So it looks like Rubio will be the Republican nominee.
Hillary will eat him for breakfast because he doesn’t look serious or presidential by her side.
But Rubio would beat Bernie in a debate because he offers a counterbalance to all of Sanders’s weaknesses.
Rubio is young, calm, not grumpy, and his “my mother was a bar maid” spiel, tiresome as it may be, is the perfect dam to Bernie’s populism. Rubio is Hispanic, which brings him to a draw with Hillary who’s a woman (I’m into platitudes this week). But Bernie doesn’t have an exciting enough identity to beat Rubio’s claim to “the first ever” title. Jews are not an oppressed group, nobody stands in their way to anything, nobody will feel sorry for them. Hispanics win that contest any day of the week.
In short, for lack of anything better, the Republicans are betting on Rubio who will at least be able to beat Sanders.
As I said before, hello President Hillary.
Clarissa's Blog 
Bernie’s problem isn’t that he’s Jewish. It’s that he’s a self-proclaimed SOCIALIST, which is a dirty word in America. Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee, anyway, unless all of her e-mails to Putin are discovered before the Democratic convention.
Rubio is a good debater who can hold his own with Hillary, and unlike her, he doesn’t have more baggage than a 747. I’m looking forward to him being our first Hispanic President. 🙂
LikeLike
Darn good analysis! Short and sweet. A perfect snapshot of the 2016 election campaign after the most recent debate. But remember, today’s snapshot is tomorrow’s old news. The situation remains fluid. As you say, Rubio is no match for Hillary, so establishment Republicans will be frantically looking for a better candidate. I can’t count Bush out yet, because he’s got the money to mount a huge TV ad offensive. If his team hires the right ads guru, anything is possible. Sad to say, TV ads seem to rule, at this point in history.
LikeLike
The establishment Republicans are giving up on Bush, and starting to donate generously to Rubio after last week’s debate. Democrats underestimate him at their peril.
LikeLike
It’s definitely true that there’s enough time for surprises. We’ll have to see how things develop.
LikeLike
Clarification: When I said, “Darn good analysis,” I was referring to Clarissa’s analysis. I think Dreidel’s take on the word “Socialist” is . . . well . . . so 20th Century.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Many of the voters are 21 century, and for them the word “socialist” has no scary connotations.
Every year I ask students what they think the word means and every year I discover that they depart farther away from the actual meaning of the term.
These days, the definition of socialist is “like in Sweden.” That’s insane because Sweden is a capitalist country but that’s what people think.
LikeLike
Yes, but young people never show up to vote in the percentages that old voters (who have long memories about that nasty word) do. I’ll bet many of your students don’t vote, no matter what they tell you.
Hillary wants the unusually large youth vote that turned out for Obama in 2008, but most of the youngsters like Bernie (who won’t get the nomination), and they may turn to a youthful candidate like Rubio next year.
If Hillary does get elected, at least she’s a reliable warmonger who won’t tank the stock market.
LikeLike
“He looks like a PREPPIE. He’s too young to be President. He talks about his mom too much.” –my mom on Rubio. I don’t know if she knows what a preppie is.
LikeLike
He does look like an earnest little preppie, she’s right.
And the Mommy story he keeps telling is getting stale.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey, Rubio is FORTY-FOUR years old — come on, that’s middle aged!
He doesn’t look any younger than I did in my mid-forties, when I’d already been a physician for twenty years. You want to see a ridiculously young-looking adult in an authority position — watch the 1965 movie “Dr. Zhivago.” Omar Sharif looks like he’s sixteen years old!
LikeLike
That was a stupid movie based on a very stupid book. Pasternak was an amazing poet but a shitty novelist.
LikeLike
Hahahahha she is right but only by fluke. She doesn’t know what a preppie is. But I guess she knows one when she sees him.
LikeLike
Anyone who thinks “socialist” is a dirty word is an economic and political prude — and also, as Clarissa pointed out, out of touch with the evolved meaning of the word in current American English usage.
