Democratic Candidate 2020

[jimbob]

The Soviet Union was better than what came before and after in Russia though. I mean Stalin was awful, but Western regimes have done similarly awful things, America in particular.

What the absolute f.ck?

Well put.

Putin is a criminal and a mobster. As far as I know, he hasn't been responsible for the deaths of 20-million of his own people though.

The USSR was highly corrupt - that's how a lot of the oligarchs managed to get so wealthy when it was collapsing. They were already in a cosy position under communism.

[secret squirrel]

The Soviet Union was better than what came before and after in Russia though. I mean Stalin was awful, but Western regimes have done similarly awful things, America in particular.

What the absolute f.ck?

Have you tried reading 20th century history? Sounds like you have some catching up to do, and it's a blast, I can tell you. Look into American activities in places like Iran, Indonesia, East Timor, Vietnam and surrounding areas (obviously), and recently Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at American intervention in South America in general. Now, America has usually been a bit more subtle than the USSR, in that they didn't (usually) send in their own tanks, but rarely did a fascist regime emerge somewhere that they didn't endorse and support. They even supported far, far leftists like Pol Pot when they considered it to be strategically advantageous.

You think forced labour by political prisoners is bad (which it is)? Well, think about how America has dealt with its troublesome Black population. Think about the drug policies that have resulted in a massive prison population, and think about how this population is often made to do work for which it is not paid.

If you think Holodomor was bad (which it was), maybe think about the Bengal famine where British colonial policies caused the deaths of millions (does it count if they're not white though? Serious questions).

I mean, I understand how decades of nationalist propaganda have left you with the impression you have, but there really is not clear moral ground between us and our enemies.

[secret squirrel]

Well put.

Putin is a criminal and a mobster. As far as I know, he hasn't been responsible for the deaths of 20-million of his own people though.

The USSR was highly corrupt - that's how a lot of the oligarchs managed to get so wealthy when it was collapsing. They were already in a cosy position under communism.

Do you realize that in the years immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union life expectancy in Russia dropped from 65 to just under 58, and that it didn't get back up to Soviet levels till 2012? The neoliberalization of Russia was a humanitarian disaster, and it was American pressure that forced it to play out in the way it did, aided by Yeltsin's greed of course. Gorbachev's vision of greater national autonomy and cooperative ownership was much better then both the Soviet system and what actually happened, but unfortunately it wasn't to be.

Also, that 20 million figure is a significant exaggeration. I think better estimates have it lower, at around 10 million. Obviously this is a very large number, but we might as well be accurate. A more serious point is that Stalin was the absolute lowest point of the USSR. After his death it wasn't anything like as bad as that, though it was still quite bad in a lot of ways. So Putin is not as bad as Stalin, though if we counted up the number of his own people killed by his sh.t social policies we might also get a large number. But life under Putin is probably worse than under, say, Brezhnev.

[secret squirrel]

Not only do I have contempt for idiots who say nice things about the USSR, I have contempt for idiots who praise the massacre of Native Americans and support chattel slavery.

Only one of the Democrat candidates has done any of these.

This isn't hard, folks.

This is a non-sequitur. Sanders never praised the gulags, which would be equivalent to someone praising the actual massacre of Native Americans. What he does is praise good aspects of the USSR, without mentioning the gulags. Which is like someone praising the 'pioneer spirit' (or something) without bringing up the Native American genocide. Which they do all the time.

[plodder]

Well put.

Putin is a criminal and a mobster. As far as I know, he hasn't been responsible for the deaths of 20-million of his own people though.

The USSR was highly corrupt - that's how a lot of the oligarchs managed to get so wealthy when it was collapsing. They were already in a cosy position under communism.

Do you realize that in the years immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union life expectancy in Russia dropped from 65 to just under 58, and that it didn't get back up to Soviet levels till 2012? The neoliberalization of Russia was a humanitarian disaster, and it was American pressure that forced it to play out in the way it did, aided by Yeltsin's greed of course. Gorbachev's vision of greater national autonomy and cooperative ownership was much better then both the Soviet system and what actually happened, but unfortunately it wasn't to be.

