Is Bernie “unelectable” as many well-paid pundits and columnists have argued? We take an evidence based approach to that question on today’s BradCast. [Audio link to full show is posted below.]
But first, with the end of the Public Comment period for certification of Los Angeles County’s $300,000,000 boondoggle of a new, 100% unverifiable touchscreen voting system coming to a close next Monday, Jan 20th (Martin Luther King Day holiday!) at 5pm PT, it’s great to see Libby Denkmann’s comprehensive piece at LAist, on the potential nightmares for L.A. voters in the making. Her piece is headlined “LA’s New Voting System Is Still Uncertified. Why Election Security Experts Are Worried”. She picks up on many of the points we highlighted when we broke the story earlier in the week of more than 40 violations of California Voting System Standards discovered by the independent testing team hired by the CA Sec. of State during the certification process.
We also follow up on Denkmann’s scoop from earlier in the week, regarding the Beverly Hills City Council’s recent vote to explore a lawsuit against Los Angeles County because the new, unverifiable touchscreen voting system forces voters to notice a “MORE” button if they wish to see more than the first four candidates listed on the ballot in any particular race. That button is right next to the “NEXT” button that would take voters to the next race without seeing all of the candidates in the current race. A listener writes in with a couple of solutions to that huge design flaw on these incredibly expensive “electric pens” that L.A. is investing in, instead of a much cheaper, much more secure and reliable, overseeable HAND-MARKED paper ballot system.
Then, with many in the pundit class helpfully informing us that candidates like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are just too progressive to be elected in the 2020 general election (many of these same pundits also told us Donald Trump could never be elected, by the way), we take an evidence-based look at those claims.
The question, however, begins with dismantling the notion that pack journalism and “conventional wisdom” on such matters should be trusted. For example, conventional wisdom tells us that members of the active-duty military will be big supporters of Trump’s again this year. Actual evidence, such as the annual opinion poll of active-duty subscribers to Military Times, reveals a very different set of data than that presented by much of the media. That poll, taken at the end of last year, finds that half of respondents view Trump unfavorably, with 45% viewing him “VERY unfavorably”. His overall ratings have dropped dramatically since the military publication’s first annual poll in 2016. Moreover a plurality back impeachment for their Commander-in-Chief! (And today’s Washington Post story on Trump railing at his Generals as “a bunch of dopes and babies” probably won’t help him much either.)
In fact, as we discuss with our guest, historian, author and election fraud investigator RICHARD HAYES PHILLIPS, nobody really knows anything. At least when it comes to the paid pundits substituting their opinions for actual facts. Phillips published a fact-based analysis of the questions regarding Sanders electability at The BRAD BLOG on Friday, based on known raw numbers from the 2016 primary (with a particular eye on the “Blue Wall” states of WI, MN, PA, MI, IA and OH) and what can be gleaned from opinion polls today.
While avoiding punditry and predictions, Phillips’ findings — at least based on what we know at this time — suggest that Sanders is, indeed, electable. Whether he would still be by the time Republicans got finished with him, or whether he is more electable than someone like Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren, remains unknown no matter what the TV talking heads tell you. “Take your pick,” he tells me when I ask whether his analysis today will hold up even after Trump and the GOP media turn their fire on Sanders if we wins the Democratic nomination. “Which three words do you want to hear Donald Trump say over and over again in the same sentence 10,000 times? Do you want to hear ‘Biden Ukraine corrupt’? Do you want to hear ‘Bernie crazy socialist’? Do you want to hear ‘Pocahontas crazy socialist’? I don’t even want to think about what he would say about Pete Buttigieg. I’m not going to go there.”
Noting that his work “is based upon numbers and not opinions,” he suggests voters should vote for who they like in the primary and forget about “electability”, before adding his key takeaway: “The lesson to this is that the most important thing that Democrats can do is to unite behind the winner and not split the opposition. Trump’s best scenario is a 3rd party candidate on the Left siphoning enough votes from whoever wins the Democratic nomination to throw the election to Trump.”
Phillips argues: “My advice is that Democrats should not be afraid of a spirited primary contest between two or more viable candidates. What they need to do, as recent polling data also reveal, is united behind the ultimate winner. You can’t just take your ball and go home and mope because your candidate didn’t get the nomination. That’s what Trump wants you to do.”
It is certainly true that Republicans will say anything, do anything, to win the general election against whichever Democratic candidate ends up winning the nomination. We close with one amazingly audacious recent clip from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on Fox “News” that underscores precisely that point…
An interesting article that echoes my own fears about voting here in California (i.e. computer fraud used against Progressive candidates), and cites Brad as a reference:
The article:
https://soapboxie.com/us-politi...Super-Tuesday#