Clarissa, I think your students have it about right. “like Sweden or “like Denmark” or even, “like France,” is what most Americans would say.
Certainly, we can agree that “socialist” is far from “communist.”
We should also be able to agree that, in the European and American context, socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Socialism is a political and economic concept that must be viewed “on a spectrum,” like autism.
Most conservative Republicans say we already have a degree of socialism in the U.S., and they are right. Social Security, Medicare, and food assistance are all socialist in nature, to name only a few, but they are as American as apple pie.
I believe that the kind of socialism Bernie Sanders advocates is best described as democratic government with regulated capitalism with mildly progressive taxation.
That is what I think socialism means to most Americans and most Europeans. Farther along the socialist spectrum, people might think in terms of government ownership of certain important industries.
Government ownership of or participation in important industries, especially developing industries, is a normal state of affairs in America, and has been for a long time.
For example, most municipalities own the public water system and sewer system, which are the two most essential public utilities.
At the dawn of the age of electricity, nearly every municipality owned its own “municipal electric light plant.” Many still own those obsolete plants today, and some are still generating electricity. The U.S. government brought electric power to a large part of rural America. It was and is called the Tennessee Valley Authority.
When the electric power industry became mature enough to survive as a business, government regulated it thoroughly, mostly in order to protect the regional power companies from too much competition, and to protect the public from monopoly pricing.
Government was a total partner — the senior partner — with private capitalists in development of the early American railroad system. Government provided most of the railroad rights of way, an amazing gift that made railroad owners wealthy. Government also thoroughly regulated the airline industry to ensure airline service to distant and rural parts of the country, to enforce safety, and to protect the airlines from murderous competition.
And the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers protects communities throughout the U.S. from flooding and erosion. I could go on and on about socialism in the context of America and Europe, but it’s not necessary.
No, socialism is not a dirty word or an unAmerican word or an undemocratic word.
What is a dirty word, Mr. Driedel, is “WARM***GER.” Go wash your mouth out with soap.
LikeLike
Socialism is governmental ownership of the means of production. All means of all production, that is. This is the classical definition that I use. But if the majority of people want to use the term to describe capitalism of the 20th (as opposed to capitalism of the 19th century ), what can I do? I don’t like it but I don’t like it when people put 15 words between “to” and an infinitive either.
You are absolutely right in what concerns Bernie Sanders.
LikeLike
Actually, it’s “DR. Dreidel,” but I won’t belabor the point.
Social Security and Medicare aren’t government welfare. People my age (and yours) PAID for them, all our working lives. And I’m still paying considerably more for my Medicare Part B premiums (for the same service) than most retirees do.
People on both sides of the political spectrum in America always claim that “most Americans” agree with them. Reality check, Mr. Editor: Lefties agree with you, righties with me, and the majority of Americans (who ultimately decide national elections) don’t have that much of an opinion either way.
Example: Does this statement, “Most Americans support abortion rights, but with restrictions” reflect a liberal or conservative viewpoint? Ask the staff at “The Nation” and at “National Review,” and you’ll get different answers. It depends on whether you like the sentence’s main clause, or the last four words.
You believe “most Americans” think like “most Europeans”? You’re dreaming. Why do you think they left Europe and moved here in the first place, and still are? (Hint: ask Clarissa.)
“Socialism” may not be an evil word, but fortunately, its American English translation is “unelectable.” (If you can get Sanders the Democratic nomination, you’ll have my eternal gratitude.)
If Obama were more of a warmonger (There, I said the word, no asterisks — is WordPress going to automatically filter my comment out?), Crimea would still be free, ISIS would never have come into existence, and Putin wouldn’t be in the Middle East smugly sticking his ass into Obama’s face. A much dirtier word is “PACIFIST” — a synonym for cowards who let other people fight their battles for them.
Anyway, thanks for the commentary. I really didn’t think I’d provoke a thoughtful response from you. Good night, and Happy Hallowe’en.
