What helps me when thinking about these things in particular (or about the past in general) is to say to myself that the time just wasn’t ready for (X). The situation or circumstances (for whatever reason, fair or not) were not completely ripe. Maybe now it is ripe for a change. If so, then it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop the flow of the river that was once a tiny trickle of water. — 0 thru 9

True, and it's also important to remember that YOU are a part of that river. We all have far more influence than we think, in my view. The state of politics in this country is at a very interesting stage, and hasn't always been this way.

We've become alienated from politics in a way similar to other fields, yet many more people have opinions about it that are becoming more and more rigid, dogmatic and fanatical.

So while we're equally alienated from, and possess the same level of understanding as, say, physics, there are many more political "buffs" and "nerds" out there than there are physics buffs, in the sense of a hobby. That's a dangerous phenomenon. It's dangerous because politics isn't simply an academic subject one studies in school in an abstract, theoretical way. What happens in what's called our political realm has real-world consequences, and so our participation in the process matters all the more. It doesn't take a degree in "political science." All you need to do is look around at your own life and the lives of the people around you, the laws being passed, the distribution of wealth and resources, the quality of life of various groups (or "classes") of people. You don't have to know who Machiavelli, or John Locke, or Adam Smith, or Karl Marx, or Aristotle is, you don't have to read esoteric journals, and you don't have to know the history of every country. All of that can help, of course, but it's not necessary to seeing the truth and describing it accurately. It takes no greater level of intelligence than understanding sports.

This is a particularly good example in the US, because there are for more sports enthusiasts out there than even political hobbyists, and while perhaps most have a very detailed knowledge of the sport and can give vehement arguments about a team or a player, they're as equally removed from actual participation as political hobbyists like you and I (if that's a fair label). We don't run for anything or organize people in any way, and probably don't follow or contribute to an organization either. There was an excellent article in the Atlantic about this I'll link below. It opened my eyes even wider to how little influence all my thinking, reading, writing and talk about politics actually has on the state of affairs compared to concrete action, organization and collaboration with otherpeople in the real world.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/political-hobbyists-are-ruining-politics/605212/

Once you get to the second round and the superdelegates take over, Bernie is certain to be screwed. — fishfry

Explain why you think this is true. I don't see it.

Personally, that's still something I aspire to... like, the bare minimum I aspired to have had already well over a decade ago, and am still very slowly struggling toward, despite making better progress at it than like 75% of the country if the statistics are to believed. — Pfhorrest

What statistics? What metric are you referring to here? Yearly salary or something, or are you saying that 75% of Americans don't have a partner and steady job?

I think it should be either bare minimum as it once was (an economy that allowed for people to have a car and house and savings on a one-salary family income with inexpensive or affordable education and healthcare), or else given up on if it becomes too costly to personal well-being and living a good and happy life.

In other words, trying to keep up with the Jones or the standard idea of the "American Dream," if it means having to work non-stop, get into extreme debt -- why bother? And what's the dream, exactly? What's so essential about a house and a car? You don't need either to find someone to love, or to raise a family. Plenty of people all around the world and throughout history have done just fine without most of what we view as "essential." They may have been the standard way of American living in the 50s or something, but we live in a very different world and should therefore adjust our expectations and ambitions. Why are we still going for "success" in the form of money, material status, and having a family?

That was my point.

I certainly sympathize with this point of view. I too was very disappointed in 2016 -- I voted for Clinton as the least damaging candidate, although I couldn't stand her. I think I was in very good and very large company. It was those friends of mine that felt that there was no big difference between candidates that swung the election; despite being ridiculous to me, for them there was not enough contrast between Clinton and Trump. They convinced themselves, or were convinced by the equivalence argument. Others stayed home because Clinton wasn't their 1st choice.

Anyone in a swing state that cares about climate change, to take one of the most important examples, and who didn't vote for Clinton in 2016 -- these are the people who angered me the most. They made a huge mistake, and essentially helped contribute to the last 3 years' policies which further accelerated the possibly of killing our species off (and this is not exaggeration, alarmism, or hyperbole-- this is real life). I'm hoping they are the ones who show up this time around.