Also, that 20 million figure is a significant exaggeration. I think better estimates have it lower, at around 10 million. Obviously this is a very large number, but we might as well be accurate. A more serious point is that Stalin was the absolute lowest point of the USSR. After his death it wasn't anything like as bad as that, though it was still quite bad in a lot of ways. So Putin is not as bad as Stalin, though if we counted up the number of his own people killed by his sh.t social policies we might also get a large number. But life under Putin is probably worse than under, say, Brezhnev.

f.ck me sideways.

My Polish uncle, who grew up not far from Auschwitz, whose family tree was rendered into a stump and who made it over here to fight the Nazis, would leave the room if Stalin was mentioned. That's how f.cking bad the USSR was.

[secret squirrel]

f.ck me sideways.

My Polish uncle, who grew up not far from Auschwitz, whose family tree was rendered into a stump and who made it over here to fight the Nazis, would leave the room if Stalin was mentioned. That's how f.cking bad the USSR was.

Did someone say Stalin wasn't bad? I missed that.

[Woodchopper]

Well put.

Putin is a criminal and a mobster. As far as I know, he hasn't been responsible for the deaths of 20-million of his own people though.

The USSR was highly corrupt - that's how a lot of the oligarchs managed to get so wealthy when it was collapsing. They were already in a cosy position under communism.

Do you realize that in the years immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union life expectancy in Russia dropped from 65 to just under 58, and that it didn't get back up to Soviet levels till 2012?

It dropped, but not like that. Life expectancy fell from 69.464 years in 1988 to 64.467 years in 1992.
Source There certainly was a disastrous decrease in health. It looks like you cited the stats for men only.

As far as we know, the decrease in life expectancy was due to an increase in alcoholism and suicide, especially in men. This would appear to be due to rapid change and sudden insecurity caused by the collapse of soviet institutions. (eg see here).

The neoliberalization of Russia was a humanitarian disaster, and it was American pressure that forced it to play out in the way it did, aided by Yeltsin's greed of course.

That seems to enormously exaggerate the power and influence of the US. Certainly it wanted states in East and Central Europe to adopt market reforms. But there were differences in the speed and extent to which this was done. Some countries - eg Hungary, Belarus, Moldova, Slovenia - retained much larger state owned sectors and had a more gradual transition. The US didn't seem to care.

Also, that 20 million figure is a significant exaggeration. I think better estimates have it lower, at around 10 million. Obviously this is a very large number, but we might as well be accurate.

There's a debate among historians which ranges between 20 million and 10 million. The debate is mostly concerned with what to include or exclude as the vast majority of deaths were from starvation or maltreatment, but weren't recorded as such in official statistics.

[secret squirrel]

Well put.

Putin is a criminal and a mobster. As far as I know, he hasn't been responsible for the deaths of 20-million of his own people though.

The USSR was highly corrupt - that's how a lot of the oligarchs managed to get so wealthy when it was collapsing. They were already in a cosy position under communism.

Do you realize that in the years immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union life expectancy in Russia dropped from 65 to just under 58, and that it didn't get back up to Soviet levels till 2012?

It dropped, but not like that. Life expectancy fell from 69.464 years in 1988 to 64.467 years in 1992.
Source There certainly was a disastrous decrease in health. It looks like you cited the stats for men only.

As far as we know, the decrease in life expectancy was due to an increase in alcoholism and suicide, especially in men. This would appear to be due to rapid change and sudden insecurity caused by the collapse of soviet institutions. (eg see here).

The neoliberalization of Russia was a humanitarian disaster, and it was American pressure that forced it to play out in the way it did, aided by Yeltsin's greed of course.

That seems to enormously exaggerate the power and influence of the US. Certainly it wanted states in East and Central Europe to adopt market reforms. But there were differences in the speed and extent to which this was done. Some countries - eg Hungary, Belarus, Moldova, Slovenia - retained much larger state owned sectors and had a more gradual transition. The US didn't seem to care.

Also, that 20 million figure is a significant exaggeration. I think better estimates have it lower, at around 10 million. Obviously this is a very large number, but we might as well be accurate.

There's a debate among historians which ranges between 20 million and 10 million. The debate is mostly concerned with what to include or exclude as the vast majority of deaths were from starvation or maltreatment, but weren't recorded as such in official statistics.

