Democrat Insiders Sound the Alarm: Bernie Could Win the Nomination
What will Bernie supporters do in November 2020 if the primaries are stolen from him again?
Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has skated along largely unscathed in his second bid for the Democrat nomination for president.
With his poll numbers on the rise, Democrat insiders are reportedly murmuring that he could actually win the nomination this time, and they don’t seem particularly thrilled with the prospect.
Suddenly, Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign is being taken seriously.
For months, the Vermont senator was written off by Democratic Party insiders as a candidate with a committed but narrow base who was too far left to win the primary. Elizabeth Warren had skyrocketed in the polls and seemed to be leaving him behind in the race to be progressive voters’ standard-bearer in 2020.
But Warren faced strong pushback from the fringe and the centrist left on everything from her disastrous Medicare for All plan (and its arguably worse follow-up) to her disingenuousness and hypocrisy regarding her legal career, her decades-long claim to be a Native American, and—more recently—her questionable claim that she does not take big dollar donations. As a result, her numbers have dropped.
Bernie, thus far, has not received much scrutiny, nor has he been called out by his fellow Democrat candidates as Warren has been and as others before her were. This is mostly because no one, including among Democrat insiders and his competitors for the nomination, have taken him seriously. Until, it seems, now.
Politico continues:
But in the past few weeks, something has changed. In private conversations and on social media, Democratic officials, political operatives and pundits are reconsidering Sanders’ chances.
“It may have been inevitable that eventually you would have two candidates representing each side of the ideological divide in the party. A lot of smart people I’ve talked to lately think there’s a very good chance those two end up being Biden and Sanders,” said David Brock, a longtime Hillary Clinton ally who founded a pro-Clinton super PAC in the 2016 campaign. “They’ve both proven to be very resilient.”
Democratic insiders said they are rethinking Sanders’ bid for a few reasons: First, Warren has recently fallen in national and early state surveys. Second, Sanders has withstood the ups and downs of the primary, including a heart attack. At the same time, other candidates with once-high expectations, such as Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Beto O’Rourke, have dropped out or languished in single digits in the polls.
“I believe people should take him very seriously. He has a very good shot of winning Iowa, a very good shot of winning New Hampshire, and other than Joe Biden, the best shot of winning Nevada,” said Dan Pfeiffer, who served as an adviser to former President Barack Obama. “He could build a real head of steam heading into South Carolina and Super Tuesday.”
The buzzwords surrounding this surge of interest in Bernie are not inspiring: “resilient,” “consistent.” This makes the sudden recognition that Bernie could win the nomination sound more like a warning to their fellow Democrats than a full-throated endorsement of a self-proclaimed socialist who has a prickly personality and tends to shout. A lot.
Politico continues:
California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who defeated a Sanders-backed Democrat for his seat in the liberal-heavy San Francisco area in 2016, said Sanders has been “more resilient than I anticipated.”
“But in retrospect,” he added, “he has a very, very loyal following, and people have really stuck with him.”
. . . . “If you really think about it, Bernie hasn’t been hit a lot with anything. It’s not like he’s getting hit by other campaigns,” said Michael Ceraso, a former New Hampshire director for Pete Buttigieg’s campaign who worked for Sanders in 2016.
“You sort of take for granted that he, like Biden, are institutional figures for very different reasons,” Ceraso said. “Early in the campaign, Bernie’s people said, ‘Look, this guy in these early states has a nice hold, and there’s a percentage of supporters, a quarter of the electorate will potentially go for him.’” He added, “It waned a little bit because people were looking at other options … and now they’re saying, ‘Wait a minute, this guy has been the most consistent of anyone.’”
Bernie and his revolution are a huge turn-off to voters who are not already Bernie supporters, so Democrats are right to sound the alarm. If he wins the nomination, it is unlikely that he will win on his Green New Deal, Medicare for All, “free” college, internet, and who knows what other pie-in-the-sky lunacy he’s championing.
And though Mr. Sanders’s detractors see a numbing repetition in his message, his supporters see his constancy as one of his biggest assets: Mr. Sanders, for instance, has absorbed much less criticism on Medicare for all because he has championed it for decades. Ms. Warren’s evolving position on how to pay for it has hurt her with some voters.