But to your point -- yes, losing those people and costing us the election in 2016 may indeed be a blessing, but remember that Bernie could have been the nominee that year as well, and was polling better than Clinton was versus Trump. It's hard to forgive the DNC for that, in that case. But this is all speculation in the end -- maybe 4 years of Sanders would have resulted in an even more extreme Republican nominee, or 4 years of Clinton just status quo inaction and apathy on the Left and the continuation of Right's dominance of state and local politics through grassroots organization (I think that would have been far more probable).

I think it's time to pull more to the left now, because it's the only way to bring balance back after such a rightward shift for the last 40 years, culminating in this administration and embodied in the Great Opportunist, Donald Trump. There are still many in the middle, but best to provide the "middle" and all the "independents" out there with a real contrast: not deep red and reddish pink, but deep red and deep blue. I think most independents naturally get tired of the party in charge. Granted, that's normally been the case after 8 years, as most incumbents get re-relected, but Trump is an animal all of his own.

I digress.

Yes, and it'll be very hard to defeat Trump, win congress, get things passed, etc. But what's the alternative? Lay down and die? Passivity? Apathy? That's been tried. We call it the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. We see what we got for aspiring to be nothing more than television watchers working steady 9-5 jobs with the hope of meeting someone, buying a house and starting a family. There's a big world out there and it's worth understanding and, more importantly, worth fighting for.

So yes, it'll probably be slow going and is an uphill battle. No doubt. We knew it from the beginning. We've gotten THIS far, though. Would we have dreamed of being this close even 6 years ago?

I really wouldn't worry about it. Like I said earlier, the DNC are indeed sleazy, but they're not completely blind. They don't like Sanders, but they'll very easily recognize what a big mistake it is, especially this time around. And Sanders will most likely get the plurality, yes -- but others will drop out as well along the way, leaving some distance between his delegate count and the count of the potential second-place finisher, making it even more striking if they simply declare a winner other than Sanders. In other words, if he ends up with 1400 delegates, it's not as if second place will have the remaining 1591 or whatever it is. The rest will either vote according to who their the candidate who dropped out endorsed or can vote however they'd like at the convention -- but the point is, the distance will be sufficiently large, and this in itself will almost force the DNC's hand to give it to Sanders.

Yes, Pete seemed to cruelly and unnecessarily twist the blade when confronting her about her forgetting the name of Mexico’s President. She looked shocked, but recovered nicely. — 0 thru 9

I think she looked rattled and weak. She appeared on the verge of tears almost. Her line about "Do you think I'm dumb, are you mocking me?" was kind of pathetic. Why not just say "I forgot, mistakes happen" strongly, and then move on. This was terrible for her. Pete looked like an ass, too, but he was still successful in making her shake.

Just watch. It'll come down to Sanders and Bloomberg, but only because the latter has the money to waste.

Too much talk about a brokered convention. If by chance that happens, it won't be so close as to be reasonable to give it to someone other than the delegate leader. It would be suicide if they gave it to Bloomberg or whoever instead of Sanders, for example. There's no sense getting worked up about this. The DNC is sleazy but not that stupid.

I thought Bernie handled the attacks well. The "socialist millionaire with three houses" was bound to be brought up, and plays very well unfortunately. Better to get it out of the way and give Bernie some practice, because Trump will undoubtedly use this as well (ironically, another billionaire). I don't think "billionaires shouldn't exist" plays well either, and I wish he would be more clear about how he will pay for Medicare for All -- have some response that's quick. If citizens buy into "Mexico will pay for it," then they'll buy anything -- it doesn't matter, but say something and say it quickly.

Otherwise, he did fine as usual, and it was good to have a billionaire contrast on the stage.

I don't know about needing to die, but I don't like him buying his way into this race either.

I think Biden has almost no chance at this point. It's going to end up being Bernie or Bloomberg, which is a disaster. But let's hope Bernie pulls away with the delegates so it doesn't come to the shenanigans.

Noam Chomsky on the 2020 elections and Bernie Sanders:


"We have a short-term problem: what lever do you push in November of this year? Simple question. What you do is pick the one that's least damaging. OK, after having spent five minutes figuring that out, you now go back to work trying to develop the basis for much more substantial changes to develop popular movements which will be active, engaged on real issues, never stopping or restricting themselves to the quadrennial extravaganza, but working all the time on the ground in communities, in education and in organizing activism to create the larger scale changes that are needed.

