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, Lenin's Corpse could take the 2020 General Election.

Jersey Fled said...

Quick. Who was Walter Mondale's running mate? Same for Pete or Amy if they ran for VP.

NMObjectivist said...

Scott Adams has an internesting idea on liberal and conservative thinking on his periscope on 2/20/20.

He says this:
Conservatives use goal systems -- a set of rules that leads to a good result and that ends disputes. Liberals want fair results but fair is subjective and can never be satisfactory to all or even sometimes to a majority. This seems like an accurate analysis.

DarkHelmet said...

Sanders is a socialist. Buttigieg is a crypto-socialist. The Fake Indian is a wanna-be socialist. Biden can't remember if he's a socialist.

So far only Bloomberg has stood up to the socialist wing. And he took a beating for it. It won't be easy to turn the Dems away from their current socialist bent. Sanders losing bigly to Trump this year would help, but the amazing thing about socialists is that they are impervious to market signals. Kind of goes with the territory. They don't believe in the 'wisdom of crowds' however much they pretend to champion 'the people.'

So don't count on a post-defeat moderation of the Dem party.

mccullough said...

Mayor Pete has bested Angry Amy in Iowa and New Hampshire. She’s trying to bump him into the wall.

She’s pissed because a Mayor Pete is better at the A Student stuff. Which was her schtick.

Mayor Pete was a big fish in a small pond who has shown he can play at a high level. Klobuchar is a big fish in a small frozen pond in Northern Minnesota. She can brag about winning all her Minnesota elections. That’s utterly fucking pointless now.

Mayor Pete is 2-0 vs Klobuchar and Warren and Biden. The Centrists. The DC Establishment,

Mayor Pete isn’t one of Angry Amy’s staffers or her hen-pecked, sackless husband.


Bay Area Guy said...

It's basically a 50-50 country. In 2016, Hillary got 66 Million votes, Trump 63 Million.

If Bernie is the Dem nominee, he starts with a big chunk of those 66 Million Hillary votes.

We're not gonna have McGovern-esque blow-outs anymore, because there aren't too many conservative Dem voters any more. At best, Trump can win 52-48. I think that's his ceiling.

Bottom line: It will be close election, and, Yes, Bernie could win.

No getting cocky. Trump is doing fine, but he's still in for a big fight, regardless of the Dem circular firing squad.

Bruce Hayden said...

“ Harry Reid's position perfectly encapsulates the soul of the democratic party for at least several decades now:”

Funny thing is that Dingy Harry Reid wasn’t always like this. Growing up, my partner’s family would get together with other somewhat large (5 kids), mostly Mormon, families in Las Vegas (or thereabouts - they lived in Henderson). Reid was still practicing law then, and was somewhat close to her father’s best friend, who would go onto the NV Supreme Court. But this was back when they all had small kids, and the kids would all play together. She remembers the Reid kids, a little younger than her family, as a horde of tow heads. And one of the ended up in the firm I was in in NV. Actually, one of them ended up in the top four firms in the state, with the youngest working as an in-house attorney. And surprise, surprise, most, if not all, ended up in government relations (and lobbying). The one in our firm was one of the most popular attorneys in our firm in NV. He and I used to joke about our fathers being attorneys, and that we had gone into the business. Plus, he had a firm box at the minor league baseball stadium that we could use, when he wasn't entertaining clients there. Free booze (yes, he is LDS) and catered food a couple times a year. What’s not to like. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the only time you would see his aggression come out was when he was defending his father. Very protective. Probably all five kids were the same.

stlcdr said...

Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
...
Well, VP Hubert Humphrey got the nomination, despite ZERO primary votes. That's how the system works. The 2.9 Million primary "votes" are mostly just suggestions. The Party picks the candidate, not the primary voters.

The Dems can use this historical precedent to screw Bernie. Free of charge.

2/21/20, 11:10 AM


I'm still trying to make head or tails of the DNC process. Everything I see now is a waste of time, and purely used to judge the proletariat response to certain people/policies. The DNC committee will make the decision.

