March 11, 2020

"Four years ago, Bernie Sanders put up a surprisingly strong fight against Hillary Clinton on the strength of his support among white working-class voters..."

"... who proceeded to desert Clinton in November... [T]he left quickly [concluded that]... the Democrats had failed to offer the kind of progressive radical alternative Sanders stood for, voters instead opted for Trump’s reactionary attack on globalism. In order to win them back and defeat Trump, Democrats needed to reorganize themselves as a radical populist party.... The second Sanders campaign has shown conclusively how badly the left misunderstood the electorate.... White working-class and rural voters have swung heavily against him.... The factor that actually explains 2016, as some of us chagrined liberals insisted at the time, was Hillary Clinton’s idiosyncratic personal unpopularity. It turned out large portions of the public, even of the Democratic electorate, simply detested her.... Clinton hatred allowed Sanders to draw more than 40 percent of the primary vote, and Clinton hatred allowed Donald Trump to narrowly win...."

From "Bernie’s Whole Campaign Was Based On a Misreading of the 2016 Election" by Jonathan Chait (NY Magazine).

108 comments:

Michael K said...

Sounds reasonable.

sinz52 said...

The "chagrined liberals" were unable to point out Hillary's unpopularity because the woke feminists saw Hillary as their champion to "break the glass ceiling" allegedly preventing a female President.

Anyone like Jonathan Chait who might express misgivings about Hillary's electability was promptly dismissed as "a cis white man" who had no right to express his opinion on the issue.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

"Same day voter registration" = how the democrats can fix elections.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

We were told by the deep state and the hacks that Hillary lost because of RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.

Now they are concluding she was un-likable?

" Hillary Clinton’s idiosyncratic personal unpopularity. It turned out large portions of the public, even of the Democratic electorate, simply detested her. "

huh?

get ready for a heaping helping of Hillary 0.3 - as she will be Biden's running mate. and installed as top dog faced pony soldier as soon as Biden is taken to the memory care facility.

daskol said...

Feels about right, but I may be biased by my own feelings about Hillary. There is another explanation, that Trump has basically dominated the populist lane by delivering on much of the agenda he had that overlapped with Bernie, you know, the popular and effective part of it. But that would require giving Trump some credit, so it won't receive much consideration.

Clyde said...

Evergreen: It's a thin line between love and Chait.

deepelemblues said...

The allegedly unique unlikability of Hilldawg being the reason Trump won doesnt account for Trump getting the same or better head to head numbers this time as he did before beating Hilldawg.

gilbar said...

Hillary Clinton’s idiosyncratic personal unpopularity. It turned out large portions of the public, even of the Democratic electorate, simply detested her....

They talk about how Hillary never came to Wisconsin;
think how Badly she would have lost Wisconsin IF she HAD came there?

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rehajm said...

It turned out large portions of the public, even of the Democratic electorate, simply detested her...

...and voted for her anyway.

mockturtle said...

The Bernie supporters I knew in 2016 were white but not working class. The fantasy that it's working class voters who are pro-socialist only plays on Broadway.

tcrosse said...

They talk about how Hillary never came to Wisconsin;
think how Badly she would have lost Wisconsin IF she HAD came there?


Actually, Chelsea come to campaign in Milwaukee, Eau Claire, and Oshkosh. That probably did the trick.

Nonapod said...

It's hardly a revleation to observe that the Democrat party has become far too left leaning for most of it's voters. It's just that the media and social media refused to see it. Social media has increased the volume of a small minority of voices, making it seem as though there was this huge groundswell of radicalism out there. But the general electorate hasn't really changed that much. The people who actually cast votes, especially those in primaries and caucasus, are not that young and generally not terribly active on Twitter and Reddit as one might be lead to believe. And all those people on Twitter and Reddit aren't necessarily actually voting.

narciso said...

most of the candidates, borrowed if not stole sanders message, this wasn't true with trump, only cruz and possibly carson had continuity among the gop,

chuck said...

What happened to Russia? I thought it was Russia that was responsible for Hillary's loss.

Phidippus said...

"...how badly the left misunderstood the electorate..." Indeed.

Trump won because he appealed to working class voters. Not welfare class voters, which are the ones that the Dims target. In fact, one gets the impression that they'd like to expand the latter at the expense of the former.

It's difficult for Leftists to accept, but the truth is that most people would rather work than collect welfare (= "free stuff"), even if the money isn't that much better.

They never have been able to come to grips with that whole "human nature" thing, and will continue to lose bigly as a result.

rehajm said...

If you were going to build a completely unelectable candidate a coattail rider with zero skill in retail politics, lacking in charisma or sex appeal, a long history of scandals and slimy political dealings, a documented frighteningly radical youth, a scold and lecturer with a trail of dead bodies in your political wake would seem to fit the bill.

tim in vermont said...

