# James Carville on the state of the election **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 7, 2020, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597 "2020-02-07T19:31:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2020, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/241 "2020-02-14T23:55:12Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Because I think Bernie’ own words coming out of his own face are going to sink him with enough of a percentage of voters in November if not in the primary. No smearing necessary. They’re already starting to call him a communist. That’s a smear. That’s not using his own words against him. I’m sure they’ll try to use his own words against him, but that’s different than smearing him. “Bernie praised aspects of Castro’s government!” is an accurate criticism, and not a smear. But so far, what I see is the “communist!” smear, not the “Bernie praised certain aspects of repressive regimes” criticism. And, of course, while Bernie praised some aspects of repressive regimes in the 80s, Trump has praised repressive regimes and authoritarian leaders within the last 3 years, multiple times. So for every tape of Bernie praising communist Castro, there’s a tape of Trump praising Kim Jong Un, Putin, and others, much more recently, and without the reasonable explanation that Bernie has offered. That’s why I don’t think this will be a terribly effective tactic – if people care about this stuff a whole lot, then they wouldn’t have supported (or continue to support) Trump. > [@](#): > > The same tactic is being used against Bloomberg currently. Putting out his own words to use against him. > > Are either smears? Both? Neither? Is it a smear only when used against the guy you like? Criticizing someone’s own words is not a smear. Calling a socialist a communist is a smear. Is that clear? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2020, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/242 "2020-02-14T23:58:54Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > It’s not my job to fight propaganda. …its \*\*everyone’s \*\*job to fight propaganda. Especially if you are privileged enough to be able to recognise it for what it is. > [@](#): > > If you want to put me on the anti-propaganda payroll give me an offer. Its not that you are not “anti-propaganda.” Its that you acted as an agent of propaganda. > [@](#): > > If I put “socialism is not communism” as my sig it won’t make a bit of difference. That’s not even the point. I’m having a discussion about how I’m guessing the election will go. This conversation is not going beyond this board and will not affect one vote. I’m not propagating anything. That’s how I think the vote will go. I’m not going to pretend that’s not how it will go. Maybe I’m wrong and voters are much more open minded. So far I haven’t seen evidence of that in my life but hope springs eternal right? Sorry that isn’t how it works any more. Propaganda and disinformation is being disseminated everywhere, from youtube videos to youtube comments section, to twitter, to messageboards. We can have a discussion about “which way the election will go” without resorting to making ridiculous assertions like “He might as well be a communist.” You know its ridiculous. I quoted the entire context of what you said. There is no basis for what you said in reality and you know it. What you said \*\*later \*\*in the thread was entirely fair and reasonable. But what you said earlier simply wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/243 "2020-02-15T00:07:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And, of course, while Bernie praised some aspects of repressive regimes in the 80s, Trump has praised repressive regimes and authoritarian leaders within the last 3 years, multiple times. So for every tape of Bernie praising communist Castro, there’s a tape of Trump praising Kim Jong Un, Putin, and others, much more recently, and without the reasonable explanation that Bernie has offered. > > That’s why I don’t think this will be a terribly effective tactic – if people care about this stuff a whole lot, then they wouldn’t have supported (or continue to support) Trump. Hey, Miller Lite advertises itself as a party beer that tastes great and is less filling. So the exact same ad strategy will work for Stella Artois. Science!!! ---
**Author:** ![Unreconstructed\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/76d3ee/32.png) [@Unreconstructed\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unreconstructed_Man)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/244 "2020-02-15T00:12:35Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > He didn’t even win the nomination in 2016 with democrats so that’s not the best argument. Now he’s going for swing voters and independents in parts of the country where socialist and communist are synonymous and about as negative as calling someone a pedophile. So agree to disagree. A few points: 1). One of the reasons why Bernie didn’t win the nomination in 2016 is because of the attitudes of people like you. People like you think you know what an “electable” candidate looks like. You have a loose idea of the kind of candidate that the rest of the country will find acceptable, and you push back against candidates who don’t fit that template. Not because _you_ wouldn’t vote for them, of course. Because you think _other people_ won’t vote for them. Often, the assumptions underpinning this perspective are very dismissive and condescending. We’ve seen it before. In 2008 we saw liberals objecting to Obama because he wasn’t as “electable” as Hillary. And these objections always took the same form; “Of course, _I’d_ vote for a black man. But what about _them_? The hicks. The shoeless rubes out in tornado alley. They’re just _not ready_. Best play it safe and nominate Hillary”. We’re seeing it again right now with Buttigieg; “Of course _I’d_ vote for a gay man. But if you think a gay POTUS and his First Gentleman will play in Peoria you’ve got another think coming. Best play it safe and nominate Joe Biden.” You’d think that, after the catastrophic electoral failures of “safe” candidates like Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, liberals would be a little more circumspect about declaring candidates “unelectable”. But no. What we’re seeing with Sanders is just more of the same. Liberals who, if it were up to them, would happily make Bernie President tomorrow, are dragging him down because he doesn’t match _their idea_ of what the rest of the country is prepared to vote for. The bottom line is that liberals have proven over and over again that they haven’t got the first clue about what appeals to conservatives, swing voters, and independents. So maybe they should stop trying to nominate a candidate based on who _they_ think the rest of the country will vote for. Maybe, instead, they should nominate who they _want_ and then work hard to make the case for that person. 