Just seems crazy that these people tolerate such corrupted rules.

MadisonMan said...

Who was Walter Mondale's running mate?

Ferraro. A big reason I didn't vote for him. She seemed completely corrupt to me.

MadisonMan said...

BTW -- Shout out to Steve Scalise for winning Twitter yesterday/today.

(Link)

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Bernie can avoid this problem by winning a majority. If he only gets a plurality but his voters are as loyal as they say they are, then no deal can be made without him that has any hope of winning the general election. Bernie has a veto.

So this is Bernie's problem, not the Democratic Party's problem. The Democratic Party's problem is what happens if a different candidate, such as Bloomberg, get's a plurality. Because Bernie still has a veto.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Buttigieg v. Pence in 2024, an Indiana shootout, Hoosier against Hoosier.

Sally327 said...

There's been one caucus and one primary and people are already thinking ahead to the convention and beyond that to 2024. That seems odd.

If (former) Mayor Pete is the shining new talent for the Democrats, the Republicans have much to look forward to.

Limited blogger said...

Comment overheard a year or so into the Sander's presidency.....

"Man, remember how good the Obama years were?"

Ken B said...

I maintain that any major party nominee has a decent chance of winning. Wars happen, strokes happen, crashes happen. So whilst my inner Machiavelli agrees that Sanders would be a great pick, my conscience won’t allow me to hope that happens. A big Sanders loss would be good for the country, but a fluke Sanders win would not.

I hope they pick someone not yet running, who is sane, in convention. That is unlikely, so so far I rank them Bloomberg, Klobuchar, civil war, Buttigieg, Biden, Warren, Sanders.

NMObjectivist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Ken B:

Which Democrat would you be happy with getting the nomination?

The Vault Dweller said...

This feels like the chickens coming home to roost. For years the Democrats (meaning the party and the upper-party muckety mucks) have been successful in selling to the hoi polloi that they are against the big money wallstreet types and care about those without. They railed against the millionaires and billionaires but so long as your weren't icky oil and natural gas you were ok. Now with Bernie Sanders instead of the normal emotionally manipulative sociopath, they get an emotionally manipulative earnest believer and they are scared.

NMObjectivist said...

If the Democrats want to fix their left wing problem they should nominate Sanders and let him lose big to Trump. And Sanders will lose big.
Then the Democrats can regroup with more moderate leaders. Word to the wise.

mccullough said...

I don’t see Sanders being worse than any of the other Dems. He’s certainly not a swamp rat and Hillary hates him.

The wealthy in this country are progressive about stuff that is either minor league social issues or economic issues like illegal immigration that they get benefits from but don’t bear the brunt of.

If Bernie wants to take their money, fuck them. Go for it. Let them go cry to Brett Kavanaugh to save them.

Bay Area Guy said...

"I'm still trying to make head or tails of the DNC process."

Not an expert on the process, but the origin of the confusion is the primary votes, which people mistakenly think are comparable to real votes in the general election. They are not.

The Democrat Party could abolish primaries tomorrow, and simply pick a candidate at their convention. Through their incompetence in Iowa, and likely trainwreck in Nevada, they probably should abolish caucuses, since nobody understands them.


DanTheMan said...

>>Doctors should be able to write prescriptions for housing the same way they do for insulin or antibiotics.

Sure. Why not? And mandate a $5 copay when you fill that script, too.

rehajm said...

Everything I see now is a waste of time, and purely used to judge the proletariat response to certain people/policies.

Primaries and caucuses are political party contrivances. They can be whatever the parties want them to be...

Otto said...

"Pete Buttigieg, the shining new talent." There is a thrill going up Ann's pants, finally a gay.
Sorry Ann, Trump got you again - Grenell first gay cabinet member.

tommyesq said...

Which Democrat would you be happy with getting the nomination?

Not directed at me, but I would prefer Bloomberg - he is the only one that doesn't want to radically reshape the country's economy.

Achilles said...


"Ann Althouse said...
And I think there is a real danger of Sanders getting elected."