"voters instead opted for Trump’s reactionary attack on globalism”

How’s your “globalism” working out today? Does it still seems like the shining path forward?

Dave Begley said...

By all means I urge the Dems to nominate a senile old man who has been bribed by China and mostly supports the crazy Green New Deal.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Hillary has been attempting a come-back ever since she lost in 2016. (Russia!)

Started with her whiny book "What Happened" - blind blame-fest on paper.
Then, Her-> failed speaking tour with Bill. A total disaster in ticket sales. Barely anyone bothered to show up. Dowd was there to see it. It's Curtains.
Then came the grrrl power book tour with her daughter.
I have no idea if that book made any impact or sales, but something tells me it was a bust.
Now - Hillary has a HULU flick... about Hillary. And we all need to pay attention to HER-> some more, because you must, even if you want her to go away. Worship. It's required.

tim in vermont said...

Globalism is an attack on the working class, moving the jobs to wherever it is that labor has the least power to demand good wages and conditions.

This is stuff that Democrats used to care about. That was before they became the party of the superhypermega rich.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The left cannot let Trump, or anyone, disrupt their Globalist paychecks.

tim in vermont said...

Nothing is more anti-blue collar worker than the “Green New Deal.” Democrats write this off by claiming that blue collar workers don’t know their own self interest. Marx used to call this “false consciousness” I think.

Good luck with that.

rehajm said...

Bernie’s Whole Campaign Was Based On a Misreading of the 2016 Election

Here the use of the term 'misreading' is a misreading. It wasn't that they necessarily believed the things they did but the belief they could convince others to believe them.

More of that narrative creation...

tim in vermont said...

I wonder how many Democrat voters really understand that their party is pushing globalism through the Biden candidacy?

Browndog said...

Certainly there are several factors in the collapse of Bernie, and a collapse it was.

As noted before, Bernie is no longer the lone voice of the radical left. In fact, the field had pushed him further left on several issues just to stay "mainstream".

Also, many former Bernie Bros now see him as a fraud and a weakling not willing to fight for them.

Lots to unpack, but make no mistake--his collapse has nothing to do with the sudden and unexplained love for Candidate Z (zombie).

Kevin said...

It turned out large portions of the public, even of the Democratic electorate, simply detested her

Mother (reading to child): [turns page] But the Democrats couldn't accept that.

Child: [looks up from page]: What did they do, Mama?

Mother: [turns page]: Why, they called all those people sexist!

Child: Oh!

Mother: [turns page] Then Hillary went on a book tour and blamed the Russians.

Child: [confused look]

Mother: And used it as a pretext to investigate the new President.

Child: [even more confused]

Mother: [turns page] And the Speaker of the House tried to have him removed.

Child: Wait. Why didn't they just run a better candidate?

Mother: [Sternly] Because their best candidate was Joe Biden and he had lost his damn mind!

Child: Oh.

Child: Can we go back to the one about the bears who break into the privileged white woman's house to get their fair ration of porridge after the government took away her right to own an AR-15?

Greg the class traitor said...

Hillary Clinton’s idiosyncratic personal unpopularity. It turned out large portions of the public, even of the Democratic electorate, simply detested her....


Poor Chait.

1: It isn't idiosyncratic to her. Warren has it, in buckets, too. To grab just one obvious example

2: It wasn't just "personal unpopularity". It was the fact that the Obama Admin provided those voters nothing of value during his 8 years in office. And that the contempt that Hillary had for "the Deplorables" was and is a widely shared tenant of the "leaders" of the Democrat Party.

When one Party says they hate you, and act like it, while the other Party's leader (Trump) says he loves you, and he, at least, acts like it, the first Party isn't going to get your vote

Which is to say, the Democrats DID lose those voters on policy grounds. They lost them on populist grounds.

But Trump is the one actually providing the policies that will make those voters lives better. Not Sanders. And not any other Democrat

And the voters really are bright enough to figure that out

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

reminder: Maddow is an unrepentant liar:

Jim Geraghty:

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued his report earlier this month and concluded, “much of the material in the Steele election reports, including allegations about Donald Trump and members of the Trump campaign relied upon in the Carter Page FISA applications, could not be corroborated; that certain allegations were inaccurate or inconsistent with information gathered by the Crossfire Hurricane team; and that the limited information that was corroborated related to time, location and title information, much of which was publicly available.”

The night Horowitz released his report, Maddow ignored that and emphasized other conclusions: “The inspector general debunks that there was any anti-Trump political bias motivating these decisions. They debunked the idea that the Christopher Steele dossier of opposition research against Trump was the basis for opening the FBI’s Russia investigation.”

