An old friend asked me what I think of Bloomberg.
Of Bloomberg I think Hillary would be better. I think "stop-and-frisk". I think archetypical plutocrat.
There are so many unpredictables:
consciousness - how much does prior habit of mind determine one'a conclusions about reality? Beltway/NewYorkTimes consensus (see Nate Cohn op-ed) on the political spectrum puts Clinton left of center and Bernie "far left". Well, in the land of Keith Ellison, Paul Wellstone, and All Franken (who endorsed Clinton early on, and I forgive him), Bernie is left of center and Clinton is right of center.
electability may be in the eye of the beholder. Many think Bernie MORE electable than Hillary. The wildly skewed majorities of younger voters may just sit out an election with Hillary as the nominee. They would be more likely to vote for Bernie! So the "unelectability" argument may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is - at the very least - a two-edged sword. Beltway consciousness more-or-less assumes that a Hillary candidacy would be more realistic. But what is the evidence of that? On what pre-suppositions is it based? Is that view, itself, realistic?
demographics: in addition to younger voters, there are all those Latinos who are not going to vote for a Republican unless it's Rubio until hell freezes over. [Even Rubio will have trouble with the Mexican Americans (who are the largest group of Latinos and who generally don't like Cubans). Same with African Americans. Can anyone seriously imagine any Black person who is not already a committed Republican voting for a Republican instead of Bernie? They may love the Clintons, but few of them would defect in case of a Sanders nomination, in my opinion. This big demographic shift makes for a "whole new ball-game" in trying to predict which Democrat would do better in the general election.
electoral college: most analysts agree that a Republican win is an up-hill battle against any Democrat. Still, most Mexican Americans are in Texas and CA, neither of which is likely to flip - so Rubio's unpopularity among them won't matter except in FL - which could, again, be crucial. On the other hand, FL has lots of retired New Yorkers, who might like Bernie - along with African Americans. Voting "irregularities" are always a possibility in that close state.
How damaging is "socialist"? Even now, most young people say they don't give a shit. Socialism is fine with them - "Scandinavian-style socialism" that Beltway Nate thinks will turn so many off may not be that much of an issue. As with so many of the factors that cause us to wring our hands, one might try to assess how many votes it would lose. I doubt that anyone who would vote for Hillary would sit out or vote for a Republican rather than a "socialist." But that is just a feeling, which is probably influenced by my own MN-left-wing perspective. Except for TeaPartioids, even Republicans in MN don't see anything much wrong with Scandinavian-style socialism! It seems to work for us.
What if they win? My own inner conflict is: who would make a better President, in terms of Bernie's and my socialist values? It seems hard to get around the conclusion that if elected Bernie would push harder for the things I want, but he would also
1) encounter more bureaucratic resistance in dealing with Joint Chiefs, CIA, &c., and
2) find himself more dependent on expert advisers - especially in foreign policy. Many advisers could be beltway-thinkers
On the other hand, I trust Hillary to be thoroughly unprincipled in her interactions with the bureaucracy and the military.
I therefore have to wonder whether Bernie could achieve as much of the progress I crave as a ruthless, manipulating Hillary might achieve.
Here endeth the Lesson.
Of Bloomberg I think Hillary would be better. I think "stop-and-frisk". I think archetypical plutocrat.
There are so many unpredictables:
consciousness - how much does prior habit of mind determine one'a conclusions about reality? Beltway/NewYorkTimes consensus (see Nate Cohn op-ed) on the political spectrum puts Clinton left of center and Bernie "far left". Well, in the land of Keith Ellison, Paul Wellstone, and All Franken (who endorsed Clinton early on, and I forgive him), Bernie is left of center and Clinton is right of center.
electability may be in the eye of the beholder. Many think Bernie MORE electable than Hillary. The wildly skewed majorities of younger voters may just sit out an election with Hillary as the nominee. They would be more likely to vote for Bernie! So the "unelectability" argument may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is - at the very least - a two-edged sword. Beltway consciousness more-or-less assumes that a Hillary candidacy would be more realistic. But what is the evidence of that? On what pre-suppositions is it based? Is that view, itself, realistic?
demographics: in addition to younger voters, there are all those Latinos who are not going to vote for a Republican unless it's Rubio until hell freezes over. [Even Rubio will have trouble with the Mexican Americans (who are the largest group of Latinos and who generally don't like Cubans). Same with African Americans. Can anyone seriously imagine any Black person who is not already a committed Republican voting for a Republican instead of Bernie? They may love the Clintons, but few of them would defect in case of a Sanders nomination, in my opinion. This big demographic shift makes for a "whole new ball-game" in trying to predict which Democrat would do better in the general election.
electoral college: most analysts agree that a Republican win is an up-hill battle against any Democrat. Still, most Mexican Americans are in Texas and CA, neither of which is likely to flip - so Rubio's unpopularity among them won't matter except in FL - which could, again, be crucial. On the other hand, FL has lots of retired New Yorkers, who might like Bernie - along with African Americans. Voting "irregularities" are always a possibility in that close state.
How damaging is "socialist"? Even now, most young people say they don't give a shit. Socialism is fine with them - "Scandinavian-style socialism" that Beltway Nate thinks will turn so many off may not be that much of an issue. As with so many of the factors that cause us to wring our hands, one might try to assess how many votes it would lose. I doubt that anyone who would vote for Hillary would sit out or vote for a Republican rather than a "socialist." But that is just a feeling, which is probably influenced by my own MN-left-wing perspective. Except for TeaPartioids, even Republicans in MN don't see anything much wrong with Scandinavian-style socialism! It seems to work for us.
What if they win? My own inner conflict is: who would make a better President, in terms of Bernie's and my socialist values? It seems hard to get around the conclusion that if elected Bernie would push harder for the things I want, but he would also
1) encounter more bureaucratic resistance in dealing with Joint Chiefs, CIA, &c., and
2) find himself more dependent on expert advisers - especially in foreign policy. Many advisers could be beltway-thinkers
On the other hand, I trust Hillary to be thoroughly unprincipled in her interactions with the bureaucracy and the military.
I therefore have to wonder whether Bernie could achieve as much of the progress I crave as a ruthless, manipulating Hillary might achieve.
Here endeth the Lesson.
No comments:
Post a Comment