Sanders would beat a Romney or a bush.

He can’t beat Trump.

Trump is the first president in decades who has done exactly what he said he wanted to do. The only republicans who didn’t vote for trump in 2016 thought he was going to be a Democrat.

Trump is going to set records for positive votes.

The only thing Democrats have now are the 50 or so counties that have 140+% of their legal population voting.

Bruce Hayden said...

What I see very possibly happening this time around is for the Dems to get into a brokered convention, with Bernie failing to get above 50% of the delegates going in. Then, if he doesn’t win on the first ballot, which he probably won’t get if he doesn’t come in with over 50% of the delegates, the Superdelegates would be unleashed. And, absent other concerns, are likely to give him the back of their hands. I think that their best move would be to nominate Mini Mike. But I can see giving Crooked Hillary another chance being attractive too - I expect, as many others here probably do, that she has been working this for all she is worth, trying to influence as many of the Superdelegates as she can to her benefit.

I see Bernie doing better than Clinton could if she got the nomination again. First, a lot of his Bernie Bros are not going to sit out the election, if he is the nominee as they no doubt do if anyone else gets the nomination, and esp Crooked Hillary who screwed their candidate out of the nomination last time around. A second time around, and many of them will just take their marbles home, and sit out the election, if they don’t vote for Trump in spite. A lot of Bernie Bros out there. The other thing is that it is now personal with Trump. Thanks to Clinton’s cheating, he has faced four years of hardship, as the Obama people, along with their Deep State confederates, have worked diligently trying to destroy his presidency. We will get constant chants to “lock her up”, as well as attacks on her physical ability to perform as President, likely being hit every time she stumbles or isn’t doing a lot of rallies (that she isn’t good at anyway). I would almost expect that the pace he would force on her would kill her, before she could be elected.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Trump and the Republicans are significantly out raising the Democrats this year, and esp at the national level. Crooked Hillary probably isn’t going to be able to help there. That means that their best move is with Mini Mike Bloomberg. Sanders might be able to bribe Bloomberg with power of some sort. Or maybe visa versa. Won’t work with Crooked Hillary. She doesn’t want a cabinet post - she has already been there, done that. The only thing that she wants is the top job, and the Bernie Bros wouldn’t e happy with that.

traditionalguy said...

The Professor is spot on, but she is educating the stuck on stupid Dems. Please stop.

n.n said...

Trump got you again - Grenell first gay cabinet member.

Obama had a trans/homosexual ambassador, until he was abandoned, sodomized, and aborted in the street.

Yancey Ward said...

I am the same on Bloomberg- the only sane and competent candidate on that stage Wednesday night. But I wouldn't think of voting for him.

Achilles said...

Ken B said...

I hope they pick someone not yet running, who is sane, in convention. That is unlikely, so so far I rank them Bloomberg, Klobuchar, civil war, Buttigieg, Biden, Warren, Sanders.

Bloomberg and kolbuchar are both pushing openly for gun confiscation.

You put civil war too far down the list.

Real American said...

These Democrats are so convinced that Trump will lose that they see the nomination as a sure ticket to the presidency. They're too blinded by their hatred to see reality that Trump is gaining momentum towards reelection. They live in little lefist bubbles that won't let them see it.

But Bernie isn't truly one of them, either. They're all pretty much in agreement on big government leftism and social justice BS. The argument is over how much to reveal to Americans. Bernie reveals too much, so he can't be allowed to be the candidate because he might blow their big chance to beat Trump. They don't want Bernie to take the fall. They want to win and think anyone but Bernie will because Bernie is like Mondale. He says the quiet part out loud.

MBunge said...

These brokered convention fantasies always fail to consider that for it to come true, you've got to have AT LEAST three viable candidates make it to the convention. That means you've got to have AT LEAST three people winning delegates all the way through the process.

There will still be about 60% of the delegates left after Super Tuesday. If Bernie comes out with the delegate lead after Super Tuesday, he's the front runner and basically everyone except Bloomberg is going to be dead. Then it's Bernie vs. Bloomberg head-to-head with one of them (probably Bernie) winning more than 50% of the delegates every time.