180

Wemple writes: “Asked to comment on how she approached the dossier, Maddow declined to provide an on-the-record response.”

Like other prime-time cable news hosts who receive much more criticism, Maddow shows up every weeknight and tells a devoted audience, “the world is as you want it to be.” Trump is the worst, he’s committed many terrible crimes, a reckoning is coming, we will be vindicated. Her audience is NOT interested in hearing the host or guests declare: “While we are vehemently opposed to Trump, but there is no evidence he’s being blackmailed or controlled by the Russian government.” Her program includes bits of news and other substances that appear to be like news, but are not — fervent speculation, conjecture, assumptions, theories. If it is too harsh to call it “fake news,” then it is news with artificial flavors and sweeteners, designed to make it more exciting and appealing than it really is."

Maddow is paid 10 million a year for her lies and deception.

Mattman26 said...

I love it when they take the wrong lesson out of their thumping. May it happen again and again.

Mattman26 said...

"When one Party says they hate you, and act like it, while the other Party's leader (Trump) says he loves you, and he, at least, acts like it, the first Party isn't going to get your vote"

Shhhh! Don't tell!

Wilbur said...

chuck said...
What happened to Russia? I thought it was Russia that was responsible for Hillary's loss.

Some of the commenters at NY MAg say just that. But they assert it seriously.

Leland said...

"Bernie’s Whole Campaign Was Based On a Misreading of the 2016 Election"

Written unironically by a person who also misread the 2016 election.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

So Democrats don't need to rethink their positions and attempt to appeal to working class voters because the 2016 loss due to a matter of personalities? Good! Cause those working class voters are icky! Some of them oppose transvestite story hour! Can you imagine?

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Aunty Trump said...
Globalism is an attack on the working class, moving the jobs to wherever it is that labor has the least power to demand good wages and conditions."

It's not only an attack on the working class, it's dangerous for everyone. The Wuhan outbreak is demonstrating that outsourcing our drug and medical equipment manufacturing to China really was a short-sighted move.

Fernandistein said...

Clinton hatred allowed Donald Trump to narrowly win....

Those Clinton haters keep accidentally showing up at Trump rallies thinking they're at a Two Minute Hate Clinton rally.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Oh look - Hillary, in Maddow fashion, is out lying to everyone. On CNN!

Drago said...

"Bernie’s Whole Campaign Was Based On a Misreading of the 2016 Election"

That's only assuming that Bernie's campaigns were seriously fought.

They were not.

Bernie refused to attack Clinton on her clear corruption that the entire nation saw regarding Clinton and did exactly as he was told by Clinton, live, on TV.

This was followed by the Bernie 2020 campaign where Bernie refused to call out globalist agenda being driven by a guy with dementia.

However, throughout the entire 2016 campaign and this one as well, Bernie continues to pay family members for services with campaign funds....and Bernie ends up with 3 houses.

Presidential Campaigns are NOT Movements being led by Bernie.

They are merely revenue streams.

Mr Wibble said...

Ugh, lost my comment.

Hillary hate may have made Dem voters amenable to giving Trump a hearing, but Trump worked to close the sale. She didn't just lose in 2016, he won.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Pelosi's Son,
Kerry's grandson
Romney's son
Biden's son
Clinton's daughter

what do they all have in common?

Mr Wibble said...

Pelosi's Son,
Kerry's grandson
Romney's son
Biden's son
Clinton's daughter

what do they all have in common?


Uncertain paternity?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Joe Biden’s Family Has Been Cashing in on His Career for Decades. Democrats Need to Acknowledge That.

globalist corporate press:
Nhut-uhh

Sebastian said...

"Clinton hatred allowed Donald Trump to narrowly win"

It may have helped at the margins, which may have been decisive in the end, but the key fact of 2016 is that Republican voters showed up for Trump.

traditionalguy said...

He confesses that Trump won on Trade betrayal that Sanders had also ran upon. Then he pretends that Trump’s reactionary America First did not beat Hillary at all. It was just that .she was just a hated person. Total bullshit.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

61 Hacks Who Peddled Russian Collusion And Should Never Be Trusted Again

These same hacks will now circle the wagons around Quid Pro Joe.

Sebastian said...

Drago: "That's only assuming that Bernie's campaigns were seriously fought."

True. They always had a certain Potemkin quality, starting with Sanders (I) running as a Dem and including the propaganda point, swallowed even by some commentators here, that Bernie just wanted a version of European social democracy.

Nonetheless, he coulda been a contender, had he been more serious. Though I shudder at the thought of Joe prevailing, even the small chance of Bernie winning would have been far, far worse.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

when will Rachel Maddow apologize for her lies?

RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!

Michael K said...

I wonder how many Democrat voters really understand that their party is pushing globalism through the Biden candidacy?

Not Inga. That's for sure. Not ARM or Freder.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The 2016 Bernie might have beat Trump. He was for controlling the border and actually trying to do things to help the working class.

Limited blogger said...

They just make shit up.

gahrie said...

The problem with the Democrats is that they have never come to terms with their loss in 2016. they haven't worked their way through the stages of grief...they're still stuck on denial.

Greg the class traitor said...

Sebastian said...
"Clinton hatred allowed Donald Trump to narrowly win"

It may have helped at the margins, which may have been decisive in the end, but the key fact of 2016 is that Republican voters showed up for Trump.



No. Actually, the key fact was that a bunch of Democrat working class voters supported Trump, and that some of them also supported the GOP Senate candidate in their "Blue Wall" State, too.

It's really fascinating looking at the vote patterns for Trump in 2016 vs the votes for the GOP Senate candidate, in WI, MI, and PA (where in each State, the GOP Senate candidate supported Trump).

In all three States, they won with different voters, but there was enough of an overlap that both won.

In NV and NH, the GOP Senate candidate ran away from Trump after the "Pussy tape". And both lost. Total loss was less than 30k votes.

But in MI, PA, and WI, there were a bunch of Democrats, who voted for the Democrat Senate candidate, but who still voted for Trump.

And, that was his winning margin in 2016.

What Democrats should fear is that in 2020 and going forward, those voters aren't Democrats any more

Earnest Prole said...

Hillary Clinton personally ruined both the Democratic and Republican parties.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Michael K said...
I wonder how many Democrat voters really understand that their party is pushing globalism through the Biden candidacy?

Not Inga. That's for sure. Not ARM or Freder.

3/11/20, 9:59 AM

Oh, I think they get it - but they think it's a wonderful thing. They think we shouldn't have borders and being pro-American means you're racist and xenophobic. And they don't mind all those "Made In China" tags on their products because they don't stop and consider the conditions those products are made in or care that businesses have sent American jobs abroad.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Trump won because he ran on what Democrats used to call "kitchen table" issues. Stuff that married couples discuss at the kitchen table.

Can we get a job? Will the job pay enough to pay the bills and have enough left over to have a reasonably comfortable life. (House in a nice neighborhood with good schools, decent car that doesn't break down all the time, occasionally going out for a dinner or a movie.) etc.

What normal people don't talk about at the kitchen table, finding a transvestite to read to their children at the library.

I would suggest that if the Democrats want to start winning elections in rust bowl states they hold a seance and consult with Tip O'Neil's ghost.

Robert Cook said...

More BS from the NY Times. How does Chait explain Sanders' strong showing up in the Democratic fold this election season until just this past week? One can explain his current faltering as a consequence of the incessant, hysterical, dishonest branding by the mainstream media of Sanders as a wild-eyed and demented Bolshevik coming to kill and pillage America. Weak-minded democrat voters have been gulled again, and see familiar Joe Biden as comfortable and preferable to Sanders. That anyone could see Biden as an acceptable choice under any circumstance shows how little such persons expect and are willing to accept from their alleged representatives in Washington or in the White House, and how easily deceived they are.

Skeptical Voter said...

And a good part of this year's Democrat electoral theory is that "Trump hatred" is alive and well and enough of a force to push a Democrat over the line.

To paraphrase George W. Bush I think the Democrats have "misoverestimated" the scope of that hatred amongst the voters.

Robert Cook said...

"'It turned out large portions of the public, even of the Democratic electorate, simply detested her...'

"...and voted for her anyway."


Well...no, they didn't. That's the point, and that's why she lost.

Bob Boyd said...

I would love to be there to see the look on Chait's face when the Dems put Hillary on the ballot again.

Jupiter said...

Johnathon Chait is a lying sack of shit with the morals of a hyena, and anything he writes is tendentious bullshit, rendered in the service of evil. Other than that, good article.

Larry J said...

Phidippus said...

"...how badly the left misunderstood the electorate..." Indeed.

Trump won because he appealed to working class voters. Not welfare class voters, which are the ones that the Dims target. In fact, one gets the impression that they'd like to expand the latter at the expense of the former.

It's difficult for Leftists to accept, but the truth is that most people would rather work than collect welfare (= "free stuff"), even if the money isn't that much better.