LikeLike
My apologies, Dr. Dreidel. I’ll be sure to use your aristocratic title from now on.
I’m in complete agreement with you that Medicare and Social Security are not “welfare” programs. Like you, I paid for my Social Security out of every paycheck, every week since I was 16. All American workers have PAID for our Social Security and Medicare benefits. We OWN our Social Security and Medicare. Bought and paid for, as you said. Those benefits BELONG to us.
I did not use the word “welfare.” Welfare was your word, Dr. Dreidel.
I did say that Social Security and Medicare are socialistic to a degree. Both programs have been hated and opposed by arch-conservatives from the beginning.
The small band of revolutionary conservatives that brought the House of Representatives to its knees would love to dismantle both programs. Bernie Sanders would love to expand both programs. That’s the difference between the arch-conservative position and the Bernie Sanders position. Let’s put it to a vote in the 2016 election.
Now quickly, I don’t believe that most Americans agree with me. Or with you.
I did, however, express an opinion about the common definition that Americans and Europeans attach to “socialist” and “socialism” in the 21st century. Your opinion may differ.
Do Americans and Europeans think alike or differently? An interesting question. It’s always a stretch to generalize. I will venture an opinion that probably the people of the U.S., Sweden, Denmark, France, and the U.K. share approximately the same interpretation of the meaning of “socialism” in a democratic context.
Now, Dr. Dreidel, I don’t know in what area you earned your title, or in what country you live, or if English is your first language. I will tell you that “pacifist” is not a dirty word in English as commonly used in America.
Be advised that the English word “pacifist” is not a synonym for the English word “coward” among educated English-speaking people.
Synonyms for “pacifist” are peace-lover, conscientious objector, passive resister, peacemaker, peacemonger, and dove. If you need an antonym for pacifist, I suggest “warmonger.”
Regarding responsibility for the current state of affairs in Crimea, I would suggest Putin. For the Middle East as a whole, there’s plenty of blame to go around. I would start with the names Bush and Blair. Obama could best be described as an interested and informed onlooker.
LikeLike
I am from England and now live in Australia. Edtor’s remmarks are in line in with how I would think of socialism. It is definitely is not a synonym for communism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Socialism is governmental ownership of the means of production while communism is the death of government and collective ownership over the means of production. Obviously, neither model has anything to do with Sweden or Bernie Sanders.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, hello again, Editor (Retired)! Look like a long night for both of us.
Okay, here’s my bio:
I grew up in the segregated hills of Tennessee in the 1950s, earned my M.D. degree at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Memphis Campus, in December 1970. Got my post-medical training in Internal Medicine and Neurology-Psychiatry at Loma Linda University International Medical Center in Loma Linda, California. (They were Seventh-Day Adventists, the same religion as Dr. Ben Carson, and they knew that I was an atheist, and they welcomed me into their program.) Then I worked for two years as a staff psychiatrist at Patton State Hospital in San Bernardino, treating two wards of patients committed by the California Superior Court: one ward was Criminally Insane murders (mostly paranoid schizophrenics and manic bipolar disorders), and the other ward was Mentally Disordered Sex Offenders (chronic child molesters and multiple rapists).
Then I decided that I wanted to see the world and volunteered for the Air Force, spending a year in South Korea (loved the food), three years in Germany (loved the language and the local girls), and then two years at the U.S.’s secret cruise missile base in Sicily (where I also learned Italian and got to know the ragazze very well.) I managed to visit Israel and Egypt in 1985 before the U.S. government forced me back to the States because I’d been overseas too long. So I had to spend about four years in Command positions in Alabama and Louisiana before I got back overseas to Saudi Arabia at the tail end of Desert Storm. Spent two years there, had a lovely Saudi girlfriend, and finished out my career in a wretched stateside joint command assignment in Gurnee, IL, where I filed for retirement after five years. Then I moved to the desert of Arizona and have lived here happily every since. (Could you possibly want any more detail about the specifics of my life?)