You're right about the life expectancy. Thanks for the correction. I think it's wrong to suggest the US didn't care about 'market reforms' in other former Soviet countries though. The US always cares, which is why it has such an extensive record of exerting pressure via the IMF and the World Bank to get the kinds of reforms it wants. This is well documented in 'the Shock Doctrine', for example. The particular situation of Russia was obviously influenced by the entirely self-serving actions of Yeltsin and his cronies. As for the death statistics, it's really a minor point, because we can all agree that Stalin was a monster who killed a lot of people, but 20 million is the very upper end of vaguely credible estimates as far as I'm aware. The main point is that the US is responsible for millions of deaths too, with post 9-11 wars being just one data point. If we are interested in making a genuine comparison between the USSR and the West, rather than just building the case against Stalin, we should bear that in mind.

Anyway, to clarify, in case people are misunderstanding, I'm not here to argue "Stalin was good actually". I want to say that Stalin was very bad, but there are several examples of contemporaneous Western actions that are bad for the same reasons, and which should cause us significant uncomfortable introspection.

[plodder]

f.ck me sideways.

My Polish uncle, who grew up not far from Auschwitz, whose family tree was rendered into a stump and who made it over here to fight the Nazis, would leave the room if Stalin was mentioned. That's how f.cking bad the USSR was.

Did someone say Stalin wasn't bad? I missed that.

"once Stalin had purged the USSR of any and all dissenting voices and terrified the remaining population into utter slavish obedience that would last for two generations, Brezhnev was able to actually be a pretty chilled out leader" is what you said.

[secret squirrel]

f.ck me sideways.

My Polish uncle, who grew up not far from Auschwitz, whose family tree was rendered into a stump and who made it over here to fight the Nazis, would leave the room if Stalin was mentioned. That's how f.cking bad the USSR was.

Did someone say Stalin wasn't bad? I missed that.

"once Stalin had purged the USSR of any and all dissenting voices and terrified the remaining population into utter slavish obedience that would last for two generations, Brezhnev was able to actually be a pretty chilled out leader" is what you said.

Leaving aside whether this is a fair representation of what I'm saying, how does it bear on anything? What point are you trying to make?

[Woodchopper]

Do you realize that in the years immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union life expectancy in Russia dropped from 65 to just under 58, and that it didn't get back up to Soviet levels till 2012?

It dropped, but not like that. Life expectancy fell from 69.464 years in 1988 to 64.467 years in 1992.
Source There certainly was a disastrous decrease in health. It looks like you cited the stats for men only.

As far as we know, the decrease in life expectancy was due to an increase in alcoholism and suicide, especially in men. This would appear to be due to rapid change and sudden insecurity caused by the collapse of soviet institutions. (eg see here).

The neoliberalization of Russia was a humanitarian disaster, and it was American pressure that forced it to play out in the way it did, aided by Yeltsin's greed of course.

That seems to enormously exaggerate the power and influence of the US. Certainly it wanted states in East and Central Europe to adopt market reforms. But there were differences in the speed and extent to which this was done. Some countries - eg Hungary, Belarus, Moldova, Slovenia - retained much larger state owned sectors and had a more gradual transition. The US didn't seem to care.

Also, that 20 million figure is a significant exaggeration. I think better estimates have it lower, at around 10 million. Obviously this is a very large number, but we might as well be accurate.

There's a debate among historians which ranges between 20 million and 10 million. The debate is mostly concerned with what to include or exclude as the vast majority of deaths were from starvation or maltreatment, but weren't recorded as such in official statistics.

I think it's wrong to suggest the US didn't care about 'market reforms' in other former Soviet countries though. The US always cares, which is why it has such an extensive record of exerting pressure via the IMF and the World Bank to get the kinds of reforms it wants. This is well documented in 'the Shock Doctrine', for example. The particular situation of Russia was obviously influenced by the entirely self-serving actions of Yeltsin and his cronies.

Apologies, I was being a bit flippant. My point was that several Central and Eastern states were able to choose to undertake a more gradual economic transition and didn't follow the 'shock treatment' seen in Poland etc. They weren't forced by the US. IMHO Russia could have followed a more gradual path if its government had wished. However, there were many powerful interests inside Russia which wanted a rapid transition to a market economy (so they could get very rich). It wasn't just Yeltsin who was greedy.