These are not alternatives. We shouldn't be trapped by the doctrinal system which identifies "politics" as showing up every couple years to push a button to select one or another candidate picked by the powerful. Yes, that choice makes a difference -- makes a significant difference -- but after making that choice (which again should take you five minutes to figure out), you get back to work.

In fact, it's no secret that the mainstream Democratic establishment are very concerned that Bernie Sanders might gain the nomination, they're doing everything possible to undermine him. Why? I don't think it's because of his policies. The fact of the matter is that his policies are an expansion of the New Deal, which wouldn't surprise Eisenhauer -- our last conservative President. But what really is bothersome is that he's breaking with the condition that the public are supposed to be occasional participants who's role in the political system is to pick one or the other of the dominant class. He's breaking with that."

I just checked, and no it was not you. I was commenting on another posters message. — Nobeernolife

Fine. The point stands.

So why do butt in, and in such rude manner? — Nobeernolife

Because it's a public forum. If you want to have private discussions, you can. If you don't want others reading or responding to you, that's the way to go.

As far as being "rude," fine. I get this a lot. I'll agree to try and be better if you (and others) agree to toughen up a little.

So in what respect are Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, Belize and Greece better? They all have their number of problems too. — Nobeernolife

Which is exactly my point. We have our problems, they have theirs. We have our virtues, so do they.

And how is asking which country you find better after call one awful a "fatous question"? Looks like a relevant question to me. — Nobeernolife

Who called the United States "awful"? I certainly didn't. But who cares anyway if someone did? Why should you get defensive about that? It's as absurd as getting upset if someone "insults" your favorite sports team -- may be annoying, but the more interesting question is why they're doing that. Sometimes there's good reason. If there isn't, and they're just prejudiced, then in my view the proper response is to ignore them, not engage in a pissing contest about what country is "better."

Don't forget the big one: do you want to exist somewhere? Well unless your wealthy parents just gifted you a house the moment you became an adult, you have to exist somewhere owned by someone else indefinitely, paying them whatever they demand for the privilege, or else eventually borrow enough money from someone else to buy a place of your own and then spend your whole life paying that back, plus however much else they demand for that privilege. — Pfhorrest

Exactly. One can see this everywhere. In the prices of goods and services, in the rise of debt and credit cards, in the rise of tuition in public (and private) colleges and universities (and thus student loan debt), in rent prices, in mortgages, in car loans, in the limited choices we're given as "consumers," and on and on.

I grew up in Andover, MA. Right next door was Lawrence, an old mill town and much poorer. I could see very clearly what money can buy, from better schools and nicer stores and less police involvement on down. But it's hard to miss even without living with that contrast. I think a large part of it is that people don't like discussing class and money.

The government, on the other hand, can take from you what they wish, and enslave you, steal from you and kill you if you refuse to comply. — NOS4A2

True, because the laws are created by the government and law enforcement (from the FBI on down to local police) therefore has to exist. But ask yourself who's creating the laws (to be enforced in the first place), and who makes up the court system that interprets the law?

It's been shown that the government is in bed with private wealth and power, and thus you will see this reflected in the types of laws that get passed, the types of rulings that are handed down (Citizens United, Janus, etc), and the varying severity of punishment and use of force. (Also look at the spreading of news and information, now done mainly through the media.)

All of these factors therefore come into play when discussing power in the country. If you believe the "buck stops" with the President, or with Congress, or with the military and law enforcement, you're missing a bigger picture. Neither the government nor private power can exist without the majority of people, and everyone in business and everyone in government knows this. Your point about violence is simply one piece. There are other structures in place: indoctrination systems (like "education") and propaganda. This is especially true of a relatively free society like ours.

I'm sure Rand probably noticed the power of owning the media, but you're right -- she never emphasized that. But this is a huge piece of keeping the public complacent, confused, and apathetic. (There's also a lot of "political hobbyism" going on.) Power is also welded through our schools, of course.

Is this your adolescent son talking?

What a juvenile and petty response. If it's truly you I'd be embarrassed, even with the anonymity of the Internet.