During a recent rally in Burlington, a town along the Mississippi River in southeastern Iowa, Mr. Sanders played his greatest hits. Standing behind a podium, he railed against income inequality. He trumpeted health care as a human right.
. . . . At the same time, there is little indication, in Iowa and elsewhere, that Mr. Sanders is attracting more supporters beyond those who backed him in 2016 and young people who were not old enough to vote then. In interviews with dozens of people at his campaign events in recent months, nearly all said their support dated to his first presidential run, or earlier; at events for other candidates, hardly anyone mentions Mr. Sanders as a top choice.
“From my conversations, it appears that people are not ambivalent about Sanders,” said Jeff Fager, the Democratic chairman in Henry County, where Mr. Sanders battled Hillary Clinton to a tie in 2016. “They are either behind him, or he is not on their list of potential candidates.”
These Bernie voters are intensely loyal, and if they feel the nomination is “stolen” from him again, they will stay home. Again. Or cast protest votes for President Trump. Again.
With the Democrats’ impeachment failures, the last thing they want is to chance running a self-proclaimed socialist who proudly announces in his various plans that he will dismantle—for purely ideological reasons—the best economy this country has seen in decades.
They can’t let him win, but they have to take him down the old-fashioned way, not through questionable backroom machinations.
Democrat insiders are sounding an alarm, not making an endorsement.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Dead on. And in a further bitter pill for the Dems, Sanders isn’t even a Democrat. He just runs as one to try and coattail on their branding.
OK, but to be accurate you have to admit that the real management of the sogannante Democrats are not “Democrats” in any way but are actually as Socialist as Sanders. Their goal is to impose a Socialist totalitarian state with themselves on top and not some unconnected peasants from the sticks away from the urban Capitol City.
Subotai Bahadur
He isn’t even a Socialist but rather a Communist.
Precisely, and he has never run as a Democrat in all his Vermont races for the House or the Senate. In fact, there were often official Dem candidates running against him.
I doubt Bernie will be able to win the nomination once Hillary enters the race (or Michelle does. Or both). But it would be hilarious if he did.
It would be entertaining for him to win nomination and lose election.
A Trump-Sanders election would be very entertaining.
The label “Democratic Socialist” is an oxymoron. Socialism is naturally authoritarian, not democratic. Look at the results of Socialism in Russia, Germany, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, and Venezuela. Of course, Bernie would do it better than these.
Bernie would take his place among the esteemed Socialists of the world: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Somoza, the Kims, Chavez, and Bernie. I can’t believe that voters in the US would choose Socialism over freedom, no matter how many giveaways the Socialists promise.
There’s no reason you can’t have democratic socialism, or even democratic communism. All it means is a socialist or communist government that submits itself to elections every so many years, and allows people the freedom to criticize it and the freedom to leave the country if they like. That’s not much.
In the Soviet Union there was a democratic vote… you could take your ballot, see who was (the only) listed candidate and hand it to the person at the ballot box or , in front of everyone, go to a curtained stall and write in the name of your choice and then walk back to the person at the box and hand your ballot to them. Much like the “card check” the unions want here in the USA when voting to bring in a union.
Very democratic. Very “open”. Very visible.
The USSR wasn’t democratic. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a democratic communism.
In the ’70s there were serious Eurocommunist parties in France and Italy that believed in democracy while also believing in communism. It’s possible that they were insincere, and that had they ever taken power they would never have relinquished it, but there’s no evidence for that.
“It’s
possibleprobable that they were insincere, and that had they ever taken power they would never have relinquished it,but there’s no evidence for that.”FIFY
You’re kidding, right? What part of communism as it actually exists or has ever existed allows for any sort of “demoocratic” input? Communist dictators, including Putin, “win” “elections” with 96% or 100% of the vote. This doesn’t strike you as odd? Or questionable? Or a symptom of everything wrong with that road to serfdom?
I sort of see your point about being sincere. I’m sure some were. But also naive. The centralized power required to implement true socialism or communism means the govt can do anything it wants. And as we all know, those with power don’t willingly give it up. That’s why I always say that the opposite of socialism is not capitalism, it is liberty.
