Let's head out and about once again with Jiminy Glick, and what with Edie Falco having a new TV series on the air -- Tommy, playing the first female police chief of Los Angeles -- I thought it appropriate to have her appearance with Jimiiny.  From her hand, she handles the interview fairly straightforward, trying to answer his questions as politely as possible, but what stands out from the piece is how blunt and almost brutal he is in his questioning, yet she takes it all in stride.  Unless you count the times she can't keep from laughing.

Yesterday, I mentioned that there were two notable issues in the Democratic Party concerning Bernie Sanders.  Today, we look at the second.  If he does get the nomination, can he win against Trump?

The most honest answer is -- I don't know.  And anyone who says they do know is fooling you and themselves.  That said, several months back I wrote an article about how I felt that any candidate who can make it through the long, arduous Democratic campaign to get the nomination should be able to beat Trump and win the presidency.  I gave numerous reasons, and those reasons for "any candidate" all hold, of course, for Bernie Sanders.

This doesn't mean I absolutely think he will win, let alone am sure that he will win.  Just that I think he should.  For those earlier reasons, and others.

This is part of my reasoning.  It’s not just a gut reaction.  And it’s good that so many in the Democratic Party are wary (the polite term for "having their heads explode") because that’s what keeps people from not taking anything for granted.  So, if one is not convinced, that’s fine.  But as I said, I do have actual reasons why I not only think Sanders, but any Democratic nominee can and will beat Trump.  I don’t know if it’s so.  But I’m not just pure-guessing, and have reasons.  And so if Sanders is the nominee –-
 
Every Democrat who votes will vote for Bernie Sanders.  He won’t lose any, none will stay home, and he’ll likely draw in young voters who usually don’t vote.
 
He’s not going to lose the entire middle of Independents.  Simply based on history, he’ll probably get at least 40% of them who lean Democratic and hate Trump -- and who are smack in the middle, but hate Trump -- or lean Republican but hate Trump.  He may get much more than 40%, maybe even a majority, but I’m being conservative here.  But if you add those independents on to all the registered Democratic votes (which traditionally outnumber registered Republicans), that alone could put Sanders over the top.
 
In New Hampshire, 14.5% of Republicans went out in the freezing weather and snow to vote against Trump, despite him being easily guaranteed to win in a massive landslide.  Let’s say the number is other states is far less, again let's be conservative and say Trump loses only 5%.  And let’s even say that none of those Republicans don’t vote for Sanders – but they also don’t vote for Trump.  Losing 5% of your own party simply not voting for you is disastrous.  (And if they stay home, that’s disastrous for the down ticket.).
 
If just a paltry 1-2% of Republicans who hate Trump (and they do exist, as we saw in New Hampshire) vote for Sanders for any reason – they don’t want to see Trump re-elected, they know Sanders is not A Commie, they’re middle class or lower and like what he says about income equality, they like that he rails against the Establishment, whatever the reason – that’s disastrous for Republicans, too.

Further, for all the very real and reasonable concern of people for how the public will respond to Sanders pushing his "Medicare for All" health plan – it ignores how Sanders will reply.  As I wrote yesterday, I’m sure it would be something like, “I know that many of you don’t like everything about my health plan, but don’t forget – whether you like all the details or not, I have a health plan to expand your coverage…but Trump wants to take your current health plan away!  He wants your health plan gone.  NO health care plan.  None.  And he also wants to cut back your Social Security!  And Medicare.  On top of getting rid of your health care plan.  So, yes, some of you may not like everything about my health care plan.  But I’m absolutely sure that you hate having no health care plan.  Which is what you’ll get from Trump.”  This isn’t to say that Sanders’ health plan isn’t a potential problem, it is, just that you can’t ignore the full argument and the other side being worse.
 
And maybe even most critically, Democrats have been building a get-out-the-vote operation for three years, with all their rallies and marches.  The process is already in place and very well-established.  Democrats are profoundly motivated to vote.  The Republican base is, as well, but that’s just the base – not all Republicans.  (As I said, 14.5% of Republicans voted against Trump in the snow.)  All Democrats, however, have been chomping at the bit for three years to vote against Trump, just waiting for the opportunity.  Waiting to be let loose for the voting booth.
 
And that’s where we are now.  And we’ve seen how crazed Trump has gotten in just one week after his supposed “best week of his presidency.”  Imagine now what other out-of-control problems he’s going to cause for himself.  Because we know he will – because he keeps doing it, for the past three years. Just look at yesterday:  Trump has been caught so woefully and disastrously unprepared over the coronavirus pandemic (most especially after shutting down the Pandemic Response unit in 2018 and cutting $15 billion from the CDC budget where they had to slash their efforts to prevent global disease outbreak by 80%.") that he had to call his first press conference in perhaps three years -- and it was a ridiculed mess of utter ignorance and lies.  This included Trump saying he had no idea that the number of people who die from the flu each year was as high as it was (something that pretty much every doctor in the country knows) and blaming the Democratic debate on Wednesday for the 1,800-point drop in the stock market that occurred two days before the debate, on Monday and Tuesday!
 
And then add in that will there be a focused, massive political campaign against him, barraged with ads (funded in part by Mike Bloomberg) attacking Trump in return – it won’t all be just one way attacking Sanders – will all the horrific things Trump has been doing throughout his presidency. 

And in a debate, he’ll be challenged on it all.  And in a debate, Sanders has been answering the “He’s a socialist” charge his whole career.  So, he's probably incredibly prepared for that.