As for the death statistics, it's really a minor point, because we can all agree that Stalin was a monster who killed a lot of people, but 20 million is the very upper end of vaguely credible estimates as far as I'm aware.

I agree, 20 million is about the upper range among credible historians.

The main point is that the US is responsible for millions of deaths too, with post 9-11 wars being just one data point.

I agree that horrific numbers have died. But working out responsibility is very difficult when most have died in civil wars (eg Iraq, Libya etc). The US (and UK) bear some responsibility, but so do parties in those countries as well.

[secret squirrel]

...I agree that horrific numbers have died. But working out responsibility is very difficult when most have died in civil wars (eg Iraq, Libya etc). The US (and UK) bear some responsibility, but so do parties in those countries as well.

I think we've come to a kind of agreement about the rest so I'll just respond to this. I agree it's hard to work out attribution. As I said in a previous post, the West has usually been more subtle in its atrocities than the Soviets in the period of interest. The Western style is to commit atrocities via proxy (e.g. in Chile etc.), to create situations which entirely predictably lead to massive casualties and be all "who could have seen that coming?!" while exacerbating and profiting* from them (e.g. Iraq), or just to use pressure from economic institutions to force worse situations on already struggling countries. The question is, to what extent do we allow ourselves to be taken in by this flimsy veil of plausible deniability? I see it as a kind of moral 'shell company' exercise.


*Though who profits is often an interesting question. Certainly not the general population, or the soldiers who have to fight, but powerful groups definitely do.

[Woodchopper]

...I agree that horrific numbers have died. But working out responsibility is very difficult when most have died in civil wars (eg Iraq, Libya etc). The US (and UK) bear some responsibility, but so do parties in those countries as well.

I think we've come to a kind of agreement about the rest so I'll just respond to this. I agree it's hard to work out attribution. As I said in a previous post, the West has usually been more subtle in its atrocities than the Soviets in the period of interest. The Western style is to commit atrocities via proxy (e.g. in Chile etc.), to create situations which entirely predictably lead to massive casualties and be all "who could have seen that coming?!" while exacerbating and profiting* from them (e.g. Iraq), or just to use pressure from economic institutions to force worse situations on already struggling countries. The question is, to what extent do we allow ourselves to be taken in by this flimsy veil of plausible deniability? I see it as a kind of moral 'shell company' exercise.


*Though who profits is often an interesting question. Certainly not the general population, or the soldiers who have to fight, but powerful groups definitely do.

In terms or responsibility, I disagree in the sense that in general the West has been guilty of negligence and recklessness rather than a deliberate strategy to commit atrocities. Blair and Bush didn't want to precipitate a decades long civil war in Iraq in 2003. Bush at least appeared to believe that the Iraqi population would greet the Americans as liberators and quickly set up a democratic government. Likewise, Cameron and Sarcozy appeared to believe in 2011 that Libya would have a stable government after the fall of Qaddafi.

[dyqik]

Can we take the dictator praise to a different thread and leave this one to sensible grown up politics?

[lpm]

Do you mind if I ask how old you are, Squirrel? Is the USSR part of history for you? Or was the Cold War something you lived with, a persistent fear of nuclear war and knowledge that 500 miles away there was an iron curtain with 400 million people trapped behind it, living in horrific totalitarian states.

Us winning the Cold War was a huge leap forward for the human race, freeing nations and oppressed peoples. The fall of the Berlin Wall was a wonderful thing; excusing the dictators who maintained it is contemptible.

Decent people with votes don't praise Hitler for being nice to his dog. And they don't praise nice things about Moscow - they go straight to the fact that the USSR was one of humanity's worst ever crimes.

[lpm]

Can we take the dictator praise to a different thread and leave this one to sensible grown up politics?

No. It's directly relevant to why Sanders is such a risk.

[Woodchopper]

Can we take the dictator praise to a different thread and leave this one to sensible grown up politics?

No. It's directly relevant to why Sanders is such a risk.

We seem to have a derail here anyway. I can split the topic, but won't if people would rather I didn't.

[Bird on a Fire]

There are attack ads the Republicans will run that would get me voting for Trump.

