People are really surprised about this?
Of course many white Sanders fans are going to vote for Trump if Sanders isn’t nominated and Trump is.
I’m bad at political analysis, but anyone who didn’t realize this is missing so much that should be utterly obvious. Trump and Sanders have positioned themselves and many see them as voices for the voiceless; they are both candidates that have cross-aisle appeal for this very reason.
And this reason is why Hillary Clinton stands zero chance in the general ceteris paribus if Trump is the nominee since many Bernie supporters — say 15 to 20% — will then swing to Trump.
I think Clinton’s chances of being nominated are nearly 100%, but her chance of defeating Trump if the Repubs don’t find some way to knock him off his perch are 10%. (She’d beat Rubio or Cruz easily, though — and the Repubs would rather lose the election than to allow Trump to gain that power.)
(She’d beat Rubio or Cruz easily, though — and the Repubs would rather lose the election than to allow Trump to gain that power.)
Which Republicans? They all seem to be voting for him quite enthusiastically. Nobody bothered doing opposition research on Trump.
My mother called me today absolutely freaking out over Trump saying he “hopes to remove the federal restriction against tax-exempt organizations endorsing politicians, in order to create “’the strongest Christian lobby.'”
I don’t even know she’d beat Rubio easily. Cruz is repulsive.
The Republican establishment would by far rather lose the election than have Trump win it “for” them. They are adamantly, vehemently opposed to Trump and would do anything to halt his rise.
Maybe even a brokered convention….
It’s the realignment from left and right (which hasn’t much functioned for a looooong ole time) into globalist vs nationalist (or diversity vs solidarity).
Trump and Sanders are both nationalist/solidarity candidates while Clinton And Rubio and Cruz are globalist/diversity candidates.
What the useless Republican leadership doesn’t realize is that Trump supporters not only don’t care about Trump’s no fucks given attitude toward party orthodoxy – that’s what they like. Not just the personality but the actual positions on issues he has. That’s one reason that rather than trying to ride his train they’re trying to derail it.
I’m hoping that it’s Trump/Clinton and Clinton starts appropriating nationalist/solidarity rhetoric as soon as she has the nomination locked up because I don’t think she can beat Trump without it.
Right about that re-alignment, I think — and people like Kendzior can’t see what’s happening because her frame of analysis (for understandable reasons) is based on late 90s/early 2000s-style identity politics and the resultant calculations from that.
This is a whole new frame and a whole new picture so I think she’s having some trouble grasping the massive change.
For people like her, it is and will be utterly incomprehensible that anyone could vote for Trump and for Sanders. And that is fine. We need her analysis. But we also need more than her analysis.
Diversity and solidarity are mutually exclusive? Are opposing principles, even? My, the backlash against multi-culturalism is getting rather hard-core.
I’m rather enamored of the idea that whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. Let’s say (solely for the sake of argument) that diversity makes it more challenging to maintain solidarity. Surely in the long run that can only make solidarity stronger, no? Unless diversity actually kills solidarity? Please someone tell me the human nature prognosis isn’t that pessimistic.
Diversity and solidarity are mutually exclusive? Are opposing principles, even? My, the backlash against multi-culturalism is getting rather hard-core.
There’s a very long history of reifying these differences by elites to make solidarity and diversity opposing principles.
Trump and Sanders are both nationalist/solidarity candidates while Clinton And Rubio and Cruz are globalist/diversity candidates.
Within your frame, and as I’ve said before, Trump is a globalist posing as a nationalist. Borders do not exist for people born as rich as Trump, who can move almost as freely as capital, and who has multiple homes and businesses in multiple countries. This is a man who thinks the minimum wage is too high and people are paid too much. A man who happily slapped his name on clothing lines and had Chinese factories manufacture them is not going to advocate for any tariffs. Given the opportunity to use a union shop to manufacture his campaign gear, he declined to do so(video see at 4:10) . He does not like unions. If you’re someone pining for the good old days, the good old days had unions, protectionist trade policy and racial discrimination. All he’s really promising is racial discrimination which will make some people feel better but not much else. There is nothing to suggest that tariffs would mean manufacturers would give more money to labor instead of just keeping it to boost their profit line. Also where is the flood of negative ads from the Chamber of Commerce or other business groups?
“Within your frame, and as I’ve said before, Trump is a globalist posing as a nationalist”
I’m talking voter perception rather than reality.
“If you’re someone pining for the good old days”
No pendulum swings one way forever (one of my favorite sayings, obviously). The pendulum has been swinging for a long time in one direction towards evermore diversity and atomization of individuals and now it’s stopped and is going to start swinging in the other direction. It’s not on either side of the old left-right paradigm it’s happening on both.
Black lives matter and the black oscar kerfuffle are also symptoms of that (as was the circular firing squad taking aim at Chris Rock after the oscars). All groups are backing off and digging in.
The linked tweet brings nothing new to the table that I can see. It’s simply one of the millions of very minor variants on the “Bernie is the choice of white males” rutmeme. The real problem with this meme, of course, is that combine it with the objectively obvious fact that Bernie is left of Hillary (I’m not as quick to dismiss left-right as non-relevant), and it meshes nicely (way too nicely) with the conservative rutmeme that there’s something inherently elitist about liberalism. It’s always been the case (by definition, as it were) that when centrists criticize leftists/liberals/progressives/left populists they do so from the right. That is their right, and fair play in the marketplace of ideas requires it. So, good on them. What troubles me is when they use conservative talking points, and worse, conservative frames, to make their point.