There's a world of difference between working class and welfare class people and their mindsets. Working class people work for a living. They earn their money and as a result, they pay taxes. They know that all of that free stuff promised by socialists will come from their pay. They know there aren't nearly enough rich people to pay for all of those promises so they're going to get screwed to pay for everything. They also know that leftists with their high taxes and love of government regulations have caused countless businesses to close or to move their jobs overseas. They may not like their bosses, but they know that destroying their bosses also means destroying their jobs. Contrary to leftist belief, these people are not stupid and know what is in their own best interests.

Welfare class people hate the idea of tax cuts and love promises of more free stuff because they aren't the ones who have to pay for it. They envy those who have more but too many are unwilling to do anything to improve their lot in life. Part of that is because there are cliffs in the welfare system that punish people who try to get off of welfare.

Robert Cook said...

"Globalism is an attack on the working class, moving the jobs to wherever it is that labor has the least power to demand good wages and conditions."

Which remains the case today and will do so until US wages become so depressed we will work for lower pay than the Chinese or whatever other nations serve as the global sweatshops of the 21st Century.

"This is stuff that Democrats used to care about. That was before they became the party of the superhypermega rich."

Yes, they decided to join the Republicans on the gravy train.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

What Democrats should fear is that in 2020 and going forward, those voters aren't Democrats any more

3/11/20, 10:09 AM

Instead of fearing it, you have Dems and their media lackeys cheering on the Democrat front-runner's attack on a blue collar union guy - something that would have been utterly unimaginable in 1960. He's a white deplorable so he's expendable.

Pols are supposed to try to win voters to their side. The people who applauded Biden's insults are already hardcore Dems who won't vote GOP under any circumstances. How many hard hats, men who voted Dem most of their lives, saw that and thought "Oh, that's great. I want to vote for Biden now."

The Dems keep playing to their own Trump hating base. Trump keep trying to expand his base. We'll see in November which strategy works.

daskol said...

The media definitely coordinated with the DNC to damage Bernie: coordinating the departure of the other "moderate lane" candidate before Super Tuesday, while keeping Warren in it, at the same time as Bloomberg blasted Bernie for communism at debates on national TV. Yet Bernie did himself no favors either. Offered the opportunity to walk back praise of Cuba, he refused. This is not a country that can warm up to someone saying nice things about Fidel Castro. Bernie equivocated every time Cuba was raised: he either reasserted that their healthcare and literacy efforts were praiseworthy, or focused on how Cuba was authoritarian just like Saudi Arabia was authoritarian, and he opposes authoritarianism. That's a lot of words and leaps of logic to respond to a visceral emotional issue, which means he flubbed it. Face it, he's a commie lover, even if it's silly and unfair to call him a communist.

Angle-Dyne, Servant of Ugliness said...

"[T]he left quickly [concluded that]... the Democrats had failed to offer the kind of progressive radical alternative Sanders stood for, voters instead opted for Trump’s reactionary attack on globalism....Trump’s reactionary attack on globalism."

"The factor that actually explains 2016, as some of us chagrined liberals insisted at the time, was Hillary Clinton’s idiosyncratic personal unpopularity. It turned out large portions of the public, even of the Democratic electorate, simply detested her...

The Dems seem desperate for a "one factor" magic bullet. True, everybody hates Hillary. But what and where, pray tell, was this alleged Democratic adoption of reactionary anti-globalism as a campaign strategy? "Radical populism", yes, but only by the tired old leftist definitions of "radical" and "[pseudo]populist". The radical "populism" being pushed by the Dems doesn't acknowledge the anti-globalist zeitgeist in any way beyond stale, ignorant "occupy wall street" tropes. They're open-borders zealots, for cryin' out loud, bankrolled by the very "banksters" and corporations they decry (hoping their audience is too dumb to notice).

But hey, if they want to believe that everybody out here would just would love us some gun-grabbin', identity-politickin', wypipo-hatin', medicare-for-all and open-borders lovin' candidate, as long as they aren't Hillary, well, bless their hearts and best of luck.

Side note: "Globalism" is the status quo; it's been the reigning dogma for quite a while now. Globalism, not "populism", is the reactionary position.

Mr Wibble said...

Hillary Clinton personally ruined both the Democratic and Republican parties.

There's a lot of blame to go around for that. Trump's biggest achievement may be that by winning he removed the masks from both parties.

Known Unknown said...

Chait, still not getting it. It's not D vs. R. Or whether you really liked someone or not.

It was INSIDE vs. OUTSIDE. The outsiders (us -- deplorables and such, if you will) are sick of the insiders running the show. They've been doing a great job for themselves and a lousy job for the rest of us.

It was Districts 1 through whatever voting against the Capitol District. Bernie was an outsider but was crushed by the insiders. The GOPe/RNC was not formidable enough. to do the same to Trump.

When will anyone learn?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

3+ years of RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA! + RUSSIAN MEDDLING! all down the memory hole.