So, it's not like Bernie will walk into the convention with 35% of the available delegates. He'll probably have about at least 45% or more, with Bloomberg having less, and the rest scattered among Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar, Warren, etc. If Bernie has won 80% of the primaries and has 45% of the delegates, you're not denying him the nomination without violence on the convention floor.

The brokered convention fantasy only works if there's AT LEAST one other candidate campaigning and picking up delegates along the way. Who is that going to be? I can see Bloomberg basically paying someone else to stay in the race...but who is going to keep voting for them?

Miie

FullMoon said...

Have you seen the kind of support Medicare for All gets? Demographic change has been moving this country leftward for a while now. Trump didn't win the nomination by outflanking his opponents on the right. He won by going populist. Trump himself supported universal health coverage in his 2000 book The America We Deserve.

If I was young and broke and ignorant,I would vote for Bernie in a heartbeat. Never thought about medical insurance at all back then, though.

Medi-Care for all gonna be even more popular once this idea gets mainstreamed on the left:
"Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom gave his State of the State address on Wednesday to a joint session of the California Legislature and told the predominantly controlled by Democrats body that of a new proposal that would allow doctors to write out prescriptions for housing as part of a five-point plan to combat California’s homelessness situation.

Newsom proposed a “once-in-a-generation” Medi-Cal reform, which includes a $695 million budget request, according to Newsom's speech and the Sacramento Bee.

“Health care and housing can no longer be divorced. After all, what’s more fundamental to a person’s well-being than a roof over their head?” Newsom said during his speech. “Doctors should be able to write prescriptions for housing the same way they do for insulin or antibiotics.”

By the way, the proposal referenced above kinda supports this other Newsom statement
“ten million Californians, one in four, suffer from some type of behavioral health condition.”

Gospace said...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...
Wouldn't sore loser rules keep both Sanders and Bloomberg from running as a third-party candidate?


Not all states have them. The only one I'm sure of is WV.

AllenS said...

Crazy Bernie will never win the race for the Presidency. Never, so stop the crazy talk. The Democrats are a fucking mess, and that's all there is to it. It's that simple.

Spiros Pappas said...

The guy with 20% of the delegates should get the nomination instead?

Inga said...

“Yep, that fucking bitch has a mind of her own. Right Inga?”

This coming from someone who has called Althouse stupid on numerous occasions and just a few days ago called her son JAC an idiot. The dumb monkey, pot calling the kettle black.

Achilles said...

AllenS said...
Crazy Bernie will never win the race for the Presidency. Never, so stop the crazy talk. The Democrats are a fucking mess, and that's all there is to it. It's that simple.

Bernie would have beaten Romney. Or Rubio. Or Cruz. Or Ryan. Or McCain. Or Dole. Or Bush. Or Bush.

People on the right forget how pathetic the Republican Party was since Reagan and really before Reagan.

Freder Frederson said...

When Trump attempts to privatize Social Security and guts Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA with absolutely nothing to replace it, maybe the country will embrace what you call "left wing extremism".

Trump is the first president in decades who has done exactly what he said he wanted to do.

Just because he claims he has done exactly what he wanted to do doesn't mean he actually has. He didn't repeal and replace Obamacare with something "even better". He claimed he was going to stick it to hedge fund managers with tax reform--didn't happen. The new NAFTA is not that much different than the "worst deal ever made". The economy is not growing at "4, 5 or even 6%", it is humming along at the same rate as Obama's last term and job growth has actually slowed. He has moved on from North Korea with no agreement in site. We still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh yeah, he also claimed he was going to eliminate the deficit in 8 years. He has only increased it.

Dave in Tucson said...

> let Bernie Sanders take the nomination and then go on to fail and fail big.

True Bernie Sanders has never been tried.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

Moar popcorn!

Michael said...

The Dems problem is down-ticket. If Bernie craters and drags the House and Senate down with him, Obama may have been Peak Left for a very long time. Fine with me, but...

narciso said...