Those with power very often do give it up — in democracies. That’s what makes them democracies.
Again, see the example of Daniel Ortega.
Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, West Berliner used to speak of East Germany as <> “the so-called German Democratic Republic”. I ask one why they used that term and he said “because it is neither German nor Democratic nor a Republic!”
Your arguments about the theory and practice of democracy and communism assume that theories hold true in practice. In recent centuries there has been no attempt at democracy in any body larger than a small town or township. So one could just as easily argue the democracy has failed in every country as one can argue that communism has failed in every country where force is not holding it in place and people are not free to leave.
Dumping Bernie showed that the Dems were every bit the dictatorial ideology that underpins Communism. The choice was banana republic graft Clintonites versus the Comintern Bolsheviks with Bernie. Money still is the driving force of the Dems rather than ideology…for now.
Golly Milhouse, that is a great idea.
Why haven’t we seen that?
My guess might be that the thugs who become leaders are not about to relinquish control and have to answer for the atrocities required for them to become the leaders.
That, and leaders of socialist countries end up pretty wealthy and lead a privileged life, and they are not about to give that up voluntarily.
So while there isn’t any reason not have that, I’ll take a hard pass.
Again, if someone actually believes in socialism or communism, there’s no reason they can’t at the same time be committed to democracy. The two are not at all incompatible.
Most communist countries don’t get that way by democracy; they’re imposed by force, so it shouldn’t be surprising that the people who impose them don’t suddenly turn into democrats. People who impose other types of government by force also seldom turn into democrats.
The sample size of communist governments that came to power through democracy is quite small, so no general conclusions can be drawn from it. But many countries have elected socialist governments which did not censor their oppositions, and which gave up power when they lost elections. (One communist government that does seem to submit to democracy, win or lose, is that of Daniel Ortega; whether he does so out of commitment or because he was forced to is a matter for speculation.)
Oh please.
There is a reason such things do not exist. Of course they are incompatible.
You cannot maintain true socialism/communism without force no matter how you originally arrived there.
No where on this planet has there ever been anything like what you proport as possible.
“The two are not at all incompatible.”
In fact, democracy and socialism/communism ARE incompatible.
Socialism and communism rely upon people acting against human nature, i.e. work without reward, subjugation, etc. Therefore, coercion is necessary to maintain the system. People naturally resist coercion and the government must respond with stronger…ahem…persuasion, in order to retain their power. People increase the virility of their opposition. This spirals around and ultimately becomes open hostilities and civil war. This is the reason the communists and socialists disarm the citizens when they seize power. See also: Hong Kong, Venezuela, North Korea.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/from-rebel-to-strongman-how-daniel-ortega-became-the-thing-he-fought-against/2018/08/24/117d000a-97fe-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html?outputType=amp
Socialism is just one form of totalitarianism, and as such is not going to allow itself to be disbanded by free elections and is unlikely to allow its citizens freedom to move or criticize the regime. Calling it democratic socialism is an oxymoron.
When socialism is more or less benign, it is in countries with small and homogenous populations with a high GDP and a strong capitalistic backbone.
When allowed enough control, it will devour the net worth of the populace.
Elections are incompatible with any collectivist/totalitarian scheme. Socialist governments of all stripes have one characteristic feature in common—they’re all about control. Control by the government of the economy, of society, of you. Control is a necessary condition for the great efficiencies the socialists promise—they assume intelligent management which uncontrolled economies relying on such bougeois concepts as “supply and demand” can’t (at least in Marxist doctrine) touch. Intellectuals—who solve the world’s problems by cogitation, rather than by actually doing anything—find this very appealing. The fact that their plans are unrealistic and simply don’t work doesn’t enter into it.
Unlike the communists, the socialists do have a use for elections. The communists will impose whatever control they desire by force. The socialists have the same end-game in mind, but they expect the subjects to vote themselves into their shackles. Of course there’s no need for any further elections after that. The Central Committee will decide when elections are necessary, and we can expect that to be never.