The only things private ownership has power over is its own property. They cannot force or otherwise coerce the government to do what they wish. They cannot force their employees to work for them. They cannot force you to purchase their products or services. — NOS4A2

Here your use of the word "force" is I think too limited.

(1) Private ownership and private wealth do indeed exert influence and control over the government, as is well documented. If the people of the government who control what laws get written and passed -- the members of the House and Senate -- are beholden to "special interests," then these special interests have power over government. I never said it was complete power and total control.

(2) Not "forcing" employees to work for them. True, and this line is often used to justify the greed and maltreatment of workers that you see all the time. It's used to justify low wages and shortened hours to avoid benefits, etc. People don't "have" to work for these companies, after all. What do they do if they can't find anything else? They have the right to starve, I suppose.

(3) Same for "forcing" us to use their products and services. Sure. So you want high speed internet, and the only company in town is Comcast. No one is putting a gun to your head to buy high speed internet, after all. Or if Wal Mart and Shaws and CVS are the only general store and supermarket and pharmacy near you, you have a choice to drive farther and find something else, etc. etc.

Great logic. Put all the burden, all the responsibility, on the workers and consumers.

You're a good example of how propaganda turns people into apologists for concentrated power. It's terrible apologetics, in my view. All the more so because you're not one of them.

Philosophical and moral arguments were given for the justification of slavery, as well. Believed by slaveowners, yes -- but also by the slaves themselves. That's worth remembering.

It is pretty awful in some respects, but I am curious if you can list the places that are better? — Nobeernolife

Sweden. Denmark. Germany. I like Canada and Belize a lot, too. Greece is really amazing. Etc.

So there's the answer to your absurd, disingenuous question. Now please go on to highlight the problems of the aforementioned countries and completely miss my point*.




* Hint: asking what country is "better" is a fatuous question, at best.

Classic example which makes is totally clear is the title of Noam Chomsky's first political bok from 1967: "The Resonsibility of Intellectuals". Cannot make it more clear what his agenda is. — ssu

And what would that be? The Responsibility of Intellectuals is a very interesting read indeed, if you take the time and make an effort to understand what's being said.

Chomsky is arguing the intellectuals throughout history have usually been on the side of the powerful and of the elite, that those who dissent are usually ostracized and persecuted (despite what we may now learn about them-- favorably-- from history books), and that this continues to the present day. I would include Chomsky himself in with these dissenters. It's no wonder he's not a Fox News or CNN pundit or gets to write for the NY Times, etc.

Your views on government are laughable.

You want to give away your own power and give it to the government. That explains your level servility. — NOS4A2

I don't want to give up my power to the government either. Don't be ridiculoius. The difference between you and I, and why I mentioned your position is laughable (which shouldn't be taken personally), is that I'd prefer most of the power be in the hands of an entity we have a little more say in (and all too little) rather than in the hands of private ownership, where we have zero say, unless of course we own the majority (or significant amount) of shares. This is big business in the form of the (fewer and fewer) corporations that dominate banking, agriculture, drugs, energy, entertainment, sports, etc. You know this. These are not small, family-owned, local businesses.

If you're truly in favor of, or at least prefer, the real power lying in the hands of unaccountable corporations, then you're basically in favor of totalitarianism. Think about it. Not exterminating or deliberately starving people, but run in a totalitarian fashion where orders come from the top-down and where the vast majority of workers have no say whatsoever and ultimately answer to a small, removed group of people that own and make the major decisions for the company.

Consequently, I wouldn't be so quick jumping on "Big Government" liberals for their wanting to "give up" power, because you seemingly do as well, if reluctantly -- the difference, again, is that you simply can't see that of two bad choices, private tyranny or government, government is the by any measure the preferable choice. (At least if you care, as is often professed, about democracy -- what the majority of people in the country [the working and middle class] want, what most of them say they want and what most of them vote for. If you don't care about democracy, fine -- then you're in good company with James Madison and John Jay.)

Yeah, I don’t know. He’s been harder on them than anyone else. — NOS4A2

Ah, a Trump supporter. That explains the level of understanding about history and politics. Should have known.

Yes, people like you and I. It is our first amendment right to petition, to influence the government. It’s one of the most important ways to do so. It worked in the case of slavery, for instance. — NOS4A2

Your views on government are laughable.

