On today's BradCast [audio link below], we examine the reported results of Hillary Clinton's huge victory over Bernie Sanders in South Carolina over the weekend: What do they mean? Can the results be "trusted"? Are corporate media such as NY Times and Washington Post misleading Americans about what the current numbers, including the Democratic Party delegate count, actually suggest?
Then, I'm joined by Current Affairs magazine editor Nathan J. Robinson to discuss his recent feature article which makes the case that "unless the Democrats run Sanders, a Trump nomination means a Trump Presidency".
Robinson, an attorney, Harvard PhD student and children's book author, offers one of the most persuasive arguments I've heard to date regarding the "electability" of Sanders versus Clinton --- at least under the presumption that Trump is to be the Republicans' standard-bearer.
"The problem with polls is that they are unable to foresee events that will occur in the future that will change the way people think," Robinson explains about perceived advantages that some see in Clinton's favor right now. "Things that happen in the campaign change people's opinions, make them more favorable to one candidate, less favorable to another."
The "key point" in Robinson's calculation: Donald Trump as the GOP nominee. "That is something that the Democrats need to start thinking when they ask all these questions about electability. 'What's going to happen? Who is going to be attacked and how?' They need to be thinking in terms that Donald Trump is likely to be the nominee."
While it's true the Right has been attacking Hillary for years --- something that Sanders has yet to face --- she has never come under the full withering force of Trump's particularly aggressive and personal campaign style, argues Robinson, who says he's not personally a fan of either Clinton or Sanders (or Trump, for that matter.) He details why he believes Clinton stands to be pulled under by Trump's onslaught, whereas Sanders stands a far greater chance of surviving the type of campaign that Trump has shown himself willing to wage against his Republican opponents.
We discuss what is likely to happen in both a Trump v. Sanders and Trump v. Clinton race, how Democrats who are focused on the inevitable attacks from the Right against Sanders as a "Socialist!" may be missing a much larger concern, and how all of this calculus completely changes if someone other than Trump somehow manages to win the GOP nomination.
Finally, the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has already had a profound effect on the Court. On Friday, Dow Chemical dropped their planned SCOTUS appeal of a $1 billion judgment against them, citing the "increased...likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class action suits." And, today, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke up to ask questions during oral arguments at the Court for the first time in 10 years!...
While we post The BradCast here every day, and you can hear it across all of our great affiliate stations and websites, to automagically get new episodes as soon as they're available sent right to your computer or personal device, subscribe for free at iTunes, Stitcher, TuneIn or our native RSS feed!
* * *
MONTHLY BRAD BLOG SUBSCRIPTION
(Snail mail support to "Brad Friedman, 7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594 Los Angeles, CA 90028" always welcome too!)
READER COMMENTS ON "Mag Editor: Why Only Sanders Can Prevent 'President Trump': 'BradCast' 2/29/2016" (6 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink] ...
said on 3/1/2016 @ 10:25 am PT...
"The problem with polls is that they are unable to foresee events that will occur in the future that will change the way people think,"
That's true for any campaign is it not? The same is also true when talking about Trumps support with the crazies. He could end up doing something that trashes their opinion of him. I agree that the future is unreadable and anything is possible. But all you're doing is stating the obvious. Trump has a much greater chance of being brought done than either democratic candidate. The minute he's placed next to a sane democratic candidate Trump's insanity will be emphasized that much more. In the literary world that's know as a "foil".
I have a much greater fear that someone will attempt to hack the election than I do of some random event bringing down a democratic candidate.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink] ...
said on 3/1/2016 @ 11:37 am PT...
Don't sell the GOP short ... they plan to stop him themselves because their people forgot how to vote (Doomer Tuesday).
COMMENT #4 [Permalink] ...
said on 3/2/2016 @ 4:14 pm PT...
I'm a bigtime Bernie-supporter, and I see Hillary as unacceptably corporatist-neoliberal.
I am not a fan. But I am realistic.
She might win.
Still, I don't see Hillary being as vulnerable against Trump as Robinson does.
She has been through 2 bruising Presidential campaigns with Bill, right there in the thick of things, through every attack, every appearance around the country, etc etc.
Also, anyone who watched her at the Benghazi hearings last October saw Hillary at her pinnacle best, powerfully, sometimes almost effortlessly, fending off an entire GOP attack team, and she did it for 11 continuous hours.I watched at least 5-6 of those hours, and I have to sheepishly admit, I was impressed. Her deep, almost masculine laugh at the question "Were you alone all night?" was priceless (imagine mis-phrasing a serious question to a Clinton, with all of Bill's history, in that way-That poor little GOP Congresswoman-Yikes!).
Trump's debate style could, just possibly, play right into the hands of a knowledgable, super-smart debater with a "judo" approach (using an opponent's force & energy against him). Hillary may be able to manage that, or perhaps not. But she might, IMO. When Trump is asked for policy details, he's got nothing. That works for some folks, but not nearly all. That is his potential weakness, which has yet to be properly exploited.
I agree with the opinion that Bernie would make a stronger candidate against Trump than Hillary.
But I have yet to be convinced she would fold against The Bloviator. Maybe. But maybe not.
As Robinson said, nobody really knows, it's all a guess at this point.
But if, disappointingly, Bernie comes in 2nd, it might be a great idea at the convention for Hillary to defy Party elders and invite Bernie onto the ticket as VP.
With Bernie as running mate, most millenials would be likely to stay involved, which gives the Democrats a big edge Hillary lacks by herself.
The Dems would OWN the minority vote. Progressives would show up too, IMO.
The agreement could be for Bernie to continue his revolution in the VP's office by being in charge of several big policies, which could be negotiated at the convention.
Bernie as VP, although disappointing, would still be a consolation prize I could live with, as I feel it would be difficult to "kick him upstairs" and keep him quiet, with the recent history of powerful, involved VPs.
IMO, if Hillary does take the nomination, she'd be a fool not to offer the VP spot to Bernie.