That's another thing that I've heard mention - Sanders hasn't really had the same level of scrutiny as other candidates. Hillary didn't really see him as that big a challenge so didn't attack him and until the last couple of debates all the current crop of candidates have been very nice to each other so there's been relatively few attacks on Sanders so far. He really needs all that now so that if he is the nominee there's nothing unexpected that comes. Nothing's going to hit Trump where it hurts. The 'grab them by the p.ssy' tape did f.ck all. He's survived impeachment, negative doesn't work on him. That's not going to be the case for the democratic nominee.

Trump lost the popular vote in the last election and has lost support since then, so his re-election is hardly a safe bet. All he has left is a cultish core of die-hard Republican fanatics. Never mind Fifth Avenue - Trump could shoot into a crowd of his own supporters and they'd all praise him for it.

In order for Trump to lose, Democrats simply need to unite behind a single candidate in the face of the inevitable smearing, lying and corruption coming from the right. I wouldn't worry that they're all bickering amongst themselves at the moment - that's because they're having an internal election to choose a candidate, whereas the Republicans have an incumbent. The election isn't until 3rd November so there's plenty of time for them to sort themselves out properly - 8 months is ages in politics.

At the moment Sanders looks quite likely to win. Personally, I think he has good policies, that would bring the rights of normal USians closer to the standards Europeans enjoy, which would be a good thing for them, while reducing the USA's toxic influence on geopolitics, which would be good for everybody else. I don't know him personally, but he seems to have had sensible positions throughout the last century when a lot of other potential candidates were quite feeble (e.g. Biden and bussing, or Warren voting Republican during the Reagan years).

Sanders has had plenty of scrutiny compared to the other candidates, not least because this is the second election he's running in. He's an outsider from the perspective of Democratic high command, because while he's worked with them and against the Republicans throughout his career he has until now maintained his independence. He's also at the furthest-left point of mainstream US politics, so has had plenty of criticism in right-wing media (which is most of it). As lpm points out, though, it's going to get a lot more scrutinous and a lot more dishonest.

A lot of people within the Democrats don't consider Sanders their first choice, which is fine. But I hope they've learned from 2016, and from the Corbyn debacle, inter alia, and realised that the choice they are actually going to be faced with in November is Trump vs a Democrat, and for practically anybody on the left, centre or even the non-racist, neoliberal parts of the right, the Democratic candidate should get their vote. The idiots who expressed no preference between Trump and Clinton in 2016 have hopefully had a long, hard look in the mirror.

[Bird on a Fire]

Successfully concocts intellectually vacuous, dishonest attack on Sanders in imitation of forthcoming right-wing propaganda

Falls for it hook, line and sinker and says things most people, rightly or wrongly, find even more objectionable

Let's hope this isn't how the public conversation goes should Sanders win the nomination. The correct response is something like:

Don't be f.cking daft - you can praise a public transport system without praising the politics of the people who built it. I like the Metropolitan line, but that doesn't mean I support British imperialism in India.

It won't convince Trump supporters, of course, but the remaining sensible people in the US desperately need not to put each other off, and appearing to downplay the atrocities of one of the last century's most reviled dictators is sure as sh.t a good way to freak people out.

[Bird on a Fire]

Corbyn has a good platform. He has a diverse array of good people backing him. He appeals to people who don't usually vote. He has consistently been on the right side of history. He has a good chance of winning. Get on board.

FIFLabour

Worked well, that.

Did Corbyn ever have consistent polling showing that he would beat the incumbent? My memory is short.

[dyqik]

There are attack ads the Republicans will run that would get me voting for Trump.

That's another thing that I've heard mention - Sanders hasn't really had the same level of scrutiny as other candidates. Hillary didn't really see him as that big a challenge so didn't attack him and until the last couple of debates all the current crop of candidates have been very nice to each other so there's been relatively few attacks on Sanders so far. He really needs all that now so that if he is the nominee there's nothing unexpected that comes. Nothing's going to hit Trump where it hurts. The 'grab them by the p.ssy' tape did f.ck all. He's survived impeachment, negative doesn't work on him. That's not going to be the case for the democratic nominee.