Lobbying is an important avenue through which the public can petition the government, and it’s far game for any private citizen, group or corporation. — NOS4A2

The "public"? "Private citizens"? Is that what comes to mind when you hear the word "lobbyist"?

There are around 14,000 lobbyists in Washington. Well over 3 billion dollars gets spent every year on lobbying.

Now look again at the research about which segment of the population ends up getting what they want. Here's a hint: it's no where close to the majority of people.

You are right about this, and all you said, but I'll add a root cause: people are stupid and lazy. If every voter took the time to analyze policy and candidates, they could (in theory) make a merit-based selection. It's sad that advertising blurbs make such a difference. — Relativist

I have debates with friends of mine about exactly this. I certainly feel this way a lot, but the more rational part of me knows damn well that it's not just the people's fault. Many people can't locate the US on a world map or know that the Earth orbits the sun, etc. Terminology effects peoples opinions, too. In one poll, "Universal health coverage" and "medicare for all" had 63% "positive" reaction, while "single-payer health insurance" and "socialized medicine" had 49% and 46%, respectively.

The ignorance of our citizens is indeed astounding. But when millions are working multiple jobs with low wages, have families to take care of, feel completely (and justifiably) disenfranchised with the political process, with social supports weakening and the country becoming more afraid of one another and more polarized...how can you really blame them? Now add to this a very important piece: where they get their information. I don't expect Joe Sixpack to come home and read up on the latest from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or start a research project on income inequality. If he bothers with the news at all, it's probably local news (which is 95% garbage and 5% weather), or else one of the major information bubbles (like Fox News or Huffington Post, etc) or, unfortunately, social media and various Internet sites/blogs, etc. -- which is becoming more and more popular, as we all know. What do you expect to come out of all of this? An accurate and informed picture of the world?

In the introduction to "Manufacturing Consent," there's a quote from John Milton:

"Those who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness."

I think that's absolutely true.

I don’t understand those who decry “big business” and lobbying. The only reason people buy out politicians and bureaucrats is because politicians and bureaucrats can be bought. We should decry the politicians and bureaucrats for setting the conditions. If they didn’t accept bribes and certain lobbying that sort of business would become untenable within a few years. — NOS4A2

Like Bernie?

So you take the line of blaming the politicians. Fine. Take a look at the amount of money needed to run a campaign. If you don't have the money, you're not in it. The media will ignore you, you won't be able to buy advertisements, etc. Those who fund your campaign you are beholden to. This has been the reality for over 100 years and since the rise of the PR industry. To blame any one thing, like politicians, is simpleminded. Of course many are weak, but there's an obvious filtration process: those who don't accept the money and rationalize accepting it don't get elected. So what do we end up with, given this condition?

The true power, however, lies in the hands of concentrated wealth, which in this society is found in the form of big business (mainly multinational corporations), run by a small segment of the population. As has been pointed out, this small segment gets nearly everything on their agenda legislatively and otherwise, through lobbying and the aforementioned bribes ("campaign contributions").

It's not only their fault, and it's not that they're all evil people. But we have to at least acknowledge their disproportionate influence on our society and our laws. It's all tilted in their favor, predictably. You have to notice this.

Sorry, big big business and media don’t run the country. — NOS4A2

They most certainly do. It's the reason you're even making the argument you're making.

This isn’t true of “big business. Remember that those who own businesses and corporations are like you and I: private citizens and voters. We’re on the same team. — NOS4A2

Actually, corporations are considered people. But regardless, you're completely wrong: big business owns the politicians and the media, which is why people like you continue to defend them as they run the country into the ground.

Yes, it's called anti-politic. Anything wrong, blame the government. That's fine for the people to believe, as the corporate sector amasses more and more wealth and lobby for (and get) whatever they want. It distracts the public's attention and anger to the "Big Government."

Deregulation, privatization, cutting corporate taxes, etc., -- yeah, all fine for big business. To say this serves the peoples' interests is a complete joke, with zero evidence.

You look at states, for example, that went overwhelmingly for Trump. You look at the demographics and the problems they face. Then you look at Trump's policies and how they impact those states. The answer becomes clear.

Trump has screwed the working class in every way possible. It's a joke.