And there’s no reason these controllers could not submit themselves to election every few years. The two ideas are not incompatible.
There is every reason you can’t have “democratic socialism/communism.” The main one being that the latter cancels out the former. The whole point of socialism, and its goal communism, is that no one but the state has a say in anything. Are you not paying attention? What do you think Democrats are doing when they say they will ignore immigration law, rewrite local housing law, force you on government healthcare and into government housing and into government jobs. Don’t know how to build a “green” whatever? Too bad, the government needs you, and not only does your skill set not matter but neither does your “vote.”
Let’s see, wasn’t NoKo’s crazy ass leader “elected” by 100% of the vote (the “nays” were hastily dispatched . . . to work farms or simply, you know, dispatched). You know better than this, and I honestly think, as I’ve said before, that you simply enjoy being contrary. More power to you on that one, but you are dead wrong on this one.
It’s pretty disappointing to read all the misguided comments about this issue from folks who are usually pretty thoughtful and accurately analytical. Confounding the economic system of a nation with its governance system is a basic flaw in most of the reasoning here. Capitalism, socialism, communism are all economic systems. Democracy, republicanism (is that a word?), dictatorship represent forms of social interaction and enforcement of edicts for maintaining some level of stability within the community.
Since humans evolved within a cluster of clans, they tend to be loyal to their perceived organization and often aggressive and hostile to the “other”. This results in national (and regional, local, and familial) loyalties even among those living under severe governance conditions. (And, yes, there are exceptions, as with most observations of human nature.) This loyalty seems to inhere even within what we (justifiably, in my view) perceive as evil and despotic regimes.
All that said, there aren’t any reasons I can think of that democracy is incompatible with socialism. Communism is a bit murkier to me, though I’m not certain what distinguishes it from socialism. People have smugly insisted that there is no historical example of democratic socialism, that such an admixture of governance and economic system is possible, nor even conceivable. Such folks are living proof of my previous assertion: humans evolved to be loyal to their clan and their acquired belief system purveyed by that clan.
I visited and applied to live in a democratic socialist community. It was in Israel. Known as a “kibbutz”, those communities produced endless arguments among their members, but in the process provided for fair distribution of labor and benefits to the entire community. Impossible? NOT HARDLY! Likely? No. People seem too determined to tell each other how to live to make such a system work well. Just as in democracy, where people congregate in clusters of like-minded folks and employ all kinds of repressive forces to tell others how to live (impeach Drumpf, anyone?). And just as in other forms of governance whose governance structure is often confounded with its economic system. The problem is not the governance system, nor the economic structure. It’s the human factor. Dysfunction is us.
The kibbutzim only worked because their members had joined voluntarily were dedicated to the cause, and because they got massive government subsidies. And of course they couldn’t stop anyone from leaving, so they had to be good enough to persuade them to stay. But once the old pioneers died off they ended up going bankrupt.
I’ve not read all the posted comments here, but in case no one’s pointed this out, there seems to be lack of understanding the difference between a democratic republic and a pure democracy. I say this because many seem to be using “democracy” loosely. A democratic republic is where the vote of the people is sovereign, is confirmed by the Electoral College, and – with the exception of King County in Seattle challenging a 67% majority by taking it to court in a lawsuit – is never overturned. On the other hand, a pure democracy is when two wolves and a sheep are voting on what to have for dinner. Put in other terms, if we eliminated the Electoral College as verification of the entire people’s will, then only the west & east coasts will determine the winner of the presidency; who cares about the rest of the “fly-over” country?
And the point of democracy is the same thing — nobody but the voters, who are the state, get a say in anything. Democracy is completely compatible with an elected dictatorship. All it requires is periodic elections — genuine ones — and possibly the freedom of expression.
Israel from 1948 to 1977 was pretty socialist; if you didn’t go along with the government’s dictates you had a very rough time of it. You didn’t get sent to the Gulag, but you were unlikely to get a job.
And as soon as the people vote socialism or communism away? Communism and socialism don’t even work when you have groups of like-minded people trying to implement them (see Owenism or any of the countless other attempts), and as soon as you upscale the project they fail faster. Give the people power and they eventually elect people who aren’t socialists/communists.