Could romney or rockefeller have beaten mcgovern, thats not at all clear.

Achilles said...

Inga said...
“Yep, that fucking bitch has a mind of her own. Right Inga?”

This coming from someone who has called Althouse stupid on numerous occasions and just a few days ago called her son JAC an idiot. The dumb monkey, pot calling the kettle black.

Thank you for the perspective of the average leftist.

People need to be reminded that you make calculations minute to minute based on what will give you the most power and that you don’t have a single principle outside of that that you remember for more than 15 minutes.

History starts over for Inga again. And again... and again...

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

"When Trump attempts to privatize Social Security and guts Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA with absolutely nothing to replace it, maybe the country will embrace what you call "left wing extremism".

Reminds me of the novel The Sirens of Titan. "When the army of straw men get around to invading, then they will need us! Then we will be united!” Maybe it reminds me more of Of Mice and Men: “Tell me again about the rabbits, George."

Limited blogger said...

Does 'privatizing' SS mean I choose how my money is invested?

Bring it on!

FullMoon said...

When Trump attempts to privatize Social Security and guts Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA with absolutely nothing to replace it, maybe the country will embrace what you call "left wing extremism".

Sure. He been working day and night to take away your SS and MediCare. Just like every Republican President before him.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

Many Sanders supporters will take half a loaf, which is Trump, rather than line up behind a Bloomberg who has bought the nomination for ready cash. That’s my prediction, anyway.

narciso said...


Same old song


http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=19893

Jim Gust said...

The trouble with Bernie at the top is not just down ticket for federal offices, state offices might be more likely to go GOP as well. This could have a huge impact on redistricting.

The Democrats are already so short on talent that most of their potential candidates for President are 70+. This problem get much worse as the GOP captures more statehouses and governorships.

Limited blogger said...

As mentioned by folks before, only 5 incumbents have ever lost re-election.

Inga said...

“And let's say that convention picks Pete Buttigieg, the shining new talent. Then, he'd be ruined for 2024. Save him. Let him age for 4 years. And give him a clear run at the presidency in 2024, after Trump is gone and after the Democrats prove to themselves that Americans won't vote for left-wing extremism.”

Let’s see if Buttigieg can get himself elected to Congress, then he can run for President in 2032, after Sander’s VP is gone. I doubt Sanders could serve for two terms, but you never know, he’s pretty sharp. Warren is a lively, strong intelligent woman who could step into Sanders shoes easily, if need be. America has voted for Trumpism, left wing extremism of the Sanders sort, will be much better for the US and the rule of law.

narciso said...


Fwiw

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/february-national-poll-sanders-takes-the-lead-for-democratic-nomination-bloomberg-on-the-rise

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seeing Red said...

Via Insty:

In a Quinnipiac survey of registered voters released Thursday, Trump beats all of the major 2020 Democratic contenders in the key state of Wisconsin by between 7 and 11 percentage points, with frontrunner Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) seven points away from Trump in the state.

IF the demonic convention goes south and Bernie Bro Thugs run rampant, it might be no contest in WI.

Plus, via Lucianne:

Parents are suing a Wisconsin school district for adopting a policy that allows students of any age to transition to a different gender and use a different name while at school without parental notice or consent. The policy, according to the religious-liberty law firm Alliance Defending Freedom, prevents school officials from communicating about the child’s choice to transition with parents if the student does not consent. The parents charge that the school’s policy violates their parental rights, usurping the upbringing of their children under Wisconsin law. “Many mental health and psychiatric professionals believe that children with gender dysphoria should not immediately transition....


Just like abortion and birth control.

Inga said...

“Many Sanders supporters will take half a loaf, which is Trump, rather than line up behind a Bloomberg who has bought the nomination for ready cash. That’s my prediction, anyway.”