There's good research on this general phenomenon as well. Hochschild published an entire book in '16 about this phenomenon, actually. I'll link below.

https://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Their-Own-Land-Mourning/dp/1536684937

Excellent point. And let's not even start on Eisenhower.

Under 1/2 of people are even eligible to vote.

Only around 2/3 of those actually voted.

Under 1/2 of those voted for Trump.

So under (1/2)*(2/3)*(1/2) = 1/6 people voted for Trump.

(Looking at the actual numbers it's closer to 1/8, but I'm rounding for simplicity). — Pfhorrest

This is very often forgotten, but shouldn't be.

Polling DOES suggest, though, that the country is fairly split on Trump. His approval rating has been around 42%, recently up to 49%. A lot of key swing states are still basically 50/50 on the next election. It boggles my mind, but that's what the numbers show.

I'm of the opinion that the truly dyed-in-the-wool Trump people are certainly in a minority, maybe 30-35% or so. But they're extremely vocal. They're the ones with the bumper stickers and Trump flags and MAGA hats.

Driving in Manchester NH this past Monday, outside the Trump rally, I got a decent look at the (large) crowd waiting in line outside. A lot of grey goatees, a lot of white hair, and almost all white folks. Now, we have a lot of hicks in NH, so I'm familiar with them -- and it looked very similar to a Loudon (Nascar) or Deerfield Fair crowd. Obviously this is stereotyping, but it's more true than not.

My point being this: these are the people who make their presence known -- they vote, they pick fights on the internet, they try to win by being the loudest and the most intimidating, etc. But they're still the minority, and becoming more so as demographics change. This is partly what energizes them. But they're the minority notwithstanding. I think we're seeing the last gasps of lot of old thinking. And Bernie, ironically, represents the new direction, whether now or ten years from now. The sad thing is, it may already be too late in terms of damage to the environment and to the courts. Especially if he (or the democrats generally) don't win in November.

Ahh yes, the objective research shows that America does not want what Trump offers but the Trump voters are too stupid to vote for what they want. — Hanover

No, objective research shows that what Americans want, right or left, gets ignored.

It's also pretty clear that Trump voters are voting against their interests, yes. Democrats have done the same in years past-- but this is in a league of its own.

Why is Bernie doing well? He's young, hip, sharp, articulate, and he's captured the hearts and minds of the American public with his dazzling personality. It's either that or he gained popularity when he was the only one that Clinton couldn't exclude from the race with back room deals last election and everyone hates Trump so much that they're now willing to vote for a dying, babbling Socialist. — Hanover

Great analysis. Why does the Trump crowd so often sound like adolescents?

Also, try looking up what "reactionary" means. You've continually used it wrong.

No, I meant what I said not what you want it to mean. Research is quite clear on this. What the majority of voters want doesn't matter in the USA. — Benkei

Absolutely right, and there's very good research about this. Take a look at Tom Ferguson's work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition

Trump's election was reactionary to the fact the political establishment hasn't listened to people for quite some time and was a lurch to the insane right. — Benkei

Despite the Republican establishment trying to tear Trump down, he used his existing notoriety, outlandish behavior and free media coverage to push through. He's also a very skilled politician, knowing exactly what played well to crowds and what to repeat. His voting coalition is gun enthusiasts, evangelicals, pro-lifers, white nationalists, xenophobes, and the uneducated. He throws them bones once in a while to keep them happy, and it's working -- 95% approval rating in the party. The Republicans having consequently kowtowed to him.

But you're right -- he plays to the worst aspects of the right. But why is the "right" so insane these days? Look to the financial crisis and the election of Obama. What came out of that? The Tea Party -- anti-establishment, feeling like their country is being taken from them, etc. Years of Fox News and conversation radio propaganda stirring their worst impulses, and suddenly you have a "movement" of voters reacting to things in their own way. The result was Trump.

Meanwhile, look at the Occupy Movement. For those who remember, this was a very big deal, drawing massive crowds and a lot of publicity. The the slogan of "We are the 99%" has stayed around, as has a lot of the imagery that developed within it, all despite critics saying it wasn't leading anywhere. It's led to Bernie. The difference between him and Trump is that the Democratic establishment in 2016 was able to beat Bernie back, as the Republicans did in 2012 with Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.

