I think #6, broadened to include a broad range of possible GOP cheating, is much likelier than people think. Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that Cheating is their principle value. They needn’t worry about any backlash: many of their supporters accept all lies; others delight in GOP criminality.
There’s also
7. Events beyond Sanders’ control create turmoil (whether economic, social, political, or geopolitical); this turmoil strengthens the GOP politically and the Ds lose the Presidency in 2024. The turmoil may be a result of deliberate GOP sabotage: Expect the GOP to continue working with Putin with a D in the White House.
Bernie gets a too-extreme agenda passed; private insurance is abolished; this is hugely disruptive and strengthens the GOP politically.
#7 (a variation on #2) is a real possibility. #8 is very unlikely: The D’s lack even the gumption to abolish filibuster, let alone to pass a radical agenda.
On another question — "Is centrism dead?" — politics has certainly become obscenely hyperpartisan. But a very large number of Americans would favor centrist policies.
But I have trouble even viewing today's American politics in terms of left vs right. Instead it's Truth, Science and Humane Values on one side and Lying, Cheating, Greed, Hatred and Stupidity on the other side. In that context what does "centrism' even mean?
Trump challenges Bernie to a duel during their third debate.
Bernie refuses. Trump mocks him.
One of Trump’s fans jumps up on the stage and tried to shoot Bernie to try and please Trump, but he’s a cop by day, so a lousy shot and he accidentally hits Trump instead.
But there are some things many people, even republicans like. I for one like universal healthcare. I would like the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. I want more funding for social security and persons with disabilities. I want our corporations to pay fair share of taxes.
I have family in Denmark and I like how Bernie wants to embrace many of their ways.
Hopefully the nomination of Romney would fail a roll call vote at the convention. That would be unacceptable at any time, but it would be especially heinous to put a conservative Republican on the ticket with a man who would be the first octogenarian president, who has already had a heart attack.
Romneyism is already on the ballot, and it’s represented by Donald Trump.
I don’t think that’s quite fair as Utah got a smaller percentage of votes for Trump than New Hampshire or Nevada and you can hardly say that they represent Trumpism. If anyone has a claim to be the banner-bearer of never-trumpism, it’s the senator from Utah.
Well, I realize the last combined ticket did not end well, but they did win the election.
My thought was that you normally choose a VP to compensate for geographic and demographic weaknesses of a candidate. I suspect Bernies weaknesses in terms of being to the left of Americas Overton Window are more serious than geography and demographics though.
Other nations have at times advanced bipartisan coalitions to deal with serious crises. And I believe Trumps erosion of American practice in terms of accountability, rule of law and political neutrality in the departments do qualify.
Mitt Romney is the author of Obama/Romneycare, rich, strongly anti-Trumph and a former Republican presidential candidate, so he would seem to be the perfect candidate for such a ticket.
I do see that Bernies age and health is a strong argument against it, where Buttigieg/Romney or Warren/Romney would have been a better matchup.
It’s absolutely fair. Donald Trump is a standard-issue Republican president who does extremely little that the Republican party as a whole (including Mitt Romney) does not stand for. The overwhelming majority of Romney voters voted for Trump because Trump was the candidate that represented their wishes. The overwhelming majority of terrible stuff that Donald Trump has done would have taken place in a Romney administration and vice-versa; Trump is the symptom, not the disease. “Never-Trumpism” is a niche faction that exists primarily in cable news studios.
Using the vice presidency to make a symbolic grand gesture about an impeachment trial that has already receded from the public memory is just an incredibly bad idea.
I don’t really see the connection to the impeachment trial?
The points would be to
a) Cover the democratic candidates weakness in being to the left of the US Overton Window
b) Split the Republican vote
c) Convince some of the centrist floating vote that yes, this really is serious
d) Pull in an few voters who like Mitt Romney, he did get a lot of PR as a presidential candidate.
Also, I really don’t think the trade wars, the Syria pullout, the Putin appeasement, the internment of children, the lack of competent appointees, the contempt for laws, lack of a blind trust, etc, etc would necessarily have been parts of any other Republican administration but Trumps.
NewMorning Consultpoll shows Bernie’s lead up to ten points. He has improved his numbers more than any other candidate relative to pre-NH numbers. Also, he is now the candidate that Democrats view as most electable; that is also true of the subset of black Democrats (goodbye Joe, you gotta go, me oh my-o)
Interesting to see that, despite all the recent talk about Warren’s fade and Klobuchar’s rise, that Warren’s lead in that poll is still double that of Klob’s.
Yeah, Bloomberg just took a huge step toward taking control of the moderate lane and being a real contender, imo. Just looking at the situation:
Bernie shellacked the presumed national front-runner (Biden) in the first two states, so the left lane is showing momentum.
Biden’s numbers are tanking in the next two states (down below 25% in SC & at about 15% in NV)
Bernie’s national numbers are dwarfing Biden’s, and Biden’s numbers continue to crater.
Bloomberg is raking up endorsements.
Bloomberg is either in second place or +17% in: CA, NC, TX & MI (four delegate-rich, early-March states)
Bloomberg’s averaging almost 17% in: NJ, FL, OH, WI & PA (five later-voting delegate-rich states)
Bloomberg’s just broken the 15% mark nationally.
(All numbers from 538’s polling averages)
I don’t know how this doesn’t end up being Bloomberg vs. Sanders for the nom at this point. Pete and Klob, while looking decent in IA and NH, just won’t have the money to compete against the Sanders fundraising machine or Bloomberg’s money printing machine going forward.
Warren, to me, is the biggest disappointment of the primary. I was really hoping she’d be a contender.
Bernie vs a billionaire (and then Bernie vs a fake billionaire in the GE, if he makes it) is about as perfect a setup for his campaign and supporters as could be imagined.
What a fight that’d be. “We are the 99%” Bernie supporters would be in incandescent-rage mode, seeing their guy go up against a $60 billion billionaire.
ETA: **iiandyiiii **beat me to it.
Awesome. I have total confidence in Bernie’s ability to shred a billionaire on the debate stage. And if I’m wrong, I’d sure rather find out in the spring than in the fall.
PredicitIt- which is interesting as it measures who people think will win ( as opposed for who they are voting for) currently has Bloomberg ahead of Sanders in 14 states ( mostly Southern and Eastern ) and Washington DC.