First, I think Biden will probably win big in South Carolina tomorrow (thanks in large party to the Clyburn endorsement and his least worst debate performance on Tuesday night), possibly revitalizing his campaign somewhat. But will it be enough to stop the anticipated Bernie train?
(quick addendum – per the question in the comments, in my prediction Bloomberg may come in second in a couple of states, but I don’t think he’ll take any and if Biden’s campaign is in any way reinvigorated tomorrow, I think Bloomberg will fizzle and be out of the race by the end of March, if that long. I don’t think Bloomberg will get much DNC support as there are plenty of left party voters who say they will vote blue no matter who – except for Bloomberg).
Where Bernie will probably win big:
Vermont – duh
California – not just because of the polls, but because of an incredible organization and exponentially increased support from Latino voters (from 2016). He’ll be holding large concerts/rallies in San Jose and Los Angeles on Sunday, and I don’t think Warren’s 9 million dollar ad buy is going to change much. She may come in second, but I think she’s effectively done after Tuesday.
Texas – This is a state which is rapidly turning blue, as foretold by Steve Bannon (it’s why he was inspired to primary Eric Cantor and push the Trump candidacy and anti-immigrant policies desperately trying to get nonwhite residents out of the country to reduce the number of birth-right citizens), and Bernie has held huge rallies across the state including a 13,000 full house in Austin recently. Biden was ahead in the polls, but hasn’t even shown up in Texas since January. He is making a stop over the weekend. But, again, the Latino vote and the left-leaning tech vote seems to be really working for Bernie. Also, in conservative areas of the state and country, Bernie has a following among white working class voters that no other Democrat (with the dubious exception of Klobuchar) can match and would really be a boon in November.
Colorado – again the Latino vote and the large hippie and tech communities, and a real organization should give him a large plurality here.
Americans living abroad – We won’t know for a week because their voting spans Marc 3 to March 10, but Sanders cleaned up the last time around – most of these Americans live in democratic socialist countries and experience the difference first hand. He will probably clean up again.
Where Bernie will probably win moderately:
Virginia – Most polls have him ahead here and I don’t think Kaine’s endorsement of Biden is going to make much of a difference. Virginia is one of those states with a lot of grassroots activity which has turned the local and statewide elections around for Democrats, and those activists favor candidates like Bernie’s.
Utah – Bernie clobbered Clinton here in 2016 and will probably win big – the white working class voters who remain Democrats and the hippies who’ve moved there from California are having a large impact. With seven candidates he probably won’t do as well, but it’s hard to say because polling is notoriously inaccurate in Utah.
Maine – I would expect similar results as New Hampshire. He has a good ground game here as well.
Massachusetts – This is why I think Warren will drop out after Tuesday. She probably won’t carry her own state. Bernie is ahead in all the polls and Bernie is really popular, particularly in and around Boston, but also in some of the western towns. If Warren wasn’t in the race, this would be a blowout for Sanders.
Toss ups:
Oklahoma – I wish Bernie had spent more time here. It was the only south state in which Bernie decisively defeated Clinton in 2016 – more white votes than black there. But trying to allocate time and resources for Super Tuesday is really difficult and you have to make hard choices. That being said, this could be close and Bernie could win the plurality.
Minnesota – Klobuchar has been barely ahead of Bernie in some polls and behind in others. Bernie did very well here in 2016 as he did in Wisconsin and Michigan. She has received media accolades for debate performances, but it has not translated into really desirable results in polls or races (even New Hampshire was a bit of a media hype). There is the loyalty base, and then there is the white working class support for Bernie. Many of my fellow Bernie supporters bristle at the suggestion, but I think he should seriously consider her for VP.
North Carolina – it’s becoming much less of a “southern state” culturally and although there is a large elderly black vote population there, other groups could boost Bernie. Biden will probably get the most votes, but I think it will be a plurality with Bernie (and maybe Bloomberg) close behind.
Where Bernie will probably lose:
American Samoa – Clinton won easily in 2016. Nobody has the time or resources to campaign there. They are citizens. They will probably opt for Biden.
Tennessee – Bernie hasn’t spent any time here and it’s clearly Biden country. His wife Jane was there yesterday. Hopefully Biden doesn’t run away with it, but there’s just no way that even the majority of Tennessee Democrats are going to vote for a Jewish socialist. Much of the elderly southern black vote is still going for the mainstream of “electibility.”
Alabama – much the same as Tennessee, and actually there is rumor that Bernie has deliberately avoided much activity in the state to avoid undermining the small chances Doug Jones has of retaining his Senate seat.
Arkansas – Same as above. Southern state. Elderly black vote. Biden/DNC influence.
Sohum Parlance II 
46 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 28, 2020 at 11:39 am
John
Your projections sound good enough to me except you don’t mention Bloomberg anywhere. Isn’t he on all the ballots now ?
Sure he had very bad debates and some bad publicity but he has also spent some 3-400 million dollars and that has to have some impact.
February 28, 2020 at 11:44 am
John
By “all the ballots now” I meant after South Carolina tomorrow.
