Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week on the mighty GLoP podcast, the guys spend some time analyzing Megxit, the economics, the relationships, and the causes. Then, it’s time we got serious (well, serious for this show) about the prospect of President Sanders. Sure, he could win — stranger things have happened (cough). Also, we take another look at Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, and finish up with some birthday wishes for The Podfather himself, the great Norman Podhoretz, who turned 90 years young on January 16th. Happy birthday, sir!
Subscribe to GLoP Culture in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
I have decided to hold off until at least after Iowa and New Hampshire.
Talking through this with friends over the weekend, Bloomberg’s plan sounds like so much fun. But Bill Whalen (who I’m pretty sure I’ve called Ed Whalen more often than I’ve called him Bill Whalen)’s latest Area 45 podcast guests Dave Brady and Doug Rivers caution that a brokered convention is extremely unlikely.
Still, who knew the Democrats would be so much fun?
For whom? Not for the Democrats who thought he was the worst possible candidate and were certain he would lose. Would you really prefer to risk a Bernie presidency than a Biden one?
I’m not convinced that a Bernie presidency is anywhere near as likely a possibility in 2020 as a Trump presidency was likely in 2016. But I’m willing to listen.
Perhaps I’m being Pollyannaish, but I see far less rational basis for anyone to vote for Bernie in 2020 than there was to vote for Trump in 2016. I don’t see legitimate comparisons to Donald Trump’s unlikely 2016 run. I think each one of the conditions listed above by itself makes Bernie’s success in 2020 far less likely than was Donald Trump’s likelihood of success in 2016.
Republicans who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 wanted their party to change direction and make America great again. Democrats who vote for Bernie want their party to go faster in the same direction, and disdain the idea of American greatness.
You’re drawing a causal connection between the two that I’m not drawing.
I’m just saying that a Bernie presidency would be utterly disastrous for America, for Israel, and for the world as a whole – so disastrous that I would much prefer a high chance of almost any other Democratic candidate becoming president than risk even a 1% chance of ending up with Bernie.
George Will – back when he was worthwhile reading – explained that political science cannot be seriously regarded as science, since the scientific method includes replication of outcomes under identical conditions. Politics is an irregular series of unique conditions.
Similarly, I suspect that trying to quantify the risk of any specific candidate’s election is an exercise in futility. I don’t see how the risk is as high as 1% that a plurality of American voters will vote for a sick, old, America-hating socialist for president, especially during such prosperity as we are enjoying relative to five years earlier.
As the Impeachment farce has demonstrated, the power in the Democrat Party lies in its extremist activists, e.g. “the squad,” not in its leaders – Nancy Pelosi opposed partisan impeachment, the squad demanded it. Thus any “moderate” Democrat elected would be under similar pressure to govern as the activist would.
Despite my skepticism of quantified political risk, the risk of a “moderate” Democrat candidate being elected President is surely greater than the risk of a cranky old anti-American geezer with a bad heart being elected President.
So I guess I’m still liking the idea of voting for Bernie in the VA Dem primary, but I’m definitely waiting until after the earliest primaries. After all, as Harold Macmillan evidently never actually said, “events, dear boy, events” have a way of forcing course corrections.
@libertydefender — How does George Will’s description of political science differ from, say, geology or archaeology?
Consider how we all now know Beto O’Rourke is an empty shirt — yet the liberal media nearly elected him Senator from Texas the year before.
If the choice is Sanders or Trump, the media will pull out all the stops for Sanders, figuring they will be able to mitigate his excesses (like doing anything to inconvenience the billionaires who really own the Democratic Party).
The lead-up to the election will be nothing but news designed to make Trump look bad and minimize his achievements. Also, if the Iranians understand American politics at all, they may stage something just before the election to help the Democrats. Pretty much, all of America’s enemies, worldwide, will be rooting for Trump’s opponent.
In any case, your one vote is unlikely to be decisive. So, by all means, add one to Sanders’ total.
The main thing is that we can’t take the chance of either event.
Not even one chance in a hundred?
You almost certainly despise David French, but you should read his in-depth treatment on this very subject, coincidentally posted just a few hours ago: https://thedispatch.com/p/dont-believe-anyone-who-says-bernie
That’s a good question, @taras. I’m not in the business of defending George Will – especially since the time he declared Bud Selig to be the greatest ever Commissioner of MLBaseball, but there might be an angle along the lines of … to the extent we can accurately measure say, million+ year activity, we can compare different million+ year periods as though they were identical, since/if our instruments cannot distinguish.
Your point is Will taken.
If David French had any remaining credibility at all, I might consider it. But beyond his TDS, David French believes that the NBA has the best athletic competition of them all.
Pass.
Probably correct, but don’t underestimate the ability of people to vote contrary to evidence. I think many people believe that if Bernie Sanders won in November, the current economic success would continue, PLUS they could get all the free stuff he promises.
I even have neighbors who seem to believe that the current booming economy, low unemployment, etc, are not actually due to Trump and/or conservative policies. They claim it’s actually due to “leftover Obama.” And if Warren or Sanders etc were elected in November and the economy crashes, they would believe that was “leftover Trump.”
In addition to the “leftover Obama” believers, the core constituency of the Democratic Party is increasingly people who get a government check. For such people, bad economic times may actually be good.
I read about the Hiss family of Soviet spies during the Great Depression, and they are living like kings. Prices fell; but their salaries were fixed or even increased.
This may be why Trump’s approval numbers aren’t higher, given his stellar economic performance.
Bad economic times usually mean inflation, reducing welfare’s value.