And here we are. There was a good article today in the NYT about how Bernie has already won, in the sense that he's transformed the party. I agree with that. Whether he gets elected is hard to tell, given he has no support by the establishment and democratic voters seem much less interested in the (necessary) solidarity needed to prevail. Still, one can hope. It would be very good for the country right now.

Who really thinks that a "democratic socialist" can command enough votes? I'm a socialist, but most people are not, and I just don't see a DSA candidate winning. — Bitter Crank

The term "socialism" is almost devoid of meaning these days. Look at the proposals. All of them have majority support. He has the enthusiasm and the young voters. If he's the nominee, more people will hear the message, and it's precisely that which accounts for his popularity: the message. Let him promise the world -- GOOD. The question of how you're going to pay for it has been answered: tax the wealthy. But people don't really care about that. Trump got elected by saying Mexico was going to pay for a wall, did the voters really care? No. The Republicans were screaming for years about the debt, and now they've run it up. No one seems to care. The level of ignorance of our electorate is stunning.

There are plenty of people "on the fence" with the same level of thinking. They LIKE the idea of student loan debt forgiveness, free public universities, free healthcare, doing something about climate change, etc. Keep hammering home that message, and it doesn't matter if Bernie is an old, cranky, white, Jewish socialist. We already have the numbers in this country, we just need to come together and organize in solidarity. Defeat Trump, and don't worry so much about the rest.

I agree of course, which is why I'm voting for anyone who gets the nomination. I also think Bernie stacks up very well with Trump. According to the polls, only Biden does better in some of the key states...but Bernie isn't far behind. So if there's no clear "guarantee" then let's go with the candidate with the enthusiasm behind them? If Trump could do it in 2016, the democrats can do it in 2020.

I think the answer is organization and solidarity on the left. They already have the numbers. I've spoken to some Bernie-or-bust people and Never-Bernie people, and both groups boggle my mind. We need to come together after someone is nominated.

I've seen most of these. I don't buy Virginia and Penn especially, too early and all indications for Virginia is that it's basically blue now. Pennsylvania is trickier -- maybe it's purple now, maybe not. I don't know what poll is showing Trump beating everyone there, but from what I saw last time I checked Biden has the edge.

Regardless, even with these polls it's still pretty close. We tried running the "guaranteed" nominee in 2016 and narrowly failed. Let's do something different this time -- no more establishment, no more vague promises and wishy-washy stances. If the country isn't ready for it, fine. At least we tried. But if they ARE...watch out, because that changes politics completely. Sanders has already reshaped the Democratic party, and for the better. Trump didn't reshape the Republican party -- they're still the party of corporations -- but he DID get them all to kiss his ass. If he could get elected without the establishment helping, so can Sanders -- who people actually like and who has popular New Deal-style ideas.

Well fine, but with enough people like you it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You must see that.

Yes, here in NH.

No, I won't be traveling to NC unfortunately. If I could I would.

Bernie getting the nomination is the only hope the Democrats ever really had for beating Trump. Winning elections is not about convincing people to change their minds -- that almost never works -- but about exciting people enough to actually go out and vote. The left half of America have been sorely disappointed with the Democratic party for a long time, and Bernie's loss in 2016 encouraged a bunch of them to vote 3rd party (which is fine in some cases, problematic in others), stay home, or worse, "burn it all down" and vote Trump in protest (which... what, I don't fucking understand that). Mainstream party-line Democrats will still vote for Bernie anyway, mainstream Republicans won't no matter what, there are apparently those wtf voters who prefer Bernie over Trump but Trump over anyone else, and most importantly, the many discouraged progressive youths will actually get excited enough to show up on election day. — Pfhorrest

Exactly right.

And I'm sorry, I will not believe that Bernie Sanders will ever become president until I see it. The American political system will never let that happen, not in a million years. If I do see it I'll gladly eat my words. — Wayfarer

Except that he polled better than Clinton did in 2016 and continues to beat Trump in polls today and in key states in particular.

Your "gut" is truly irrelevant. Spread your apathy and hopelessness elsewhere -- those of us that still fight will do everything we can to get Sanders nominated and elected. Feel free to sit there and say how none of it can be done -- you have plenty of company.