Michigan primary: polls that miss the point, and the accidental front-runner

*This made me laugh, and squint (trying to digest his ideas). There are good, insightful points here worth reading, with just enough tongue-in-cheek to make it fun. VL


By Tomas Ricardo, Friend of NewsTaco (2.8 minute read)

So, what’s going on?  Sanders carries Michigan?  Insanity rules.  I know it won’t happen, the notion being way beyond fantasy even, but damn, it would be loverly if Hill simply said: “You want him, you can have him…bye-bye.”   Like the Democrats who crossed over to vote in the  GOP primary “because Clinton had the election won”, others voted for Bernie ‘just to make a point’, not because they think he can win the nomination, much less the Presidency, but they “have a point to make.”  Such luxury.   Reports have it that only 69% of those voters in the Democratic Primary were  actual Democrats.  Others were “Independents” (28%) or “Republican” (3%).  I suppose many of the former were actually Repubs in Indie clothing.

[pullquote] The polls in Michigan could not predict Repub crossover.[/pullquote]

The problem with the polls

Pundits blame the pollsters for their being so wrong.  To a point, yes, the only poll that matters is election day.  Still, reminds me of the 2000 election.  I was not a fan of Lieberman, but I understood his influence in Florida.  He helped the Party.  The polls were right.  Gore won Florida, only he didn’t.  The polls in Michigan could not predict Repub crossover, or Demos moving to vote in the more contentious (and exciting?) GOP primary.

I am not one to panic after yesterday’s results.  As the history of punditry has shown, once The Bern becomes a serious threat to the nomination (if he does) the long knives come out.

The sharp questions will come

Q:  Have you ever run for office as a Socialist?  (I remember his running as a Socialist for US Senate, but the record may indicate he ran as an “Independent”)

Q:  As a ‘socialist democrat’, why are you running in the Democratic Primary?  Are you a socialist or a Democrat?  Can you have it both ways?

Q:  You rail against Wall Street…who is Wall Street?  Wall Street represents the dreams and aspirations and future well-being of millions of Americans who are investors in the American
Dream.  When the Market does well, millions of Americans do well.  So, what specifically do you mean by Wall Street?  Are you conflating “financial institutions too big to fail” with “Wall Street.”  Are you rather not referring to the former, rather than the latter?

Q:  Socialism refers to an economic system; Democracy to a form of government.  In the field of economics, are you an adherent of socialism? and isn’t that the anti-thesis of capitalism?

Q:  Are you a socialist?

Q:  Since you’re running in the Democratic primary, shouldn’t you just drop the “socialist” modifier?  Do you believe that characterizing yourself as a “socialist” helps your campaign’s call for an economic and a political revolution, and therefore serves you well?

Q:  If you were to win the Democratic Party nomination for President, are you prepared to drop the “socialist” part of your political identity.

[pullquote]I thought the Bern simply wanted to move the Party to the Left[/pullquote]

The accidental front-runner

I have believed since the day the Bern announced his candidacy that he did not believe he would be the nominee.  Given his radical views on the US economy and capitalism, there is no way he could be elected President.  I thought the Bern simply wanted to move the Party to the Left, not give Hillary a free pass to the middle/middle right for the general election.  There are critical issues he cares passionately about, as do I, and my views, no more than his, would never get me elected Mayor (well, maybe Crystal City or some such) much less La Presidencia.

On another note, it does appear that El Trompo is on his way to the nomination.  I certainly prefer him to the Prince of Darkness, Rafael Eduardo Cruz.  And it occurs to me, that if elected, El Trompo would become our first Orange President.  Think about it.  I don’t think we’ve ever had an Orange President before.



[Image by DonkeyHoteyFlickr]
Suggested reading
George_Washington_Gomez
Américo Paredes
“Born in the early part of the twentieth century, George Washington Gómez is named after the American rebel and hero because his parents are certain their son will be a great man too. George, or Guálinto as he’s known, grows up in turbulent times. His family has lived for generations in what has become Texas. “I was born here. My father was born here and so was my grandfather and his father before him. And then they come, they come and take it, steal it and call it theirs,” his Uncle Feliciano rages.
The Texas Mexicans’ attempts to take back their land from the Gringos and the rinches—the brutal Texas Rangers—fail. Guálinto’s father, who never participated in the seditionist violence, is murdered in cold blood, and Feliciano makes a death-bed promise to raise his nephew without hatred.
Young Guálinto comes of age in a world where Mexicans are treated as second-class citizens. Teachers can beat and mistreat them with impunity, and most of his Mexican-American friends drop out of school at a young age. But the Gómez family insists that he continue his education, which he will need in order to do great things for his people. And so his school years create a terrible conflict within him: Guálinto alternately hates and admires the Gringo, loves and despises the Mexican. Written in the 1930s but not published until 1990, George Washington Gómez has become mandatory reading for anyone interested in Mexican-American literature, culture and history.
[cc_product sku=”paperback” display=”inline” quantity=”true” price=”true”]

Subscribe today!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Must Read