Oh well. A new day, a new lie du jour to damage Trump. This time it's "Trump'S Katrina"

Bill Peschel said...

I've always contended that Hillary provided a wide variety of reasons not to vote for her.

If you hated the Clintons, you wouldn't vote for her.
If you saw her campaign, you wouldn't vote for her.
If you saw the video of her collapsing and dumped into a van after the 9/11 event, and heard later it was "influenza" and didn't believe her, you wouldn't vote for her.
If you're against dynasties in general, you wouldn't vote for her.
If you remember her record as secretary of state, how she left our ambassador without the security he needed and was killed, you wouldn't vote for her.
If you saw the flood of "refugees" leaving Libya and entering Europe, and know she caused it, you wouldn't vote for her.
If you wondered why foreign powers were pumping money into the Clinton Foundation and what they expected in return, you wouldn't vote for her.
If you remembered all her lies about being named for the mountaineer and being shot at in the Balkans and enabling her horndog husband, you wouldn't vote for her.
If you're one of the "deplorables" and Obama's "bitter clingers", you sure as hell wasn't going to vote for her.

It didn't have to be all these reasons. Only one of these would do. That's why we have Trump.

Also, remember that globalization was not entirely a Democratic policy. It's the Establishment GOP policy as well (the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce came out for amnesty, for example). The majority of our medicines are made in China, thanks to them.

Jack Klompus said...

Florida Man Cookie has declared you all "deceived!" When will you boozhie corporate tools wake up and join the cliché brigade of Comrade Cookie of New York (in case you weren't aware of where he lives)??!!! Wake up masses and recognize the deception of the reactionary Sanders and join the true Cookie revolution beginning this week on the Upper West Side (that's in NYC, where Cookie lives by the way.)

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Also, remember that globalization was not entirely a Democratic policy. It's the Establishment GOP policy as well (the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce came out for amnesty, for example). The majority of our medicines are made in China, thanks to them.

3/11/20, 10:35 AM

Very true. That's why the GOP Establishment hates Trump.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Sanders' political ideas are remarkably shallow. He is not an introspective man, the history of the last 50 years has had no effect on him. He says he dislikes authoritarianism, but he admires the most authoritarian governments. He cannot see that Castro's and Mao's authoritarianism was inseparable from their socialism. Authoritarianism is what need to radically redistribute power and money. Sanders turns a blind eye to the corruption and cupidity of his communist heroes. He talks about the Nordic social democracies as models for the US, but when pressed, he really knows very little about the Nordic social democracies, and his proposed policies are like nothing in the Nordic democracies. Sanders does not understand how market economies work and does not understand how command economies work.
The man cannot tell you how much his proposals would cost, and he openly endorsed the idea of implementing those policies by bypassing congress, the most democratic of the three branches of the federal government.
Sanders is not a "democratic socialist," he is a commie stooge.

Nichevo said...


Robert Cook said...
More BS from the NY Times. How does Chait explain Sanders' strong showing up in the Democratic fold this election season until just this past week? One can explain his current faltering as a consequence of the



...lack of support from one Robert Cook, for whom Sanders wasn't something enough.

Yancey Ward said...

Chait's is motivated reasoning. Sanders was an easier choice to make in 2016 since, at no point, was there a chance for him to actually win the nomination. That is the major difference this time- there was a chance he could win, especially after the Nevada caucuses, and a protest vote for Sanders was no longer reasonable for a significant chunk of the electorate in the primaries.

Also, Chait is missing something important- Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttuvwxyz were taking a good chunk of the vote that Sanders actually needed through Super Tuesday. Think how different things might have been if Warren had never been in the race, or had dropped out after her dismal performance in New Hampshire.

Finally, you can't ignore the fact that the DNC put their effort behind Biden when it was clear that no other candidate was going to be able to stop Sanders- that counted for quite a bit- the timely endorsements, and I think a pretty significant GOTV effort was utilized in Biden's favor, and probably illegally (the other candidates' organizations, and the DNC's own organization were used on Super Tuesday to get Biden voters to the polls, and to gather ballots in the mail in states).

In the end, the Democrats are going to replace Biden- they fully recognize all his deficiencies, but he is what they were left with when Bloomberg bombed.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

As Tucker Carlson noted last night, Bernie is a pretty pitiful "revolutionary." While some of his young followers fantasize about running gulags, Bernie won't even stand up to Biden and the DNC. He refused to even point out that Biden clearly isn't all there, just as he not only refused to attack Hillary, but campaigned for her in 2016. And she just showed her gratitude by trashing him as, of all things, unlikable.

