Really simple: I don’t trust the polls. I don’t trust them at all.
You can say or think whatever you want about that, including that I’m an idiot; it’s OK, and I don’t take it personally. That’s my belief and the chances of it changing, according to the most recent poll, is zero.
In an interview with Vox, James Carville makes an impassioned argument as to why this is a terrible time to launch a progressive revolution.
I think I agree.
He’s right and he’s wrong. In the House or on a local level, sure. But we need to take back the senate and the White House.
That’s fine for Sanders to fully take ownership on, but I’m not sure those down ballot candidates who helped the Democratic Party gain control of the House by winning red districts will be thrilled. Moderates won those seats. By slim margins but they won. Whereas the Sanders wing which elevated the likes of AOC in already blue districts, did not flip one red district. Democrats need to keep hold of the house and win the senate too.
In addition to use that argument that whoever the Dems will put up will be branded a socialist. True. But the swing state voters and red state voters haven’t been rejecting moderate democrats over the years. Moderate democrats support protecting the welfare blanket, protecting and expanding civil rights, investing in education/healthcare/public utilities and green environmental initiatives too. If those people have been rejected as too much big government and rather they voted in favour of republicans who instead work to roll back those policies then it makes no sense that they would gleefully accept a loud and proud socialist as if that’s what they have been waiting for all this time.
correction^
*have been rejecting moderate democrats over the years
I think that anything can be Overton-Windowed into becoming acceptable, though. Even downright fascism, I think, could pass - and be elected - on the label of “Fascism” itself - if given enough airtime, time to talk through its “pros and cons,” etc.
Not that I’m comparing democratic socialism to fascism, but I think almost anything can fly these days if it’s given enough time and the public frog given enough time to slowly warm up in the saucepan water.
James Carville - now there’s a blast from the past!
He was a big deal in 1992. But Toto, we’re not in the 90s anymore.
Nothing like an “OK, Boomer” coming from a boomer. Most amusing.
So no comment about his actual argument made? He’s not an in-thing trending and that’s enough to dismiss the points?
Okay.
The argument made is that the Democrats win, not only the Presidency but the Senate
The argument could be made by the newest most exciting new thing or Joe the Plumber. It is as cogent either way.
I must beg your indulgence to interrupt the thread with an installment of Cute Things My Kid Said.
“Daddy, I know why you like Bernie!”
"Because his name sounds like “Beer!”
The Carville take on the campaign has already its own thread. Which has had the expected responses.
Yeah, Carville is a relic of the past. Targeting “moderate independents” was the way to win when he was working for Bill Clinton.
But we’re in an era of hyperpartisanship now. The portion of the electorate that might actually vote for either Trump or the Democrat is like 5%. And sure, if you could win all of that 5%, you’d win, but you can’t because they all want different things and, let’s face it, they’re all low information voters at this point. Some of them are Romney-Clinton voters and some of them are Sanders-Trump voters. So really the best you can hope for is to win this group like 3-2, and the worst you can do is to lose 3-2.
And at that point, it becomes valid to wonder whether you might actually come out ahead by targeting the Obama-Stein voters instead.
The way to win now isn’t by targeting the “swing voters”, but by increasing turnout among the groups that are going to vote for you if they show up. And given that half the people don’t bother to vote at all, even a small increase in turnout can have huge effects.
Or the Obama-stay-at-home voters.
I did something yesterday that I’ve never done before: a living room community gathering in support of a candidate – in this case, Bloomberg. I think I’ve made up my mind – I Like Mike, on Super Tuesday in California.
Im pretty sure I’m going with Bloomberg as well.
He’s not just a rich guy buying the Presidency. Take a look at the Bloomberg Philanthropies website. He’s spent the last few years working on public policy initiatives at the local and state levels. He’s actually DONE real stuff to address issues like climate change and the opioid crisis. Lots of other stuff as well. Gun control. Health care. This isn’t some vanity campaign. When you don’t have to beg for money you can focus that energy on other things. And it’s refreshing to support a candidate who isn’t always trying to hit me up for $5.
He’s the anti-Trump. He’s the ice to Trump’s fire, the Superego to his Id, the lawful good to his chaotic evil.
I’d probably vote for him even if the other candidates weren’t so flawed.
I’ve gotten targeted Bloomberg ads and they have swayed me against him. They emphasize his passion for gun control, which I am neither against nor have super-high on my priorities and it doesn’t have a large chance of meaningful reform getting done anyway. So he goes to the bottom of my viable candidates choices if he’s going to tilt so much at that windmill. Not that it matters since I live in Florida and am not a registered party member.
Same.
And I find his calm, confident lack of personality refreshing. 
Exactly. Who as a group also lean left, though not as strongly as the Obama-Stein voters.
Two national polls released with surveys done entirely post-Iowa, and Sanders leads both, one by only one point but the other by eight. He’s now within 0.2% of Biden in the 538 polling average nationally.