I find this thread so entertaining because it is full of assumptions based upon prejudices.
I use prejudice or prejudices, in a much more general, wide ranging scope, as it relates to human behavior, than as a reflection of racism, etc.
Continually, in this thread, and in the outside world of US politics it isn't what is here and now, it is what is common assumption, what is wanted, or a reflection of our values and opinions.
For example, saying anyone doesn't want, "Trump, Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and socialism."
Using the label socialism avoids saying Bernie Sanders. And Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist. He is clearly a progressive, a populist, and a possibilist. Granted, his tendency toward possibilism is where people draw the conclusion he is a socialist, but it is either ignorance, or deceit that motivated that assumption.
But I do agree with one assumption in this thread. Not enough American voters will support any major candidate put forward in the primaries or general election except one.
Yesterday I was an observer in a very enlightening conversation between a Political Science Professor, a Professor of Anthropology, a political consultant (read 'operator.') and a fairly successful politician.
- They all agreed Clinton was too smarmy, and couldn't or wouldn't put together a coalition to win the primary. They noted her eroding support among women, especially younger women.
- They described Trump as a caricature of a candidate, that has generated so much controversy, that voters have gone to the polls because of his candidacy as a referendum of the state of politics in this country by the electorate. They pointed to the incredible number of voters in open primaries, and contended that his high vote totals, as well as the high vote totals, particularly of more regional candidates is not indicative of Trump support, and is not directly related to his campaign, or policy. Instead it is about whether such a poorly qualified candidate should even be on a ballot, just because he has money.
- Therefore Trump might reek havoc in a primary, but any enthusiasm or support would wane in a general election.
- Cruz has blown his wad, so to speak. Pardon the nasty pun. But they used it yesterday; I almost died when I heard it.
- No one else in the Republican party can put together what they need to win, but they may be able to block someone else from winning. This is a perfect opportunity for an 11th hour, dark horse candidate to emerge. But whomever would have to exercise great care and caution, the risk of such an attempt could break the party apart. And, it would be very hard for the GOP to attract the independents they need to win a national election without a well scripted and unified party line, on a candidate with universal party appeal.
- There are no other Democratic candidates worth noting, and Biden doesn't really have a chance to insert himself in the race at this point.
- That leaves Sanders. And don't kid yourself. His message is resonating with a lot of important groups; minorities; youth; women; blue collar voters; and what formerly was known as the middle class. And Sanders only real political drawback is the controversy over his enthusiastic support of the Israeli State.
Guys, it really looks like a generational shift to the smartest folks I know on the issue, and I have to agree with them. And I am not so sure that is a bad thing.
We will find out how true this hypothesis is, come November, seeing who wins the elections, and how long their coattails are. Regardless of who wins the presidency, who makes gains in the senate, and house? That is the question. Because this election may be much more that the petty squabbles over prejudices, and personality that have dominated conversations like this, and presidential politics for several generations.