And it’s wrong. Many Democrats support Sanders, not just the extreme lefties. No Democrats including myself would vote for Trump over Bloomberg. Bloomberg may be a billionaire and a Trump mini me in some ways, but precious few Democrats will be voting for Trump. Whoever gets the Dem nomination, Dems will be voting Dem this time around. No third party voting in any significant numbers. All the heavy breathing about Democrats supposedly going to Trump rallies and supporting Trump is bogus, as is the silly Walk Away nonsense which has been proven to be propaganda.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

"And it’s wrong. Many Democrats support Sanders, not just the extreme lefties.”

How many Sanders supporters do you know personally? All of them? I happen to know some of them, and I seriously doubt that I know the only ones in the whole country who think like that.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

"No Democrats including myself would vote for Trump over Bloomberg.”

Have you ever taken an introductory philosophy course? No? I thought not, because otherwise you would be a lot more circumspect in declaring an absolute negative like that.

Limited blogger said...

What are the Bernie Bros saying about commissar Sanders owning 3 houses?

Especially the 'summer camp' he owns like thousands of Vermonters? (I see it was bought for 1/2 million dollars; not sure current value)

Drago said...

Field Marshall Freder: "When Trump attempts to privatize Social Security and guts Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA with absolutely nothing to replace it, maybe the country will embrace what you call "left wing extremism"."

LOLOLOL

Things are not going well for our lefties/LLR-lefties these days, are they?

They have all gone over the Adam Schiff-ty Cliff and are just making it all up 100% of the time now.

They couldn't even get Jake Tapper to bite on Russia Collusion 7.0 and Ukraine Hoax 3.0!!

And that was all in the last 72 hours!

So. Much. Winning.

J. Farmer said...

When Trump attempts to privatize Social Security...

Back in 2005, Bush was pushing just a partial privatization of Social Security and went on a national tour in support of the proposal. It was almost immediately smacked down by voters. And that was with a Republican-controlled House and Senate.

J. Farmer said...

So. Much. Winning.

And still losing the war.

MikeR said...

Why do they do this nonsense? Do a simultaneous nationwide primary, with a runoff for the top two finishers. Isn't that what everyone does when you might have a lot of contenders for something? It just doesn't make any sense that it matters which states vote first.

Drago said...

Admiral Inga: "No Democrats including myself would vote for Trump over Bloomberg."

LOL

Krystal Ball was touting polls that showed anywhere from 18% to 30% of Sanders supporters would vote for Trump if Sanders is screwed out of the nomination AGAIN!

Unlike Inga, there are some voters from the populist left/Dem side that will not accept being played for chumps over and over again.

Inga seems to enjoy it though.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

I’m sorry that you voted for Jill Stein in a swing state that Trump narrowly carried, Inga. But as they say in the cop movies, you are letting personal issues affect your judgement.

Seeing Red said...

Ok what’s the difference between gutting Medicare and denying me treatment -Death panels- when I’m on Medicare which I still have to pay for?

My Medicare is being gutted since I’m not getting what I paid for.

Inga said...

“Via Insty:

In a Quinnipiac survey of registered voters released Thursday, Trump beats all of the major 2020 Democratic contenders in the key state of Wisconsin by between 7 and 11 percentage points, with frontrunner Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) seven points away from Trump in the state.”

Althouse already blogged that and that poll was an outlier. The poll over sampled Republicans.

Of the voters it interviewed, 32 percent were Republican-leaning while 26 percent were Democratic-leaning.

Drago said...

Farmer: "And still losing the war."

Well, given you've spent the last several weeks painting a happy face on a potential Sanders win, for whatever reason, that should make you quite content.

Inga said...

Althouse didn’t say the poll was an outlier.

Drago said...

Inga is not having an easy time accepting Bolton blowing her previous "The Walls Are Closing In On Trump" fever dreams into the ditch, is she?

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

I have said here many times that I would have voted for Sanders over Trump, because at the time I believed the propaganda. Voting for Hillary was a step too far, too much of the DNC rubbing my nose in shit in that one. Chuck has even gone after me a couple times for being “mythical.” I even proposed during the primaries last time a T-Shirt that read, “Fuck You All! Trump Sanders!” Or it might have been "Sanders Trump”

There was an interesting poll a while back that said that Sanders voters believed Epstein was murdered and that Warren voters believed, *without evidence* that he killed himself. There is a soupçon of the deplorable in Sanders’ voters.