February 28, 2020 at 11:50 am
Eric Kirk
Bloomberg can slip into second place in some states, but I just don’t see him taking any states. He hasn’t really done well in the debates. I have to admit as someone who would have a very hard time voting for him as nominee – his ads are first rate and plentiful. He could take Arkansas or Oklahoma, and I saw some polls of him doing pretty well in Virginia. But if Biden’s win tomorrow is perceived as a “come back,” Bloomberg will probably lose a bunch of support.
My take anyway. We’ve never seen a campaign like Blooberg’s so it’s hard to gauge.
February 28, 2020 at 1:18 pm
Matthew Owen
No local predictions?
Rex vs. Cliff?
Estelle vs. a lot of candidates?
Measure T (for “Taxes”)?
February 28, 2020 at 2:55 pm
Eric Kirk
I think if Cliff wins it will be a big upset. However, with the enthusiasm around Bernie and the lack of a competitive Republican race, Cliff could do it – even after the Times Standard gaffe. He’s run a very spirited campaign and people like him. But if I was betting, I would say Rex. All depends on turnout.
For the second district I have no effing idea what is going to happen, but the most likely scenario seems like a Fennel/Bushnell runoff.
February 28, 2020 at 3:13 pm
Dave Kirby
Don’t think debate performance means much to anyone who isn’t a political type. Don’t think they have changed many minds. Don’t recall any election with as many undecided as this one. If one or two candidates can rally moderates and independents then the real contest will begin. I am afraid that once the full light of real scrutiny descends on Bernie he’s going to fade. He got away with the socialist tag last time because Trumps people liked anyone who was damaging Clinton. They’ll be knives out this time.
February 28, 2020 at 3:25 pm
Henchman Of Justice
Well hello Matthew Owen, say hello to Virginia for HOJ.
Prediction: Rex and Estelle slobber knock their opponents…
Why: for different reasons, but one reason that holds true for both is because they’re the incumbent and they have access to information that just does not get out to their Challengers… it’s why it took Rex and Estelle a year just to get used to what goes on behind the scenes that the public never really knows about from the government perspective…
…Rex gets out there more than any supervisor since Rodger Rodoni… not that the challengers couldn’t get out there too… but they’re too extreme…
… Estelle, on the other hand, has more Challengers but should prevail easily because she’s the incumbent with the inside skinny on information that Challengers must race to get for campaign season…
… it would appear the constituents in southern Humboldt are more up in arms than those constituents further north… so Estelle definitely has more Challengers than Rex… personally, it is probably the case because Southern Humboldt is more the shit hole…
February 28, 2020 at 3:27 pm
Eric Kirk
Bloomberg’s debate performances seem to have hurt him, but we’ll find out on Tuesday.
Debate performances can make a big difference. It probably won the race for JFK. Ford may have messed up his chances not knowing which countries were in the Soviet Bloc in 1976. It certainly helped Reagan in 1980. But his really bad performance didn’t hurt him in 1984. Dukakis managed to lose a lot of support with his lame response to the death penalty question in 1988. Bush lost some ground when he looked at his watch during a debate in 1992. Clinton’s performance over Dole in 1996 helped him route Dole. Not sure it made much of a difference either way in 2000. Kerry did well in the debates in 2004 and it did move the poll numbers a bit, but not enough. I’m convinced that the debates in 2008 were second to that result only to the crash. And it was looking good for Romney after Obama’s first anemic debate performance, but I think he guaranteed his win when he baited Romney to go all out saying that Obama had never attributed the Benghazi attack to terrorists (he got some inadvertent help from Candy Crowley there).
In 2016 Rubio lost his campaign in the “robot” moment of that one debate, and the penis length argument probably didn’t help him either. But Trump probably didn’t win on his debate performances. The Democratic debates were draws. Clinton did better than Trump in the debates and it’s probably how she won the popular vote, but obviously it wasn’t enough.
I think Harris was looking good due to her initial debate performance. Then people took a closer look at her and she started equivocating. Warren was doing well in the debates, but then she got too cautious about media interviews, and blinked re the focus on Medicare for All and her proposals.
Klobuchar and Buttegieg both did well and it helped them in Iowa and New Hampshire. Not so much in Nevada. Probably it won’t help them much in the coming contests.
In short, debates make a difference, except when they don’t.
February 28, 2020 at 3:27 pm
Eric Kirk
And I really think that if Bernie wins the redbaiting will wear thin with most voters.
February 28, 2020 at 3:41 pm
Mitch
> Debate performances can make a big difference. It probably won the race for JFK.
Yeah, Americans really care about five o clock shadow.
February 28, 2020 at 4:01 pm
Eric Kirk
I think it was less about Nixon’s appearance (I know the claims) and more about JFK’s charisma.
February 28, 2020 at 4:21 pm
John
What matters the most in most debates is the media and the social media reporting of it afterwards. If most of the media says candidate X clobbered candidate Y then momentum for Y accelerates. That’s true even if both candidates were similar.
