Maybe, but I bet he'd accept the nomination.
I have always said, since the beginning that Donald Trump would be the nominee for the GOP. I made a bet with some friends in NC over 6 months ago. Looks like I, unfortunately, have won. I think Sanders would do much better against Trump than Hillary. Trump will do what he does best which is to attack personality traits, any smudges in character or any past failings personally etc. -She has many more than Sanders from what I can tell. Trumps whole "I'm not owned" works well against Hillary and NOT against Bernie. If I were Trump, I would rather run against Hillary. He would clobber her in debates, not on substance but on what American's seem to crave... bombast. I think Trump beats Hillary and I think Bernie beats Trump. The GOP that aren't fans of Trump will still vote for him because of how much they hate Hillary. She is uber polarizing. These are just facts. I would gladly and loudly vote for Hillary over Trump but I really do think that the Dems have a better shot with Bernie.
I am impressed at your prognostication but not at your political strategy. Clinton v. Trump is going to be Sarah Palin all over again. He's a deeply incurious man with a slipshod understanding of geopolitics. Hilary Clinton is perhaps the most qualified person to ever run for the presidency. The volleys lobbed at Clinton are "Benghazi", "private email server", "In the pockets of Wall Street" and "Bill is embarrassing." Set aside for a moment the fact that the volleys lobbed at Trump are unprecedented in the history of campaigning - Benghazi still doesn't stick, nobody understands the email thing, Trump puts his name on buildings, wrote The Art of the Deal and STILL went bankrupt three times and everyone over twelve longs for the days of Clinton prosperity. Americans don't crave bombast. Americans are terrified of bombast. Hilary Clinton has a big advantage over Bernie Sanders - people over 50 will vote for her. Granted - the true believers on either side are definitely holding their noses and getting ready to take their medicine but the wedge issue of 2016? Weed. EIGHT states are voting on legalizing marijuana. Arizona - 3 votes California - 55 votes Maine - 4 votes Massachusetts - 11 Michigan - 16 Missouri - 10 Ohio - 18 Nevada - 6 That's 123 electoral votes, out of 270, in states where the stoners have a reason to get out to vote. Granted - California and Massachusetts (fuck that spelling) aren't likely to go Trump come hell or high water but Ohio? Nevada? Missouri? Trump barely won Missouri. He lost Ohio. There were eleven ballot measures against gay marriage in 2004. That was not by accident. That was pure Turdblossom and it cost Kerry the election. There are eight ballot measures for weed in 2016. That's probably not by accident either. And I mean... you can be a pothead and want to support Trump. But you gotta be kinda weird to do it. And since you're voting anyway, sneer, hold your nose, grumble, think about Monica Lewinsky and recognize that at least she isn't an Oompa Loompa. Hilary Clinton is the nicest Republican anyone could ask for. We all know it. Trump can't run a beauty pageant without a scandal. We can be all high dudgeon about it but when the rubber meets the road, the adults are going to either vote for Clinton or not vote. And the stoners are voting for weed.
I'll vote for Bernie or Hillary over Trump, no problem. But what is interesting is that Cruz helped Trump tonight, and Bernie is likely going to make it harder for Hillary if he continues to draw it out. He's not going to get the nomination outside of a contested convention, and the math says he can't get one. The conversation is going to fall on the Dems split now that Trump is the presumptive nominee. Not that it will matter much. November is forever from now, and we have so much silly left. Clinton/Trump debates will be weird.
I still think the GOP will sabotage Trump's campaign if they have to give him the nomination, because in no way is he qualified for the job and having two fuckup presidents in a row will hurt the party in the long run more than losing one election will.
This is without doubt the silliest #sillyseason in my lifetime. It may be the silliest silly season of all time, but I can't make such bold claims. They're all a bit silly. We shall see what the GOP does. It will be interesting
I was listening to Democracy Now! earlier today and one of the guests (Glen Greenwald......) summed it up best: "This is the election that Washington, D.C. deserves. Unfortunately the American Public will have to suffer with them."
mk -One thing Bernie is calling for is that the SuperDelegates in the states where he overwhelmingly beat Clinton, that they overwhelmingly vote for him.... Not sure how much this could change the landscape. According to him it allows for a "narrow" pathway to victory. Clinton has one, as of yet largely untapped resource: I watch this speech once a year to learn more about public speaking. It's one of the greatest modern speeches imo.
Of course they won't though. If they were on the fence, they wouldn't have pledged already. Also, Bernie would need those super delegates that pledged for him in states that Hillary won not to be guided by the same rationale. Also, it's a tough argument to make when you are laying off most of your staff. Hillary has the nomination. Bernie knows it. He is a Senator. As long as he campaigns he has to have a path that he can point to, but his real consideration at this point isn't about how he wins the nomination.mk -One thing Bernie is calling for is that the SuperDelegates in the states where he overwhelmingly beat Clinton, that they overwhelmingly vote for him.... Not sure how much this could change the landscape.
I don't disagree with any of that. The wheels are in motion, I wonder though of the money he has raised that has not been used, can it be funneled to the DNC now? Meaning, if people are still donating to Bernie are the essentially donating to Hillary and other down ticket dems? His sticking around could be for money purposes.
galen. You were feeling the bern back before it was cool. What are your thoughts these days?
I'm still concerned about his foreign policy positions (one of the few areas the president has actual power). I also question his ability to deal with race effectively; his written platform contains a lot of good stuff, but from his rhetoric, I'm not sure he even believes that there's an issue with American racism that's separate from economic inequality. The reason I supported him in spite of that is that I thought he was the only candidate who could bring out enough new voters to bring progressive victories down the ballot. I'm not sure how I feel about that now. I certainly have no illusions about his ability to win the nomination, barring some catastrophic blow to the Clinton campaign. I'm mostly just sad because we're moving rapidly towards 5 months of Clinton vs Trump.
This is one of the things he is actually quite correct about. Identity politics is a ruse brought about by politicians who have a lot to gain from it, and it's bought into by large swathes of people who would be much better off focusing on how bad they're getting fucked every time they punch a clock. The reason the ghettos exist is because black people were systematically excluded from joining nice neighborhoods for many decades. Economics is everything, and every time we focus on what building is called by which name, or who made whom feel bad at the lunch table, all we do is take away from the much, much larger problem of lack of access to financial equality. Most modern racists (baby boomers, for example) are racist because they conflate race with welfare with societal morals. In the 2012 election, Rick Santorum actually came out and said what they all think, which is, "I don't want to give my money to black people." Money talks, and it's the only language everyone speaks. There's a lot of reason I don't care for Sanders' candidacy, but his insistence that racial issues are completely and totally entangled with economics is perhaps his most important message.I'm not sure he even believes that there's an issue with American racism that's separate from economic inequality.