Yes, I’m exaggerating for effect the intensity of American loathing for the worn-out words “socialism” and “pacifism / isolationism.” But those words still care enough power to keep candidates like Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul out of office, and that’s all the power they need.
The next President is going to be a youthful, relatively inexperienced but intelligent middle-aged man like Marco Rubio, or an over-the-hill, cynical-but-competent old lady like Hillary — and in the end, I really don’t think whoever wins is going to matter that goddamn much.
LikeLike
A fascinating life.
LikeLike
Yes a fascinating and well-chosen life. I appreciate Dr D that you recognize it was made possible by your privilege and drive (though drive may also be a form of privilege or just plain luck since it may be an inborn personality trait).
On another note, I never know what to make of these sorts of biographies from small government fanatics (e.g., Dr D’s recent swipes against the USPO) when they come from people whose whole life has depended on government. Dr D went to a state university, worked in a state hospital and then spent decades on the tax-payer dime in the military.
Two of my neighbors have similar stories. Both are Tea-partiers; one has a business that makes almost all of its revenue from maintaining local area governments’ tornado sirens, the other is retired military that now takes money for adopting two children with Downs.
I sometimes joke that whatever services his children receive will be made possible by me, the bleeding heart liberal, and whatever needed services my special needs son will be denied will be the result of my neighbor’s voting pattern. Does not feel like a fair trade to me but it is not about fairness, is it?
LikeLike
Yes, I am constantly amazed at how many people work for the government and yet hate the government. This might be A frightening situation, because they are in a position to see government from the inside, and there are many ugly aspects inside. Many lazy government workers and much waste. That’s the possible downside of A more socialist US government.
LikeLike
I’ll respond in a separate post because this is a topic that is dear to my heart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Barbara (I don’t know where this post will end up considering WordPress’s weird stacking scheme.)
Oh, I don’t hate the government. It serves some very essential services, and has been quite good to me. My objection is that most governments are too big, too bloated, and are extremely inefficient and wasteful, because the government has absolutely NO incentive to be otherwise — it doesn’t need to make a profit, can’t go broke at the federal level, and doesn’t reward its workers for being efficient and frugal with government resources. It also usually can’t fire workers too lazy to meet even the government’s minimal qualifications.
As for the USPS, it does a great job of delivering first-class mail at the cheapest rates in the world, but its performance with every aspect of package delivery compared to the private carriers is would put it out of business if it had to compete on the free market. Compare the actual results, as opposed to the USPS’s slick TV ads, and you’ll see what I mean. (No, I wouldn’t abolish the post office — at my age, I still read magazines and send hard-copy Christmas cards to my friends.)
It should theoretically be possible to drastically trim government size, waste, and inefficiency, and still maintain an adequate safety net for individuals who legitimately need government assistance (but this won’t happen under ANY administration).
LikeLike
The election is still over a year away, a lot can happen. This time eight years ago everyone assumed that Clinton would be the dem nominee (she was regularly beating up Obama in the debates) and then Iowa happened….
I’m fine with a crowded field that doesn’t get sorted out until the convenion and don’t understand everyone’s desire to set candidates in stone so far away … is this a millenial thing? wanting to avoid the awkwardness of not knowing exactly what’s going to happen in a year?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the process has to be this long, why not use it to have some fun, you know?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correct. Might as well enjoy the roller coaster.
LikeLike
As long as we remember that today’s sure bet could be tomorrow’s stale news.
Sort of related…. The Polish presidency was won by a baby faced adult, could Rubio’s baby face actually work for him with socially incapacitated millenials?
LikeLike
Come on, Rubio doesn’t look any younger than Obama did in 2008. (His hair was completely dark seven years ago, before the Presidency rapidly aged him.)
LikeLike
It’s not about looking young, it’s about looking like an earnest little boy which is not related to age. It’s related to simple-mindedness. I suspect he’ll be exactly this way when he’s 90.
LikeLike
What a mean thing to say! 🙂
LikeLike