I think that the piece overlooks some historical facts. For one thing, the peak of American prosperity came when the top marginal tax rates were far higher than they are today. Even in the Clinton era, when the working class were better off than they are now, the top tax rates were higher. It is hardly clear that allowing the already rich to earn huge amounts of fictive wealth via capital gains and pay almost nothing on it is, indeed, the best way to ensure that the nation as a whole prospers.

I disagree with Sanders that every kid should go to college; some should go to trade school, or, shock horror, be apprenticed in useful businesses. However, free public-school tuition for capable students is hardly a radical new commie idea. My own father – a brilliant scientist who later in life was a dedicated free-marketeer – was the first person in his family to go to college, and as a Caifornia resident, he went to UC Berkeley tuition-free. Telling America’s children that if they hope to eat in future they’d better be able to pay through the nose for their own job training (and retraining, and re-retraining) is becoming unsustainable.

As for single payer health care, I recognize its flaws, but also its strengths. For someone like me who prefers to avoid hyper-aggressive and expensive interventions, having seen loved ones virtually destroyed by such, being “rationed” to generally affordable options would be fine. My favorite author/blogger (I doubt he’d be your cup of tea) has said more than once that he and his wife will be paying the Obamacare penalty rather than buying insurance, because as private individuals, it would cost them more per month than their mortgage payment to get a policy with a $10K deductible and high copays, which means that if anyone had an expensive illness, they’d be bankrupted anyway. Obamacare has done something to help some people get care, but it has also been a gigantic transfer of wealth from individuals, willing or otherwise, to big insurance companies.

And there may not be a silent majority fed up with BAU, but it looks like there’s a substantial minority who are. The Trumpists are hard to deny because they’re the opposite of silent, but I think there’s a quiet groundswell building for Sanders as well. For many millions of Americans, the situation is much, much harsher than “well, you’ll have to live at home for a few years after college, then ultimately you’ll live as well as your parents.” It’s more like “you may never get a job that allows you to have what society defines as necessities, you may never be out of debt, your basic security will ride on a razor’s edge forever; certainly that lifelong job that gave your wage-class father enough economic security to have a house and to retire will never be possible for you.” If you aren’t yourself poor or low-wage and don’t socialize with people who are, you may not realize, because the media don’t like to point it out, how many people in this country are immiserated and see no way out.

I refer you to today’s WaPo, the wonkblog piece titled “What Sanders Would Do…” A balanced discussion of pros and cons.

But, in the general election, it doesn’t matter which economist is right about the net gains or losses. As a platform, it is a complete loser. There is no “silent majority” “fed up with BAU” enough to take those kinds of risks.

Not to be too snarky, but young folks with college debt having to live at home for a while are not the same as hard-bitten WWI veterans riding the rails begging for food, and being gunned down by company thugs for trying to organize. Very very different times.

Some very liberal states are not voting for several weeks yet – it is regrettable how disproportionate an influence the former Confederate States of America have gained over the perception of “electability” just by voting early – so it’s not over till it’s over. However, if Hillary wins across the board tonight, as polls claim she will, I will agree that she is the presumptive nominee, regardless of the fact that I have, by my values, darn good reasons for disliking her. If Bernie wins two of the three non-Southern states in play today, I will continue to be confident that he has a real shot.

I can’t imagine why you think Kasich vs. Sanders is a likely matchup. Kasich has almost no chance of walking away with the nomination despite being third in the votes. Nor do I see it as assured that Hillary would beat Trump (even if we presume there is zero chance that Hillary gets indicted). The “moderate” candidate historically wins the general election because the voters historically are satisfied enough with BAU that they want to keep it going, or at least not so dissatisfied that they want to risk the devil they don’t know, and will settle for kicking the can down the road another four to eight years. Once you get a critical mass of people who feel like they just can’t take another eight years of BAU, that is no longer a trend that can be relied upon.

I get it– the polls are wrong unless you like the result.

And the data is right unless you don’t like the result.

So I will leave you with the facts; polls at this point are useless.

Bernie is running on a platform where he takes away the health insurance that people have, along with other similarly extreme and unpopular ideas for a general election platform.

Kasich would beat him, even without the support of the Trump fanatics, even if Trump were also running in the general. That’s because of both the platform and qualities of the individual, which play heavily in general elections.

The majority of each party so far has rejected Trump and Bernie. The (perceived) moderate, competent, candidate historically wins the general.

Hillary would beat Trump easily for the same reason, and has the best (and very good) chance of defeating a Kasich-type opponent.

Anyway, you can carry on with whatever convoluted story you are telling yourself to justify your animus towards Hillary.

Hillary beats Trump handily in polls, though not as handily as Sanders does, but I don’t have much confidence in that. Polls said she’d beat Sanders in Wisconsin, too. It is possible that polling methods are systematically underestimating the share of the vote that a populist candidate will get. Trump has a fanatical group of supporters, whereas most of the electorate views Hillary as simply the lesser evil; will enough of them work hard enough for her to overcome his advantage in money and goons? Elitism vs. pseudo-populism is not a bet I feel comfortable taking this year.

As for your other scenarios, there is no point on speculating on Kasich vs. Clinton. In a normal year you would think Kasich would do better than Trump in the general election, but that doesn’t matter if he can’t be nominated because he’s too “establishment.” If Kasich, Romney or whoever mounts an independent run, or if the GOP finds a way to take the nomination away from Trump and he runs as an independent, the former GOP vote is split and, even with Trump picking up many disaffected wage-class white votes, the Democratic nominee almost certainly wins. I can’t imagine why you think “Bernie still loses in that scenario”; if Bernie could beat Trump one-on-one, why can’t he beat Trump in a three-way?

(Caveat: if none of the parties in a three-way election received a majority of the electoral votes, it would be thrown to the House of Representatives, which would crown the more favored of the GOP candidates. I can imagine how the Stormtrumpers would react if Trump had the plurality and the prize was handed to the establishment guy. Sadly, if Sanders had the plurality, his supporters would not rise up.)