Friday, April 29, 2016

What becomes of Bernie?

In the general election Trump will peel off some fraction of Sanders voters. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the extent to which that happens could be the state's deciding factor. It's increasingly looking like superdelegates alone won't constitute the entirety of Hillary's margin of victory, but they'll make up most of it. To the extent that there is electoral enthusiasm on the left, it's driven entirely by Sanders, who brings out much larger crowds to his rallies than Hillary does to hers. And there's the curious tendency for Hillary to regularly underperform in exit polls relative to actual preference vote results to a much greater and more consistent extent than anything that has happened on the Republican side.

All these problems go away if Hillary offers Sanders vice president. That's a long shot, though. The markets have him as only the seventh most likely Democrat VP. With over 40% of Democrat votes coming from non-whites, putting two whites on the ticket inherently threatens the unity of the Coalition of the Fringes. Yet Tim Kaine, a heterosexual white goy, is perceived as the most likely pick. Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, both white (Fauxcahontas notwithstanding), come in ahead of Sanders as well, and Mark Warren's odds are judged to be as good as Sanders', so the idea that an exclusively white ticket is perceived to be untenable isn't the only reason.

Commenting on Bill Clinton's interaction with BLM protesters, the Derb provides another explanation:
What's going on here is a classic pivot to the center. The Clintons had to be nice to blacks when the Southern primaries were in play. There are a lot of blacks down there, and Bonnie and Clyde wanted to get them out to vote. Now that's all over, the nomination is sewn up, and the Clintons are looking to the general in November. For that they need to get working-class white votes; so the blacks can go pound sand
I was in elementary school when Bill Clinton was inaugurated so I'm a generation removed from firsthand experience with the taken-for-granted assumption that the Clintons are deft, astute political operators. I'll defer to Derb with regards to Bill.

My impression of Hillary, though, is that she's a flat-footed, shambling behemoth who is as likely to lose a battle as she is to win one when she goes in with a massive numerical troop advantage. She's more a late-life Pompey than she is a Julius Caesar. She lost to a mostly unknown upstart in '08 and she's having a hell of a time with with a long-known and long-dismissed out-and-out socialist who looks like he crawled out of another century.

On the other hand she did learn from '08 that there is no winning the Democrat nomination without winning blacks so maybe I'm not giving her enough credit.

I'm not the first to notice Trump laying off Sanders as of late. This even though the vast majority of the rabble-rousing criminal miscreants at his rallies are, to the extent that they're politically engaged at all, claim to a person to be Sanders supporters.

As mentioned above this makes sense as a means of picking up some disaffected white men who are finally coming to terms with the fact that the influence of white men on the Democrat party is weak and getting weaker. But will Trump go full monty and actually offer Sanders a spot in a Trump administration? Agnostic writes:
Maybe head of the Federal Trade Commission, though, restoring the agency to its original function as trust-buster rather than milquetoast "consumer protection" stuff.
Whatever its demerits, a Trump administration with Sanders somewhere in the mix would accelerate the Republican = white, Democrat = non-white political dynamic that is probably a prerequisite for steering the American segment of the European diaspora off the slow, steady suicidal slide it's on now and for that reason alone I'd like to see it.


Thagomizer said...

A lot of primary strategy is about killing your opponent's campaigns long before the primary start.

Obama is a great example. If Hillary (or John Edwards) had realized that Obama would be a top contender in the 2008 primary he would never have been allowed to be the keynote speaker at the 2004 convention. They ignored him because they thought he wasn't electable.

Team Clinton neutralized every opponent in the lead up to the '16 race. Bernie was elected as an independent so wasn't seen as a real contender. But there was still a lot of anti-Clinton sentiment for him to tap into.

Audacious Epigone said...

With someone who has as many enemies as the Clintons it makes sense that a lot of people will open up their ears when whispers about toppling them begin circulating. They're willing to give the purple to whoever is willing to lead the coup.

Anonymous said...

Agree with all your points including conclusion. Some cabinet watchdog or perhaps Secretary of Labor for Bernie is wise.

Bernie Sanders is Justin Trudeau's Picture of Dorian Gray.

The Century he's crawled out from being the 20th - not ended yet.


The Z Blog said...

A few things to add here:

1)Hillary is a world class screw up. I’ve long thought that her whole professional life is just an extended attention grab from her philandering husband. She screws up and he comes running to save her. Going back to her time as an entry level staffer on the Watergate committee, she has been screw up at everything.

2)She really did not win the black vote this time. Blacks will never vote for an old Jew. Maybe fifty years ago Jews like Bernie could mix it up with the brothers in the hood, but it was always an uneasy alliance. Read David Horowitz and you get what I mean. Young Jewish Lawyers helped create the Black Panthers and the Black Guerilla Family. Two got killed for their trouble and both of those organizations turned on their Jewish enablers. In 2016 Hillary got the black vote by default.

3)There’s some portion of the Left that is economically indifferent, socially liberal and moderately isolationist. Susan Sarandon is a good example. She has said nice things about Trump. There’s some portion of the Left that is pro-American worker, isolationist and indifferent to social issues. Ed Schultz is an example. Trump can win this crowd too.

4)My observation is Hillary is planning to run a 1970’s Helen Reddy I Am Woman campaign. Outside of the Deep South, her ads have all been these clunky second wave feminist gags where we see a bunch of old hens carping about men. There’s a mild tinge of lesbianism to it as well. It’s the campaign she wanted to run in 2008, but was prevented by the Obama “I’m the good Malcolm X” campaign. Maybe this sells to menopausal white women, but you can’t win that way.

5)We are on the cusp of a great realignment and not just the parties, but the ideologies too. Buckley Conservatism has run its course. Liberalism is a circus of absurdity. Trump is speaking to that, but he is more emotion than logic. Hillary has no appeal to the times.

Audacious Epigone said...


Clever analogy. To Sanders' credit, he seems a little less eager to embrace identity politics than Trudeau does. The latter is a true believer in cultural Marxism. My sense is Bernie is a Marxist who plays the cultural game because he has to and because he's not explicitly opposed to it, but that it doesn't motivate him in the same way that it does "because it's 2016" Trudeau.


Great as always, thanks.

How depressed will the black vote be in 2016 relative to 2008 and 2012? Swing states are whiter and blacker and less Hispanic and less Asian than the entire country is. Low black turnout helps win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio.

Anonymous said...

To hell with including Sanders in the administration. Its pointless. The only reason you'd do it is for electoral help to bring in Sanders voters, but if you announce it you would bleed off just as many anti-communist voters. It would be a stupid thing to do.

For positions like being an executive or cabinet member, you want competent managers, not someone whose only draw is being able to corral rising socialist leanings of young voters.

There is nothing about Bernie that gives anyone reason to believe he'd be good as the head of ANY organization. You give him any power at all and he'll use it as a platform for preaching socialism, not getting things done you way you want it. We know this because thats what he has done his entire life.

Audacious Epigone said...


Yes, it'd be largely symbolic. Trump can explain the overlap (on trade, nation-building) and the wide differences on others (the National Question) and keep Sanders away from any influence on the latter.

It solidifies the America-First non-interventionist Republican vs nation-building, messianic-democracy-spreading Democrat dynamic for the general election. It's hard to understate how seismic a political shift that will be and tapping into the non-interventionist wing of the Democrat electorate accentuates it.

Anonymous said...

For the 100,000th time, Sanders is not White. He is Jewish.

Audacious Epigone said...


He is white and Jewish.

Ben Kurtz said...

Trump-Sanders 2016! A Better America for all Americans (TM)!

I've been saying this for months.