And a democratic communist or socialist government accepts the election result and yields power just like any other democratic government does. There’s nothing about being communist or socialist that should make it less willing to do that.
Read “The Road to Serfdom” by Friedrich Hayek.
Nothing in there points to any contradiction between socialism and democracy.
Bizarre!! just like the elections in Russia, Cuba , Venezuela, Nicaragua etc.
What’s bizarre is all the commenters who think that pointing to the existence of communist countries without democracy somehow proves that communism is incompatible with democracy. That’s just too illogical for anyone to possibly believe it.
And FYI Venezuela and Nicaragua have elections. And when the communist Ortega lost an election he lost power. He came back to power by being elected again.
Again all democracy requires is that every few years the government submit to election. In between elections it can be a total tyranny, except for allowing people to criticize it and to leave.
Democracy is not at all the same thing as liberty, which is what really matters.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.
Or of Milhouse?
What will his supporters do if they steal the nomination from him again?
Hopefully they take to the streets and riot, cause untold millions of dollars of damage, physically assault all dem convention goers violently and in general behave like Bernie supporters.
Give America an eyeful of what’s in store for them if Bernie and the commies win.
Something to watch for: Repubs, knowing who their candidate will be, jumping into Dem primaries to vote for the likes of Bernie, even causing him to win in states where it was not expected. It could cause him to be the nominee or force the Dems to fill rooms with cigar smoke and pick someone else. Turmoil and hilarity could ensue.
AKA the Limbaugh strategy.
“Operation Chaos”
biden, warren, buttigieg, or bernie. Alarm bells for all of them, honestly.
Hillary clinton will use stolen money to buy sanders yet another house, then step in, then step in it.
Two things:
First, it’s interesting that the insiders who are sounding the alarm are people with connections to the Clintons or Obama. If they hope to ride in to the rescue at the convention, both Hillary and Michelle need to ensure that none of the announced candidates locks up the nomination before then.
Second, questionable backroom machinations *are* the old-fashioned way the Democrats choose their candidates.
It wouldn’t surprise me too much if they actually let Bernie have the nomination. Somebody has to play sacrificial lamb.
True, but how do you explain away the sacrificial lamb being old goat?
Like Hillary, Warren is a terrible candidate. Unlike Hillary, she has no true base support and Wall Street hates her.
.
Biden and Bernie have strong bases. Biden’s is much bigger, but he is losing supporters. Bernie’s is stable and loyal to the end and he’s adding supporters.
.
As Warren loses the current supporters, they will gravitate to Sanders not Biden.
.
That leaves Biden and Bernie in the final stretch. Even after his heart attack, Bernie’s energy level blows away Creepy Uncle Joe. The only thing Biden has left is the same thing that kept Hillary alive – The Dems’ super-delegate votes, which will accrue to Biden 100%. So even if Bernie has the popular vote, the DNC will not allow him to win at the convention.
.
This is all good for Trump and down-ticket Republicans. If Bernie wins, the life long Dems will not be enthusiastic voters. If Biden steals it, the Bernie branch will revolt against the Dem machine. Minority voters are not as stupid as the Dems assume they are and they will flock to Trump and the Republicans who will pound them with messages about their jobs and quality of life which really do matter to them in the polling booths.
.
There is no scenario where Trump is not a WINNER!
Don’t get overconfident or count chickens before they hatch. If Bernie is nominated, there is no way in hell that Bloomberg will accept that result. He will run as an Independent – and is in fact already preparing to do this if you pay attention to what he is actually doing. And while a 2-man race btw Trump and Bernie ends with a Trump victory and Senate retention, you can’t say that for a 3-man race that includes one of the richest men ever. Bloomberg’s strategy will have to be to get the election into the House by any means necessary. He will concentrate massive resources on key states to deny Trump an EC majority. He will spend billions on House races so that the House owes him something, and he will seek to tie up key delegations so Trump can’t get to 26 States if the House picks the President. He may even bribe electors to be unfaithful if Trump wins a narrow majority. Bloomberg’s campaign to win the House for the Democrats in 2018 and the VA Legislature in 2019 were mere warm up exercises. Do not underestimate him.