Bernie talks like Karl Marx, but acts more like Zeppo. Or, more accurately, like Margaret Dumont.

Gusty Winds said...

In 2016 they fixed the nomination with super delegates. This time they narrowed the field, and kept Warren in just long enough. They still don't understand.

mezzrow said...

Evergreen: It's a thin line between love and Chait.

Well done, O camel of Ahab.

gahrie said...

"'It turned out large portions of the public, even of the Democratic electorate, simply detested her...'

"...and voted for her anyway."

Well...no, they didn't. That's the point, and that's why she lost.


Really? Because I remember Hillary winning the popular vote, meaning more people voted for her than voted for Trump.

I thought Hillary lost because of Russian interference...or the Patriarchy....or the electoral college...or....

gilbar said...

speaking of misreading....
Remember a few months ago? When THE POWERS THAT BE told us that the public Demanded Beta O'Rourke?

Michael K said...

Sanders' political ideas are remarkably shallow.

What ideas ? He is just another grifter who couldn't make it as a carpenter in a commune.

He had all his family on his payroll and has done pretty well for a fake commie.

Michael K said...

Because I remember Hillary winning the popular vote, meaning more people voted for her than voted for Trump.

In California. Why do you think all those drivers' licenses registered those illegals to vote in CA?

Trump won the popular vote outside CA. Hillary is president of CA.

gilbar said...

"...and voted for her anyway."

"...and voted democrat anyway."
fify!

gonna to vote Blue,
it's what you're supposed to do
whomever who

GatorNavy said...

All I can say is that Milwaukee is going to be lit when the Democrat circus rolls into town

Bay Area Guy said...

Chait is a weenie, but a happy weenie, because he recognized early that Bernie was a surefire loser in the General against Trump.

Of course, like most Dems, they mostly agree with Bernie's socialistic policies, but maybe only 80-90%. So, they are savvy enough to keep it quiet.

They are all Democrat Socialists.

Bob Boyd said...

The drywall repair guy is probably back at the house in Chappaqua this morning.

Kalli Davis said...

Johnathon Chait will never find the answer if he does not know the problem.
When the Democrat Party, follow his advice, and reorganize into a "populist reactionary" party, they lose again in 2024.

I am and will continue to be happy that they never find the true problem until this generation dies out.

AllenS said...

Biden is losing his faculties. The more he talks, the more obvious it is. Biden will go to the convention in Milwaukee as the winner of the primaries. Then what?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

As Tucker Carlson noted last night, Bernie is a pretty pitiful "revolutionary." While some of his young followers fantasize about running gulags, Bernie won't even stand up to Biden and the DNC. He refused to even point out that Biden clearly isn't all there, just as he not only refused to attack Hillary, but campaigned for her in 2016. And she just showed her gratitude by trashing him as, of all things, unlikable.

and don't forget - Hillary and her media hacks accused Bernie of being a "Russian asset"

Francisco D said...

In the end, the Democrats are going to replace Biden- they fully recognize all his deficiencies, but he is what they were left with when Bloomberg bombed.

Yes. The question is whether the replacement is his running mate or someone who is brokered at the convention. Of course, his running mate is being brokered at this time.

I don't see the Obamas being interested. Life has turned out really well for them and they will enjoy it.

Hillary has the shameless moxie to run. She will lose, but will she hurt the down ballot candidates?

Bay Area Guy said...

As Tucker Carlson noted last night, Bernie is a pretty pitiful "revolutionary."

He is the Fielding Mellish of the Banana Republic. Viva La Revolucion!

Achilles said...

Drago said...
"Bernie’s Whole Campaign Was Based On a Misreading of the 2016 Election"

That's only assuming that Bernie's campaigns were seriously fought.

They were not.

Bernie refused to attack Clinton on her clear corruption that the entire nation saw regarding Clinton and did exactly as he was told by Clinton, live, on TV.

This was followed by the Bernie 2020 campaign where Bernie refused to call out globalist agenda being driven by a guy with dementia.

However, throughout the entire 2016 campaign and this one as well, Bernie continues to pay family members for services with campaign funds....and Bernie ends up with 3 houses.

Presidential Campaigns are NOT Movements being led by Bernie.

They are merely revenue streams.


Yes.

Bernie has been scamming rubes for at least the last 2 elections.

Robert Cook said...

"Really? Because I remember Hillary winning the popular vote, meaning more people voted for her than voted for Trump."

This is true...but it wasn't enough people in the states that delivered more electoral votes.

mockturtle said...

Bernie talks like Karl Marx, but acts more like Zeppo. Or, more accurately, like Margaret Dumont.

Nicely done, exiled! ;-) And I would add he looks more like Harpo.

Achilles said...

gahrie said...