Limited blogger said...

Trump will be doing his 3rd in three days rally soon in Las Vegas.

Love to see the energetic Biden, Bernie and Bloomie try to match that.

Jim at said...

The possibility of Milwaukee being set on fire becomes more probable with each passing day.

Limited blogger said...

Pence doing the warm-up now.

He has gotten quite good at his delivery.

Look forward to Pence/Haley ticket in 2024

J. Farmer said...

Well, given you've spent the last several weeks painting a happy face on a potential Sanders win, for whatever reason, that should make you quite content.

Because you still haven't grasped that it doesn't matter who wins in 2020. Demography is destiny. We're finished.

Freder Frederson said...

Sure. He been working day and night to take away your SS and MediCare.

His current budget calls for cutting both Medicare and Medicaid. Of course, he hasn't mentioned that in any of his Tweets.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

What’s great is that she cites the DailyKos. My my my...

Thao Nguyen@helloitsthao
·
1h
special elections are often a leading indicator

in 2018, the average special was 11.2% to the left of 2016 pres results, predicting the blue wave

in 2020, special elections so far have been 7.6% to the right of 2016, indicating a pro-trump environment


https://twitter.com/helloitsthao/status/1230913844517593090

frenchy said...

One of two possibilities:

1. Let Bernie take the fall. Plus, contrary to Greg the class traitor @10:40, I say exactly the opposite, i.e., Bernie moves the Overton Window such that it is now acceptable to nominate professed communists for the presidency under the Democrat banner. That's huge.

2. Or, the powers that be in the DNC refuse to allow #1 above to happen so there's a wide-open brokered convention wherein they draft anybody they want, including people not running (Michelle, Oprah, etc.).

BUMBLE BEE said...

mccullough on medical expense for oldsters... Look at what is spent on the young... What's that return look like? Money for nothing , chicks for free! I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Farmer.

BUMBLE BEE said...

We want the world and we want it NOW!

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

Did I mention that Trump’s approval is higher than his disapproval for the first time in his presidency?

Good job Schiffy! Impeach him again!

ConradBibby said...

"As mentioned by folks before, only 5 incumbents have ever lost re-election."

Not sure about 5 being the total. (Are we not counting Ford because he was never elected in to a first term?)

Anyway, the basic point is a good one. And note the conditions under which the more recent incumbents lost: GHWB was up against a major third-party candidate (Perot) AND the most talented politician of his generation (Clinton) in 1992. Ford, as noted, wasn't elected in the first place and was running in the immediate wake of Watergate and his pardon of RMN. Hoover was running against the most talented politician of HIS generation at a time that the country was in its worst financial straits ever. The Dems obviously can claim none of those advantages in 2020, or anything comparable.

As for the idea the Dems should "let the process play out," meaning, toss Bernie aside if he doesn't win on the first ballot, I really think this could backfire on them in the short and long run. If the Dems really don't think they're going to win anyway, they shouldn't risk further splintering the party by alienating not just Bernie fans, but also millions of other Dems who would regard this as unfair.

Francisco D said...

Althouse:"And I think there is a real danger of Sanders getting elected. Play that old “Donald Trump is not going to be President “ montage and think “ Bernie Sanders.”

Then Paul Krugman will be proved right, once and for all!

Except he chose the wrong election and the wrong candidate.

Just asking questions (Jaq) said...

That was Gallup, BTW, not Rasmussen. Those moves that are happening are the moderates moving to Trump.

Michael said...

Bernie should have his chance. I believe a shootout between Capitalism and Socialism is due. Of course if Sanders is elected we should impeach him immediately. For reasons.

narciso said...

so far I haven't seen the voom, in these primaries, Bernie is slightly ahead, buttigeg is just one standard deviation down, then klobuchar and probably Bloomberg,

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 320   Newer› Newest»