So, basically, the choice for Dems at primary time will be between a delusional dementia victim and a combative dementia victim.
Goin’ for that all-important youth vote!
It would be amusing if Bernie is taken out by someone who didn’t participate in the debates and didn’t meet filing deadlines.
So the democrats have several choices all terrible.
>
There is Warren who is arrogant, horribly ignorant about basic issues such as finances, dishonest in the extreme, impossible to listen t, and so much more.
>
Then there is Joe Biden who just failed his heal exam with reports stating how he is ripe for a stroke or heart attack, is beyond corrupt, has a Hunter problem, is guilty by his own admission of what they re trying to impeach trump for, and so much more. Then there are the also rans for whom nobody can garner support.
>
This leaves Sanders who is an angry, senile, Communist who is somewhere between nuts and crazy.
>
So as a Democrat who do you vote for?
>
It really does not matter for there are several certainties. One is that Trump will easily win reelection. The second is that the various investigations into the FBI debacle as well as other Democrat led crimes will start to come out thereby tarnishing the Democrats even more. Last of all, the Left will be so angry at having no chance of winning, little influence, and, suffering the indignity of having much of the country ignore them, will respond with extreme and ubiquitous violence all through the campaign season. A great many (mostly independents and conservative Trump supporters) will suffer greatly as the Left will do all they can to tear the country apart. It’s a case of them wanting to destroy anything they cannot have for themselves.
The problem with Milhouse’ argument is that even, ahem, “centrist” Democrats no longer are willing to transfer power peacefully. That’s what’s been going on the past three years, they are trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election. The mantra of the whole party now is BAMN regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. Which for the Dems is left, far left, and makes-Castro-look-like-Reagan.
And what happens if Trump wins, but he Democrats still control the House and refuse to accept the Electoral Votes when they are counted before the joint session of Congress? In 2017, Trump had the advantage that his party controlled both houses of Congress. That may not be the case on January 3, 2021.
When a state returns only one set of results, it takes both houses to reject them. So long as the senate remains Republican, and votes to accept the returns, it doesn’t matter what the new house does.
That’s nonsense. The fact is they did transfer power peacefully in 2017, and they are now working within the constitution to try to take power back peacefully.
Bernie is not a member of the Democratic Party; he is a member of the Socialist Party. You can joke all you want about there being no difference between the two, but that is the reason Donna Brazile gave Hillary the CNN debate questions… to stack the deck for Democrat, not necessarily to stack the deck for Herself.
That’s right, and what happens if a brokered convention nominates Bloomberg (the Superdelegates always side with the money), and Sanders walks out in a huff and runs 3rd party. Likewise, if Sanders wins the nomination, Bloomberg runs 3rd party. That is why I think a 3-way contest in 2020 is very likely unless Biden or Klobuchar are nominated.
I’m surprised that nobody on this blog recognizes that Bloomberg will run 3rd party if Bernie Sanders is nominated by the Democrats – and how that could totally upend Trump’s reelection quest. A 3-way contest between 2 Democrats and Trump seems to favor Trump, until you understand that these 2 Democrats will drive different groups to turn out, and having both on the general election ballot will ensure that Everybody turns out in 2020. The millennial socialists will flock to Bernie, and the suburban women, deep-staters, and never-Trumpers will flock to Bloomberg. You will see the highest turnout ever, probably exceeding 90% nationwide. Nobody will sit this one out at home, and that is not good for Republican Senate candidates in swing states. Bloomberg’s strategy will be to win key states and send the election into the House, and to spend billions on House races so many members owe him something. And if Trump wins the votes anyway, a fully Democratic Congress will ensure they will reject the Electoral Votes when those votes are counted before a joint session, and the House and Senate choose the President and Vice President. In 2017, Trump had the advantage of a Republican Congress when the EC votes were counted and certified before The Congress. He may not have this in 2021.
Buried lede: Bernie got a haircut.
The following is the final section of the new book, “Guilty by Reason of Insanity: Why the Democrats Must Not Win” for all my fellow conservatives who may be faltering in their resolve.