2). It’s true there are some areas of America in which being a socialist is a vote loser. But there are growing areas of America where being a triangulating, third way neoliberal technocrat like Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren is a vote loser, too. Again, since liberals are _terrible_ at predicting what the rest of the country will find palatable, why don’t we try taking a chance on the candidate we actually want, rather than take a chance on the establishment candidate like we did all those times we got our asses kicked? 3). Instead of just assuming people are too stupid to evaluate Sanders’ arguments on their merits, why not try convincing them that their ideas about Bernie and Socialism are misguided? It’s not impossible. Just watch Bernie’s recent Joe Rogan interview. Read the comments. Thousands of testimonials from Rogan fans - many of whom are libertarians - praising Bernie for his clarity, sincerity, and common sense approach. That one 55 minute podcast probably did more for Bernie’s campaign than every wonkish think piece in the last two years. Just let Bernie show people what he’s about. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/245 "2020-02-15T00:20:58Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Hey, Miller Lite advertises itself as a party beer that tastes great and is less filling. So the exact same ad strategy will work for Stella Artois. Science!!! Chain happy gorilla bicycle! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/246 "2020-02-15T00:34:11Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …its \*\*everyone’s \*\*job to fight propaganda. Especially if you are privileged enough to be able to recognise it for what it is. > > Its not that you are not “anti-propaganda.” Its that you acted as an agent of propaganda. > > Sorry that isn’t how it works any more. Propaganda and disinformation is being disseminated everywhere, from youtube videos to youtube comments section, to twitter, to messageboards. We can have a discussion about “which way the election will go” without resorting to making ridiculous assertions like “He might as well be a communist.” You know its ridiculous. I quoted the entire context of what you said. There is no basis for what you said in reality and you know it. What you said \*\*later \*\*in the thread was entirely fair and reasonable. But what you said earlier simply wasn’t. Nope I have a job. It keeps a roof over my head and feed my family. This message board as a hobby I do for amusement. I don’t even get paid for moderating I’m certainly not going to start treating posting like it’s a job. Everything I was saying was about how I felt voters will feel or at least a significant portion. That is the basis of reality. Feel free to disagree with me. I believe that to a significant portion of those that he needs to get elected He might as well be a communist and wave around a little red book. The gallop poll seems to agree with me too ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/247 "2020-02-15T00:49:30Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Nope I have a job. It keeps a roof over my head and feed my family. This message board as a hobby I do for amusement. I don’t even get paid for moderating I’m certainly not going to start treating posting like it’s a job. …it would take **zero effort** on your part to fight propaganda. All you have to do **is not repeat it**. > [@](#): > > Everything I was saying was about how I felt voters will feel or at least a significant portion. I quoted what you said **in context**. What you said wasn’t about how “voters feel.” A plain text reading of what you said was all about what **you felt** , what you think. > [@](#): > > That is the basis of reality. Feel free to disagree with me. I believe that to a significant portion of those that he needs to get elected He might as well be a communist and wave around a little red book. The gallop poll seems to agree with me too But he isn’t a communist. You know this. You know that there is a widespread disinformation campaign to propagate the conflation. It is entirely fair and reasonable to talk about how people will conflate the two. It isn’t fair and reasonable to simply repeat the disingenuous talking points without putting them in context. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/248 "2020-02-15T00:52:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Chain happy gorilla bicycle! 🙂 Congrats. That is indeed a more annoying way to say “I don’t see what this has to do with my post”. The problem is, almost every time you say it, it’s rather obvious what it had to do with your post. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/249 "2020-02-15T00:56:35Z")
> [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](#): > > This gets an “OK, Boomer” award. > > Leaving left and right out of it, student debt and things like the shortage of affordable housing and lack of good jobs are things affecting a large part of the population. These aren’t just kids, these are people now in their thirties and even forties. These are not problems that only developed in the last few years. The Democrats haven’t exactly been there for them. > > I think winning them back is important, not just to win elections but to bring back the ideals I was brought up being told the Democrats stood for. Unfortunately I don’t know how long it would take to re-engage people. Ignoring them might in fact be a good short term strategy for winning. But I don’t think it’s a good long term one. I don’t know why more people understand this. How can anyone vote for Bloomberg is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/250 "2020-02-15T01:00:34Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Congrats. That is indeed a more annoying way to say “I don’t see what this has to do with my post”. The problem is, almost every time you say it, it’s rather obvious what it had to do with your post. I think you’re trying to say you disagree with my argument, without actually going into any detail. If so, thanks for sharing! We’ll see what happens in the election over the next several months. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/251 "2020-02-15T01:03:09Z")