Trump lost the popular vote in the last election and has lost support since then, so his re-election is hardly a safe bet. All he has left is a cultish core of die-hard Republican fanatics. Never mind Fifth Avenue - Trump could shoot into a crowd of his own supporters and they'd all praise him for it.

In order for Trump to lose, Democrats simply need to unite behind a single candidate in the face of the inevitable smearing, lying and corruption coming from the right. I wouldn't worry that they're all bickering amongst themselves at the moment - that's because they're having an internal election to choose a candidate, whereas the Republicans have an incumbent. The election isn't until 3rd November so there's plenty of time for them to sort themselves out properly - 8 months is ages in politics.

At the moment Sanders looks quite likely to win. Personally, I think he has good policies, that would bring the rights of normal USians closer to the standards Europeans enjoy, which would be a good thing for them, while reducing the USA's toxic influence on geopolitics, which would be good for everybody else. I don't know him personally, but he seems to have had sensible positions throughout the last century when a lot of other potential candidates were quite feeble (e.g. Biden and bussing, or Warren voting Republican during the Reagan years).

Sanders has had plenty of scrutiny compared to the other candidates, not least because this is the second election he's running in. He's an outsider from the perspective of Democratic high command, because while he's worked with them and against the Republicans throughout his career he has until now maintained his independence. He's also at the furthest-left point of mainstream US politics, so has had plenty of criticism in right-wing media (which is most of it). As lpm points out, though, it's going to get a lot more scrutinous and a lot more dishonest.

A lot of people within the Democrats don't consider Sanders their first choice, which is fine. But I hope they've learned from 2016, and from the Corbyn debacle, inter alia, and realised that the choice they are actually going to be faced with in November is Trump vs a Democrat, and for practically anybody on the left, centre or even the non-racist, neoliberal parts of the right, the Democratic candidate should get their vote. The idiots who expressed no preference between Trump and Clinton in 2016 have hopefully had a long, hard look in the mirror.

There are some significant things here that I think are wrong.

Firstly, Warren, Biden, and Klobuchar have all won fairly hard fought elections, including in Warren's case against a Republican at least partly bankrolled by Bloomberg. I suspect Warren at least has had more scrutiny than Sanders in Senate elections - Vermont is an idiosyncratic state that Republicans don't really spend money in, while Warren had a very well funded Republican opponent in her first election. Likewise Klobuchar. I'm not so sure about how much modern scrutiny Biden has had, because his elections are pretty far in the past, and he's an old white man.

Secondly, policies aren't the be all and end all of a presidential candidate. What's at least as important is whether they have the executive abilities and ability to bring the Senate and House in to actually achieve things they say they want to. Remember that funding and legislation is controlled by Congress. Executive orders can be pretty powerful, but they have to be very carefully crafted to use the levers that legislation gives to the executive, and to survive legal challenges. A successful president needs at least one of Congress and Senate behind them throughout their term to achieve much at all, including all the middle of the road Democrats that Bernie has spent 30 years disparaging, and refusing to support. The one saving grace of the Trump presidency is that both he and his cabinet are pretty ineffective at getting things changed. Although against that, he has some significant support from McConnell's stacking of the courts.

Thirdly, almost no one has voted in the Primaries yet. Talk about who is leading is like talking about who's in front after the first mile of a marathon.

[Bird on a Fire]

1) is probably fair - didn't mean to suggest that Sanders has been significantly more scrutinised, just equivalently.

2) Yes indeed. The Senate seems to be basically a lost cause due to gerrymandering, and the courts due to stacking (at least at the higher levels). Republicans seem unlikely to ever support Democratic proposals anyway - do you think any of the current candidates would actually attract significant cross-party support?

So progress probably depends on House Democrats. Would a significant number of them vote against measures like Medicare for All or the Green New Deal? Sanders at least seems to have thought ahead a bit, in that he plans to encourage his base to continue lobbying elected representatives after the election.

3) Also true that the race is ongoing. I was basing my assessments on the Iowa and New Hampshire results, which have historically been indicative (is that likely to have changed?) and on polls. Still plenty to play for, of course, and anything could happen.

In particular, coronavirus will probably shift people towards Medicare for All (and the related right to sick pay) if it kicks off in the States, as currently a lot of people can't afford to get tested, to self-isolate, or to get treatment, all of which would make containing an outbreak very difficult without government involvement, which is exactly what the current government is against.