Grounds for Optimism
We deny at our own peril the gravity of the threats we face. Will patriots remain mindful of the urgency of these threats? I believe they will – because of their passionate love for this nation and their unwavering dedication to preserving it for their children and their descendants.
Indeed, despite our beleaguered condition, there are reasons for optimism. Trump’s election signals that America is finally coming to its senses and patriots want to fight back. Americans didn’t elect Trump because he’s a celebrity entertainer or because we are bigots, as alleged. Quite the opposite is true. Trump didn’t arise in a vacuum. He is not the cause of our nation’s division. He didn’t start a groundswell movement behind new ideas he was articulating. Rather, he rose to power as a direct result of existing divisions and because establishment Republicans had failed to impede, let alone reverse, the leftist juggernaut.
Under Trump’s leadership, conservatives have made great strides toward turning the tide, but progressives are not taking theses countermeasures sitting down. They have tenaciously redoubled their resolve to destroy Trump and disable his presidency. Each time they are thwarted, they regroup and re-attack. We must understand that we are locked in a perpetual struggle against relentless opponents and resolve to fight them with equal or greater force.
Our task is enormously difficult. Some conservatives don’t want to admit that some of our own fellow Americans, wittingly or unwittingly, are working to change America into something our founding fathers wouldn’t recognize. But we mustn’t grow numb to what the modern Democrat Party has become.
Some discount the severity of the threat because they believe only part of the party has gone over the starboard side into the deep end. Nancy Pelosi and others from the old guard are battling AOC and her fellow travelers for control of the party, but that fight is more about power than ideology. Some commentators think otherwise – that if the young Turks would just settle down, the old guard would bring the party back to the center. Columnist Niall Ferguson, for example, opined that the Democrats will lose the 2020 election because ‘they are not one party, but two: a liberal and a socialist. The former can beat Donald Trump – but not if it is associated with the latter.’ “
I believe Trump has a very good chance of being reelected, but not because the Democrats are two parties. Nancy Pelosi and her ilk are certainly more circumspect about their leftist views and would probably take us on a slightly slower path toward socialism if they had their druthers – but they would take us there nevertheless. All twenty-plus Democratic presidential candidates favor socialized medicine, healthcare for illegal immigrants, draconian environmental measures, and the balance for the far-left agenda. Though Pelosi dismisses the party’s AOC wing as merely ‘five people,’ AOC and her cabal control the narrative, and seventy Democrats have voted with her 95 percent of the time. Not only are they committed believers in socialism, but their hold on power depends on greatly expanding the dependency cycle, including to illegal immigrants. Recall that no less an establishment Democrat than Hillary Clinton based her presidential campaign on a promise to amplify President Obama’s decidedly leftist agenda. Ferguson is correct, in my view, that the Democrats will commit political suicide if they embrace AOC’s ‘campus socialism.’ But regardless of whether they nominate an openly socialist presidential candidate, they’ve already played their hand, and it’s clear they will pursue a radical agenda if they win the presidency or regain full control of the legislative branch.
The 2020 presidential and congressional elections could determine whether this country heads permanently down the dark road of socialism, cultural Marxism, and eventually totalitarianism, or returns to its founding freedom tradition. We must work for the reelection of President Trump and congressional conservatives to reverse this leftist assault on America. To prevail in this war for our nation, which we did not start but moral duty to fight, we must present our message more clearly and expose the destructiveness of progressive policies and politics, which requires us to understand the left’s thinking and why it is so inimical to the American idea. To that end I have written this book.
David Limbaugh
Sorry, that’s the final section of just the first chapter of this book.
Bernie has been lucky so far, but he has also played it smartly. He has avoided petty personal feuds and has largely stayed on message.
Having said that, he would get slaughtered in a general election. Not as badly as Mondale or McGovern, as about 10-12 states are basically Socialist now, but certainly Trump would pick up MN, NH, ME, CO, NV, and (thanks to the gun grabbing), VA.
One other thought — I think this is all playing out for the Dems to unite behind Amy Klobuchar, who is low in the polls now, but will rally support from those who don’t want Bernie.