Ok, we can stop now. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/252 "2020-02-15T01:22:50Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …it would take **zero effort** on your part to fight propaganda. All you have to do **is not repeat it**. > > I quoted what you said **in context**. What you said wasn’t about how “voters feel.” A plain text reading of what you said was all about what **you felt** , what you think. > > But he isn’t a communist. You know this. You know that there is a widespread disinformation campaign to propagate the conflation. It is entirely fair and reasonable to talk about how people will conflate the two. It isn’t fair and reasonable to simply repeat the disingenuous talking points without putting them in context. Being a socialist is as bad as being a communist for a large percentage of voters. I’ll keep saying it because I believe it to be true. I’m not going to take on the job of educating random people on political theory. I’ll leave that to you. I’m going to bet you will be as effective as me and I’m not even trying. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/253 "2020-02-15T01:49:24Z")
How bad is being russian for Republicans? Has it changed? So they are not just dinosaur brains equating communism with socialism. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/254 "2020-02-15T02:10:29Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > How bad is being russian for Republicans? Has it changed? > > So they are not just dinosaur brains equating communism with socialism. There are a lot of people whose commitment to a tribal party is greater than any issue or position. They won’t determine the outcome because their vote is baked in. The election will instead be determined by people who might not vote. And a whole lot of them live in swing states where registered voters are disproportionately old. Like my Pennsylvania. Personally, I like regulated capitalism. And my dinosaur brain tells me that being a former Trotskyite doesn’t help you convince old people that your socialism is the bright and pretty kind. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/255 "2020-02-15T02:42:27Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Congrats. That is indeed a more annoying way to say “I don’t see what this has to do with my post”. The problem is, almost every time you say it, it’s rather obvious what it had to do with your post. Eh, it’s just one of his silly rhetorical devices he uses in an attempt to make a post seem absurd. It’s easier than conceding other folks have legitimate points. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/256 "2020-02-15T02:51:07Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Eh, it’s just one of his silly rhetorical devices he uses in an attempt to make a post seem absurd. It’s easier than conceding other folks have legitimate points. Always easier to assume one’s ideological opponents are dishonest or stupid than to consider the possibility that they might honestly come to different conclusions and different understandings based on different assumptions and experiences. Any time you want to actually get into how we reach these different conclusions, I’d be happy to take part. But I understand that this kind of drive-by post takes a lot less effort, so that may be your preference. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/257 "2020-02-15T03:47:02Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > There are a lot of people whose commitment to a tribal party is greater than any issue or position. They won’t determine the outcome because their vote is baked in. > > The election will instead be determined by people who might not vote. And a whole lot of them live in swing states where registered voters are disproportionately old. Like my Pennsylvania. > > Personally, I like regulated capitalism. > > And my dinosaur brain tells me that being a former Trotskyite doesn’t help you convince old people that your socialism is the bright and pretty kind. But, how did the right become so warm about russia? They are changing. i have to admit: They may hate fellow americans more than russians. But still why do you think socialism can’t be spun like everything else. Also: the electorate you are talking about is getting older and dying. So in terms of “renewable” electoral politics you might be surprised at what younger voters (in Texas) are thinking now. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/258 "2020-02-15T04:13:20Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Being a socialist is as bad as being a communist for a large percentage of voters. …I never disputed this. I told you that this point is a fair and reasonable one. > [@](#): > > I’ll keep saying it because I believe it to be true. I’m not going to take on the job of educating random people on political theory. I’ll leave that to you. I’m going to bet you will be as effective as me and I’m not even trying. I’m going to return and give full context to what you said. iiandyiiii asked you: > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So are you saying Bernie’s a communist (which is what Carville and Trump have said), or are you saying they will try to smear Bernie as a communist? You replied: > [@Loach](#): > > He may have mellowed with age but he has expressed a lot more solidarity with communist governments and communist systems than any democrat candidate ever. He might as well be a communist. As it is he is an avowed socialist which might as well be the same thing. Carville can be a blowhard. He certainly knows the difference between communist and socialist. He also knows it doesn’t matter in American politics. > > It’s hard to characterize someone’s own words as a smear. Is the tape of Bloomberg a smear? iiandyiiii asked you to clarify your position: were you saying they were a communist or are you saying they will try and smear Bernie as a communist? You did clarify your position. ‘He expressed solidarity with them. He may as well have been one of them.’ None of that is accurate. Those are talking points. Talking points that were designed and written (not by you) and propagated for a very specific purpose. Repeating them with no caveat doesn’t fight the battle against ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2020, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/259 "2020-02-15T04:16:59Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > But still why do you think socialism can’t be spun like everything else. If DJT comes out for socialism, his base will follow. Unless you are predicting Trump will go there, I’m not following how that makes Carville wrong, or Sanders a strong candidate, or socialism a swing state winning issue. > [@drad\_dog](#): > > Also: the electorate you are talking about is getting older and dying. So in terms of “renewable” electoral politics you might be surprised at what younger voters (in Texas) are thinking now. Texas does have an unusually young electorate, and may well switch back to being a Democratic state before this decade ends. [But the evidence does not yet support it.](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/tx/texas_trump_vs_sanders-6819.html) Also, the evidence from the 2018 congressional elections is that the historic weak performance, in purplish areas, of leftist candidates is still the case: > [@](#): > > Tellingly, while progressives managed to nominate several candidates in red districts — Kara Eastman in Nebraska, Richard Ojeda in West Virginia, and many others — any one of whose victory they would have cited as proof that left-wing candidates can win Trump districts, not a single one of them prevailed in November. Our Revolution went 0–22, Justice Democrats went 0–16, and Brand New Congress went 0–6.\* The failed technocratic 26-year-old bourgeoise shills who were doing it wrong somehow accounted for 100 percent of the party’s House gains. > > Had Democrats failed to win back the House, their left-wing critics would have claimed vindication. Instead, the entire debate sank below the surface without a trace. I advice reading [my whole link,](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/bernie-sanders-electable-trump-2020-nomination-popular-socialism.html) and, even better, the “here, here, and here” poly sci links you’ll find within it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2020, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597/260 "2020-02-18T05:47:37Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I advice reading [my whole link,](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/bernie-sanders-electable-trump-2020-nomination-popular-socialism.html) and, even better, the “here, here, and here” poly sci links you’ll find within it. From your link: > [@](#): > > But Warren at least tries to couch her positions in a framework of reforming and revitalizing capitalism that is intended to reassure ideologically skeptical voters. Sanders combines unpopular program specifics in the unpopular packaging of “socialism.” The socialist label has grown less unpopular, a trend that has attracted so much media attention that many people have gotten the impression “socialism” is actually popular, which is absolutely not the case. That’s the key. Democrats have been able to win by vehemently denying that what they propose is socialism. Whether it is or not is largely up to one’s political POV. Bernie embraces the term, not only hurting him, but exposing all other Democratic candidates to the charge that the GOP was right all along that what they propose is socialism. It would be like Republican nominee stating, “Yeah, you guys are right. I’m only here to enrich myself and my rich buddies by concentrating more wealth in the hands of a few.” After that, the common Democratic attack that Republicans support the rich at the expense of the poor is no longer an attack: it’s a verifiable fact. The article is also right that the use of the term “socialist” does not require the acquisition of the fainting couch for many younger voters as it would have when my father was my age, but that doesn’t mean it is a winner. The debate will open up the Cold War arguments about why socialism is bad and we have thought it bad for years. America was based on rugged individualism and freedom, which if it means anything, means keeping what you earn. Charity to the poor, yes, but not a guaranteed government imposed right to pick my pocket. USA! USA! USA! In addition, Sanders has tremendous baggage. Posters are arguing whether this or that term is accurate, but none of that matters. What matters is the perception. First, Sanders looks crazy. Full stop. The guy looks like Doc Brown from Back to the Future. Second, he’s old. Old and crazy. Further, he has the baggage of taking a honeymoon to the USSR. You can say, no, no that wasn’t a honeymoon, it was a trip to Burlington’s sister city which happened to occur right after he got married. As the article continues: > [@](#): > > Nobody “cared” how Michael Dukakis looked in a tank, and probably not many voters cared about Mitt Romney’s dismissive remarks about the 47 percent, but both reinforced larger attack narratives. Vintage video of Bernie palling around with Soviet communists will make for an almost insultingly easy way for Republicans to communicate the idea that his plans to expand government are radical. Emphasis added. There’s a bunch more. His rape fantasy essay, the fact that he never held a regular job until he was 40, collecting government benefits prior to that, and since then has held only government jobs (also playing into the narrative that he wants people to suckle at the government teat), his running as a elector for a Socialist Workers Party candidate for POTUS who supported Iran when they took our people hostage, etc. etc. As **iiandyiiii** constantly points out, nobody can predict the future. But I have been around long enough, and certainly Carville has, to see pretty easily what a disaster of monumental proportions it would be for the Dems to run Sanders against Trump. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-carville-on-the-state-of-the-election/847597.md?page=14)