Finally, we know -- as a starting point -- almost all polls today show that in a head-to-head match-up against Trump, Bernie Sanders is actually ahead.  Now, yes, as I wrote yesterday, we don’t elect a president by popular vote (let alone by poll), but two things – 1) the polls aren't based on supposition, but factual, based on actual numbers, and 2) for everyone who understandably says that such polls are meaningless, I am near-certain that if the exact same “meaningless” polls said the very opposite, that Trump was instead ahead of Sanders, their heads would be exploding in a mass of horror.  So, while the polls are indeed without elective meaning, they are not without value. And serve as a foundational starting point.
 
I’m not suggesting it will be easy.  It won’t be.  And I don’t know if any of these things will happen.  But they’re all very specific reasons why I think they will.  And I think they’re all low-key, fair-minded, and not pie-in-the-sky unreasonable hopes.  I’m not suggesting that Sanders should be the Democratic nominee.  But IF he is, for all these specific reasons and more, I think Bernie Sanders can beat Trump.  And that the down tickets in most states (not all) will do fine, as well.

As one person responded online, "We are NOT all meant to be “service dogs.” But if people let us.. we will, all, figure out what we are good at."

The additional fun here is watching the reaction of the trainer go from bemused to accepting the calamitous effort with total enjoyment.

Once again, I only watched about 30 minutes of last night's debate and saw enough of the free-for-all.  The sense I got was that this was Bernie Sanders' turn to be the focus of everyone else.  And I didn't think he was especially as strong in response as he usually is just making his own points.  

That brings up two issues:  is Sanders a runaway front-runner candidate to get the nomination, and if he does, can he win against Trump?

The first issue is centered around the head-exploding fear of many Democrats that it would be an absolute disaster if Bernie Sanders is the party's nominee.  And I completely understand that reaction.  The thing is, my perception is that the cries of “We’ve lost” if he’s the nominee, while understandable, are based purely on understandable fear, but not reality.  For example, just as a starting point, all polls today show that in a head-to-head match-up against Trump, Sanders is actually ahead.  Now, yes, I know we don’t elect a president by popular vote (let alone by poll), but two things – 1) while it’s just a starting point in the discussion it is however a factual one, based on actual numbers not fear, and 2) for all the people who understandably say that such a poll is totally meaningless, I suspect their heads would be exploding if the exact same “meaningless” polls said the very opposite, that Trump was instead ahead of Sanders. So, people don't find the polls as totally meaningless as they profess.
 
Also left out of the equation of people’s fear of Sanders against Trump, in which they point out all of Sanders’ very real and very high negatives and all the damning things the Trump campaign will say about him – is that they ignore all of very real negatives Trump himself has and what the Democratic campaign will, in return, say about him.  Elections aren't all just one way, of course. 

Just one example:  a couple days ago, a friend said that his fear of Sanders as the candidate is that so much of the public will hate his "Medicare for All" health plan because they want to keep their private doctors.  I said that’s a totally valid concern – but it ignores how Sanders will reply.  And I’m sure it would be something like, “I know that many of you don’t like everything about my health plan, but don’t forget – whether you like all the details or not, I have a health plan to expand your coverage…but Trump wants to take your current health plan away!  He wants your health plan gone.  NO health care plan.  None.  And he also wants to cut back your Social Security!  And Medicare.  On top of getting rid of your health care plan.  So, yes, some of you may not like everything about my health care plan.  But I’m absolutely sure that you hate having no health care plan.  Which is what you’ll get from Trump.”  This isn’t to say that Sanders’ health plan isn’t a potential problem, just that you can’t ignore the full argument and the other side being worse.
 
Keep in mind, as well, with Sanders winning the Nevada caucus by a large margin, which the press has pointed to as a major factor in him being the front-runner but something about that which has also gone unmentioned by the press – caucuses are a truly terrible way to judge support.  It’s a massive time commitment, and candidates with the most passionate support are likely to do the best.  As such, only 22% of people who voted Democratic in 2016 voted in the Nevada caucus.  By contrast, 80% of New Hampshire Democrats voted in their primary.  Winning in Nevada was important, but it doesn’t have the substantive meaning that it appears.
 
Indeed, with all the attention on Sanders being the frontrunner... we've only had three elections, two of them in tiny states, two of them in caucuses.  Even South Carolina upcoming isn't a Big Deal, The only real Big Deal is that everyone should wait until after Super Tuesday.  I wouldn’t be shocked if Michael Bloomberg vaulted to #2 in the delegate count at that point – and I wouldn’t take a bet that he won’t be in the lead.  I’m not saying that’s good or bad, just that so much will change after Super Tuesday.  Joe Biden could have some wins.  Bloomberg is campaigning with wallpapering ads in every states.  Warren could build on momentum.  I don’t think Buttigieg will win anywhere and could hit a speed bump, though he might have some good states.  Same with Klobuchar, who should at least win in Minnesota.  And I’m sure Sanders will continue to do well, though the question will be how well against the broader field.
 
Without question Sanders is the leading candidate.  But the impact of Super Tuesday – hurtful to him or helpful – is too massive to overlook.  And what I most suspect it will show is that no candidate will have enough delegates to win before the convention.  And I have no idea what will happen there.  The only thing I know is that whoever is in the lead by the time of the convention will make the case that that means they should be the nominee – and that it doesn’t mean that at all, whoever it is.  To be the nominee, you rightly MUST have a majority of delegates.  That’s how every political convention in U.S. history has properly been decided.  Otherwise, for example, in a multi-candidate race, you could have a conservative leading with 30% of the vote against all the moderates with 70%, yet giving your party leadership to the vast-minority position.
 
As for whether Bernie Sanders can win if he's the nominee -- well, I've typed far too much here, so we'll take a look at that tomorrow.  Unless something especially noteworthy comes up.

I don't know if this is pure coincidence, or training, or totally unrelated to what the subject heading is, or the real thing.  But it sure is funny, whatever.

Timing suggests the former or latter.  But again, it almost doesn't matter.  It's just fun.