Really? Because I remember Hillary winning the popular vote, meaning more people voted for her than voted for Trump.

Mexico got to participate in California elections.

That is the only thing that drove Hilary's "popular vote" win.

That is why we have the Electoral College to prevent large corrupt states like California from choosing the president.

Greg the class traitor said...

Blogger exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...
Me: What Democrats should fear is that in 2020 and going forward, those voters aren't Democrats any more

Instead of fearing it, you have Dems and their media lackeys cheering on the Democrat front-runner's attack on a blue collar union guy - something that would have been utterly unimaginable in 1960. He's a white deplorable so he's expendable.

...

The Dems keep playing to their own Trump hating base. Trump keep trying to expand his base. We'll see in November which strategy works


Note, I didn't say what I thought the Democrats WOULD do, just what they SHOULD do. :-)

Greg the class traitor said...

Yancey said:
In the end, the Democrats are going to replace Biden- they fully recognize all his deficiencies, but he is what they were left with when Bloomberg bombed.

I think a lot of Biden voters are counting on that. The problem is that said person can't campaign until they become the nominee, can't really raise money, and any efforts they can make, are going to be focused on winning the DNC, not the general election.

So, assuming we don't all die from the Wuhan Flu, and assuming the economy doesn't completely bomb, Trump gets to spend the summer touting himself, while the Democrats have a world class civil war over who replaces Biden, with a "winner" who doesn't have a single shred of democratic legitimacy.

This has "this does not end well for the Democrats" written all over it

n.n said...

Diversity and exclusion: one step forward, two steps backward.

n.n said...

Normal people don't favor monotonically divergent solutions. #HateLovesAbortion

ExplainMeMore said...

Biden is not the antidote for white working class aversion for the Democrats.

n.n said...

Sanders thought that democracy is aborted under a Democrat veil. He was right.

h said...

I associate myself with the comment by Bill Peschell. And that means I agree with the basic thrust of the Chait piece.

I also gained insight from the early comment by sinZ52, who notes that liberals were "unable to point out Hillary's unpopularity because the woke feminists saw Hillary as their champion to break the glass ceiling" allegedly preventing a female President." This is just one way that people let their hopes blind themselves to a reality that should have been apparent to a rational analysis.

On the other hand, if I were a Trump supporter, this Chait analysis would be the most discouraging thing that I had read in a long time. It makes it sound like BIden (or Bernie or Martin O'Malley or anyone not HRC) could easily have beaten Trump in 2016, and that all Biden needs to do to win in 2020 is to get through a few months without appearing to be suffering from dementia.

walter said...

Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
29m
"Although it was less than three weeks ago that a Sanders nomination seemed inevitable, voters quickly came to their senses. They ran straight away from both Trump and Sanders and into the polls to support Biden. That’s the 2020 revolution."

walter said...

Someone should tell Billy that Trump has no primary contender...yet he's receiving votes of support anyways.

Greg the class traitor said...

On the other hand, if I were a Trump supporter, this Chait analysis would be the most discouraging thing that I had read in a long time. It makes it sound like BIden (or Bernie or Martin O'Malley or anyone not HRC) could easily have beaten Trump in 2016, and that all Biden needs to do to win in 2020 is to get through a few months without appearing to be suffering from dementia.

1: I believe that Sanders or Biden would easily have beaten Trump in 2016
2: I do not believe that either can beat him in 2020

Trump was a "take a flyer on him, because it can't get worse" candidate.

he's been President for over three years, he's done what he promised, and the people who took a risk on him have been well repaid, with jobs and raises.

The Democrat nominee is going to have to go to the Obama-Trump voters, and convince a bunch of them to switch back. The problem is those voters have much better lives than they had four years ago, so they're not going to switch back

jeremyabrams said...

Trump already implemented some key Sanders policies, particularly in trade and tariffs. Bernie couldn't run on those issues this time, and that's why his campaign faltered. That and the rigged Super Tuesday.

Splanky said...

Go to the convention and draft Clint Eastwood !

Big Mike said...

Sanders may also have been misled by the election of "The Squad" and all the publicity that they've received from the press into thinking that the country is coming around to his way of thinking. It isn't, and The Squad is not as important to the Democrats as the Blue Dog Coalition, but it is the latter that got thrown under the bus by the impeachment hoax.

Unknown said...

Strange "water hack" burns 2lbs overnight

At least 160 000 women and men are trying a simple and SECRET "liquids hack" to drop 2 lbs every night while they sleep.

It's scientific and works with everybody.

Here's how you can do it yourself:

1) Go get a drinking glass and fill it with water half glass

2) Then use this weight losing hack

you'll be 2 lbs thinner the very next day!