[Herainestold]

Corbyn has a good platform. He has a diverse array of good people backing him. He appeals to people who don't usually vote. He has consistently been on the right side of history. He has a good chance of winning. Get on board.

FIFLabour

Worked well, that.

Did Corbyn ever have consistent polling showing that he would beat the incumbent? My memory is short.

The national head to head polling is useless. What counts is polling in the swing states needed to win the college. Trump is doing well in those polls.
Sanders has not done well in getting out the vote in the primaries. The people voting are the ones who generally vote in primaries, not new Dems.
The Powers That Be will do the same thing to Sanders as they did to Corbyn. You need a stealthier left candidate. Warren would be good, but America will never elect a woman president.

Part of me wants Trump to win because it will hasten the decline of American hegemony. But it will be bad for American people.

[dyqik]

2) Yes indeed. The Senate seems to be basically a lost cause due to gerrymandering, and the courts due to stacking (at least at the higher levels). Republicans seem unlikely to ever support Democratic proposals anyway - do you think any of the current candidates would actually attract significant cross-party support?

The Senate can't be gerrymandered by definition, as every seat includes every eligible voter, it just is what it is.

So progress probably depends on House Democrats. Would a significant number of them vote against measures like Medicare for All or the Green New Deal? Sanders at least seems to have thought ahead a bit, in that he plans to encourage his base to continue lobbying elected representatives after the election.

Obamacare is the result of watering down proposals enough to get the 60th most left wing Democrat in the Senate on-board. Things have shifted within the Democratic Party somewhat, so that it wouldn't look like that if there were 60 Democrats in the Senate today, but there's no chance of there being a 60th Democrat in the Senate, which means you need to use Reconciliation (with particular limits on what the bill must look like), or convince the 51st Democrat to remove the filibuster. And then the bill needs to be acceptable to the 51st most left wing Democrat anyway. You also need to get the 218th (I think) most left wing Democrat in the House on-board. AKA the 20th-ish most right wing one (numbers will change in November anyway).

And the Democrats need to keep the House, which was largely won in fairly moderate/conservative districts disgusted by Trump. There's a real risk

3) Also true that the race is ongoing. I was basing my assessments on the Iowa and New Hampshire results, which have historically been indicative (is that likely to have changed?) and on polls. Still plenty to play for, of course, and anything could happen.

I think a contested convention is still the most likely, with Bernie having a plurality. Then it becomes a game of whether Bernie is acceptable enough to Bloomberg (order here based on 538's current model), Warren and Buttigieg delegates or whether they push Biden to the front. What happens there is going to depend on how many delegates Bloomberg (who I suspect is fading) gets, and whether Warren has a surge based on bashing Bloomberg in debates (this may be happening), and coming second in California.

In particular, coronavirus will probably shift people towards Medicare for All (and the related right to sick pay) if it kicks off in the States, as currently a lot of people can't afford to get tested, to self-isolate, or to get treatment, all of which would make containing an outbreak very difficult without government involvement, which is exactly what the current government is against.

I think that'll all be over by the time a Democratic President is sworn in, so won't be pushing the moderate right Democrats in that direction. It's probably far more important as an effect on the Presidential election, as Trump moots a command economy and flails around failing to deal with it.

[Bird on a Fire]

FIFLabour

Worked well, that.

Did Corbyn ever have consistent polling showing that he would beat the incumbent? My memory is short.

The national head to head polling is useless. What counts is polling in the swing states needed to win the college. Trump is doing well in those polls.
Sanders has not done well in getting out the vote in the primaries. The people voting are the ones who generally vote in primaries, not new Dems.
The Powers That Be will do the same thing to Sanders as they did to Corbyn. You need a stealthier left candidate. Warren would be good, but America will never elect a woman president.

Part of me wants Trump to win because it will hasten the decline of American hegemony. But it will be bad for American people.

Huh? The primaries are only open to Democrat supporters, and so far Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada have all had record turnout. Whether that's partly driven by people wanting to vote against Sanders I couldn't say, but my unscientific opinion is that Sanders support would probably be greater amongst new registers than old-school Dems and yet he seems to have won those states already.