the idea of spending less money on war is something that's going to swing more than a few democrats, on it's own. this is realigning, even, when you line it up with his views on trade. i don't like the guy, but i'm having a hard time finding reasons why i should like him less than i like hillary.
but, he continually demonstrates that he's absolutely clueless about what's going on. there's only two ways you can parse his response on ukraine:
(1) he's just totally clueless and in desperate need of a major briefing.
(2) he's some kind of russian spy.
i'm not exaggerating. and while there's actually a few pieces of circumstantial evidence leaning towards (2), russian spies don't get prime time tv slots. they end up like alex jones. it's far more likely that he just hasn't the faintest clue.
yet, as clueless as he may be, that doesn't change the fact that this is so remarkably refreshing.
i've compared him to inspector gadget more than once.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVbV-FbnQwo
i'm about as far to the left as you get. if you're going to run an election with one candidate that wants to ramp down nato and pull out of nafta, and another that's a liberal interventionist that was involved in writing the tpp, i wouldn't be much of a leftist if i picked the latter, would i?
i want to be clear: i'm advocating non-voting. neither one is acceptable. but, xenophobic trash aside, trump may honestly be the more left-wing candidate.
--
see, and then anderson cooper runs an essentially issueless interview - except the xenophobia thing. with clinton/cooper, specifically, you know the interview was scripted. so, the attempt is to zero in on a specific issue.
i don't think that's going to work. to begin with, i don't think hillary has nearly the stret cred that she thinks she does on minority rights. but, more importantly, it's just not what people are going to want the election to be about it.
i've been over this already. cue the scary music. build up the drama. easy, right?
here's a case study: the 2006 canadian election tried this tactic and failed badly. the then-ruling liberals, under paul martin, tried to paint stephen harper as an extreme right-wing nutcase that was going to bring in a police state and gut universal healthcare. the actual reality is that they were right, except it would have taken him 30 years to do it because he was a very methodical incrementalist. we got rid of him after nine years - and he had absolutely made baby steps on a number of issues.
but, the tactic backfired because people just didn't believe it. while trump is far more obnoxious than harper, he's also considerably to his left - and far less of an actual threat. you'd have to expect the same kind of reaction. especially in a country where those knocks on the door are already commonplace, under a democratic president.
so, is she going to take him on on all these issues and have to come out to his right over and over again? it's not a clean flip, of course. i'm sure hillary's tax plan will make a little more sense. and, hate it for being regressive all you want, but obamacare is going to win her some votes. so, you're not just looking at a possible realignment, but a possible reconfiguration. you'll get this blue collar republican trump voter that is working class, isolationist, xenophobic and in favour of big government expenditures, along with this moderate conservative vote that backs hillary on security and the constitutional rule of law. you want to run hillary and kasich on one ticket and trump and sanders on the other. and, who knows where everything lands in a couple of years...
--
sanders answered the questions excellently, but i don't see how....what i'm trying to get across is that the questions were framed to prevent him from getting any kind of a bounce. he tried to get some talking points in, but we didn't get that stark contrast that we got in the michigan debates. the choir will nod, but nobody is getting swayed.
sanders needs another debate. and another one. and maybe a third one, too.
jenny graves
"refreshing" should be a criteria when shopping for toothpaste, not the POTUS. Don't underestimate the significance of the fact that he is "absolutely clueless about what's going on".
jessica
but, i'd rather have a hapless fool with his heart in the right place than a calculated, tyrannical monster. trump will eventually get briefed. clinton will never develop a heart.
there's some wizard of oz imagery underlying this, too. one has no brain; the other has no heart.
jenny graves
That's why I'm voting for Bernie.
jessica
i'm a mathematician, and i'm one of many that are pointing out that the process is rigged, jenny. we see the same absurd results again tonight: she wins in a ballot state and gets decimated in the caucus. but, she's supposed to have a 70-30 lead amongst democrats! how can that be?
the party has already decided that clinton will be their nominee, and they don't care what the voters actually think.