James Carville: Bernie Voters Are Like Climate Deniers
>>James Carville, who is appearing seemingly
more and more on MSNBC now that Bernie Sanders is rising and he despises Bernie Sanders despite
the fact that Carville’s last major political victory was Bill Clinton’s in 1992, and he
ran Hillary Clinton’s 08 campaign into the ground so no one should seriously take him
seriously. That’s a long lead in to his latest deranged
clip about Bernie Sanders on MSNBC.>>The entire theory that by expanding the
electorate in recent turnouts you can win elections is equivalent of climate denying.
When people say that, they’re as stupid to a political scientist as a climate denier
is to an atmospheric scientist. So whatever you do if you want to vote for
Bernie Sanders because you feel good about his program, because you don’t like the banks
on Wall Street or you don’t like pharmaceuticals, that’s completely legitimate. I understand
that. If you’re voting for him because you think he’ll win the election because he’ll
galvanize here to for sleepy parts of the electorate then politically you’re a fool
and that’s just a fact. It’s no denying it, there’s so much political
science. There’s so much research on this that it’s not even a debatable question.
>>Sounds s a lot like political suicide and I think we need.
>>It is.>>Thank you Republican strategist Nicole
Wallace for that but James Carville cares a lot about science and data, clearly, right? So I’ll give him some data about what he’s
saying about the Democratic electorate. Pollsters in a latest Washington Post, I think ABC poll,
they asked Democrats what they think about Bernie Sander’s chances. They asked respondents,
pollsters asked respondents who were Democrats or lean Democratic which candidate they thought
would win against Trump if that candidate were to represent the party in November. 72% said that they thought Sanders would defeat
Trump in a one on one match up, while 24% thought Trump would win and 4% have no opinion.
Of all the Democratic candidates, Sanders was the one who respondents said they believed
had the best chance of defeating the incumbent. So apparently an overwhelming majority of
Democratic voters are akin to climate deniers in James Carville’s warped worldview.>>Yeah, the thing that’s interesting about
seeing something like that is, I know that at some point, hopefully, fingers crossed
in a year, Jerry’s gonna go back and play that as like haha after the inauguration or
something, but it doesn’t matter, you can be wrong in this field over and over and over
and over again, as long as they know you and like you, they’ll just keep you around. And so I always wonder, what are you gonna
say when it turns out that you’re wrong? Because nobody will ever admit that they’re wrong.
There’s always some other reason. So if Bernie ends up winning 60% of the vote against Trump
in November, he’s gonna say, well, it’s only because of this. There’s always gonna be some sort of out.
No one has to learn or evolve, change their strategy, adapt to new information ever. That
is simply the way that this industry works. And we know that he’s dead wrong. I love that
you have the information. And like, he especially he says he doesn’t bring in these disaffected
groups who haven’t been voting. And yet we know going back years those are
exactly the sort of people that vote for him over other Democratic candidates. But he doesn’t
care. He’s not saying what he thinks is true. He’s saying what he wants to be true.
>>I just want everyone to know this that Cairon that is incredible.>>That’s pretty good.
>>So James Carville is representing this traditional political analysis, and he pointed
that out. So it’s inarguable, he can’t even argue about the fact that if you look at enough
political science and political history, that this isn’t gonna work out. So this is, we’re
gonna bring in sports.>>This is similar to the way people would
say, historically in sports, this team has never won on the road in the playoffs dating
back to 1968.>>Different team.
>>Different team, different year, different opponent, different stadium, different play,
everything is different. So when it comes to something like a political analysis, you’ve
always seen that establishment Democrats, at least the normal, what we perceive the
electorate perceives, which of course the electorate changes. We’ve had laws that didn’t allow people to
vote at different times in our history. And also people that are energized in the things
that are happening in the country that would force people to come out more. All these things
change. When factors like that change and things are unprecedented like we have a reality
show TV host in the White House as one of those factors, and a blatantly open racist
in the White House is one of those factors, things change. Or when people’s lives are at different point
than they ever were before, and they see someone who’s actually saying the things that no one
else is saying. And they get behind him, things change. So you can say historically, the Cubs
just can’t win a World Series cuz they hadn’t in forever. And that’s factual. But you know what, it
happens until it doesn’t happen anymore->>Right.
>>It’s always been that way->>Yeah.
>>So when you see the reality of something happening. The Red Sox, they just can’t get
by the Yankees, hey, they did it. Or a team has never come back from down 3-0 in a series
until it happens. So to say it’s in arguable that this can never
happen, it’s just saying what you’ve seen in history doesn’t mean it can never happen.
So your analysis is just based off of past things, you have to read what’s happening
right now. And if you refuse to do that you’re gonna look bad.>>No, it’s a classic fallacy. People believe
that things have to continue the way they are because they’ve always been that way.
But this is an entirely new set of circumstances. Again if Carville’s analysis is so brilliant
how did a far right candidate beat a moderate, a centrist? He thinks that the center of all things is
how you win in politics, it’s just been disproven, it was just disproven three years ago, right?
Four years ago, we know how that ended up, a far right candidate won. A far left candidate,
a populist who’s message resonates with people way more than Trump’s does can certainly win
and I would argue has the best chance to win.>>I agree and I think the American people
are catching up to us on that. I think that after what is probably gonna be a great showing
on Super Tuesday I think those numbers will shift even more. I think that a lot of the
people who have been saying over the past year that not just Sanders but almost any
the Democrats don’t have a great chance is they hate Trump. They hate what he’s done to this country.
They see him get away with everything. And so there’s a lot of defeatism, but now they’re
seeing someone who is gathering big crowds, getting tons of donations, winning regularly.
That is inspirational and I think look, I understand, we all come from a perspective
but personally, I think it’s a good thing that we feel inspired for once after three
hell years. I don’t know why James Carville is so intent
on doom and gloom. Although I do, he wants Sanders to go down. He doesn’t care whether
Sanders will go down in his mind, he wants him to go down.
>>Yeah, it’s just everything he’s been taught and makes it like, he can’t compute with his
>>The fact the he’s still called onto MSNBC to give analysis is insane and this is not
a meritocracy and we should all be getting contributor contracts from them but alas.
I’m not bitter at all.>>Nope. Didn’t come across that way.
>>Okay, yeah yeah yeah.