This is a strange conversation that I think is worth reading, largely because Bret Stephens is putting forward the *extraordinary* argument that either Sanders—were he the nominee—would *lose* or he would *win by such historic margins* his *entire policy agenda would be enacted*.
PS/ *No* experts I've talked to agree with Stephens—partly because (a) it's not clear Democrats would blow up the filibuster if Sanders were elected, (b) it's not clear any moderate Democrats would go along with Sanders' agenda and (c) a Sanders win *doesn't* require a landslide.
PS2/ What *most* experts say is that *any* Democrat who wins in 2020 would govern near-exclusively by executive orders—be an administrator, not a negotiator. Stephens is trying to morally justify aiding Trump's re-election (via a third-party vote) by imagining a fantasy scenario.
PS3/ There's *no* evidence DC will be fixed anytime soon, such that it can actually pass meaningful legislation. So the question for everyone *really* is, once we get this lifelong criminal out of the White House and make safe the nation, who's the best administrator to bring in?
PS4/ My feeling is that we have, in the Democratic field, the most talented administrator the Democratic Party has seen in a long time—because she understands the law better than anyone—and she *also* shares Sanders' vision for America. That's why Warren would make a great POTUS.
PS5/ Bernie has many strengths, mostly in messaging—and integrity. He doesn't have a recent history of being a strong administrator—even of his own Senate office. So if we can get someone with his vision who *understands* how the next POTUS will have to govern, that's the ideal.
PS6/ So what Bret Stephens is doing is *skewing* our vision of how the next president is likely to have to govern in a way that—incredibly—both increases the odds of a Sanders win (by falsely imagining what that would mean) and falsely justifies (for himself) a third-party vote.