Local predictions ?. Rex wins with 54%, Measure T will win because it only needs 55%.
District 2 will have a runoff because of so many candidates. Estelle will win of course but who comes in second ? Could be almost anybody and they will beat the third place candidate by less than 100 votes.
February 28, 2020 at 6:23 pm
J
And then there was Lloyd Benson’s line “I knew John Kennedy. You’re no John Kennedy.” Benson could probably also spell potato.
February 28, 2020 at 7:10 pm
Eric Kirk
Yeah, but J that’s an example of a great debate moment which had no effect on the election.
February 29, 2020 at 7:48 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Dave, do you think it is possible you are projecting your own opinions about socialism to Democrats or the country as a whole? 76% of Democrats would vote for a socialist based on the top result from a Google search.
Notably (and sadly) only 78% said they’d vote for a LGBTQ candidate.
I think (or possibly hope) that EK is right and red baiting has worn thin. I think people can begin to see through right-wing ideologies against socialism from people who pass as moderates like the NYT’s David Brooks or evening from MSNBC talkers like Chris Matthews. I think social media in general an Twitter in particular as helped change this political dynamic, especially among millennials. (and God bless them for it)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/3-in-4-dems-would-support-a-socialist-for-president-poll
February 29, 2020 at 7:50 am
Mitch
It’s impossible to watch this without knowing about subsequent events, but it’s interesting to see what the “debates” meant 60 years ago. This is the fourth. I don’t see as much five o’clock shadow as I’d expected, but maybe by this one Nixon had been forced to put on makeup.
If you listen even to the first minute, you’ll find out the rules and can compare them with the rules from South Carolina.
February 29, 2020 at 7:51 am
Mitch
Here’s the first one:
February 29, 2020 at 7:54 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Btw, this is *the best* framework for the discussion of capitalism vs socialism I’ve ever heard. It starts at 1 min 45 sec.
February 29, 2020 at 7:58 am
Mitch
How sad to compare the first fifteen minutes of that debate with any fifteen minute window of what happens today. I still think what Eric is calling charisma is more accurately identified as “good looks.” JFK was a matinee idol, and Nixon was in the middle of the pack.
February 29, 2020 at 8:10 am
Mitch
Jon,
It’s certainly a *good* framing but it’s not entirely honest. For example, he calls bank regulation socialism. Bank regulation is simply something that government is expected to provide to ensure a non-kleptocratic capitalist society can operate. It’s not socialism, it’s just government responsibility. And that distinction matters, because Warren is behind that sort of responsibility and does not call it socialist, because it is not.
His highway example is good, as is his social security example.
February 29, 2020 at 8:39 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
I would argue it is socialism. You and I pay through our taxes for the court and regulatory infrastructure for business to be conducted. That infrastructure is accountable to us, not the businesses it regulates.
In my view government is always greater than business in our society in the sense that the former is in control of the latter and not visa versa. Businesses obtain licenses, the government exists until there is a revolution.
Also in the more personal sense that we pledge allegiance to our country, not our employer, but that is the type of connection that is more important to conservatives. Both, however are true.
February 29, 2020 at 8:52 am
Mitch
Jon,
I don’t doubt you’d argue that it’s socialism. The reason I would not call it socialism is that no capitalist society will successfully operate without government regulation.
In fact, I’d say the crisis of our society is the capture of the regulators by the capitalists, effectively eliminating regulation for our oligarchs.
Capitalism without government regulation is kleptocracy, and that’s what America has been developing since Reagan’s election. Socialists will say we need socialism, others will say we need regulation; neither will work until and unless the government is un-captured. Toothless regulation is not regulation, and regulation where the primary purpose is to impose barriers to new entrants in a market (a twenty person operation needs to do the same million dollars worth of monthly filings as a twenty thousand person operation) is actually the opposite of helpful.
February 29, 2020 at 9:03 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
What makes us a capitalist society? Genuinely, I don’t get this. When and where did we become a capitalist society? Imo we’ve never really addressed how we are going to handle our post-agrarian economy. The Civil War established that we’d no longer allow slavery, but I don’t think we’ve had a similar conclusive decision on how to deal with the necessary inequity of those with capital and labor vs those with only labor to survive in a society that cherishes freedom.
I think Republicans have used WW II to their advantage and used red baiting to make us think we are fundamentally a capitalist society.
February 29, 2020 at 9:06 am
Anonymous
I still have the feeling that hillary somehow gets involved in the race. If not, there’s still 2024. After all, she’ll only be 76, which would qualify as a “youth movement” compared to this year!
February 29, 2020 at 9:15 am
Mitch
We became a capitalist society when capitalist corporations sent settlers and wiped out native nations. We’ve been one since, by stressing individual freedom of action over, for example, what I was taught was a Chinese willingness to conform. (I have no idea whether that is a racist trope, an accurate description of historical Chinese psychology, or a mix of the two.)
We became a mixed society when capitalism collapsed and FDR used the New Deal to “save” it.
We’re not a naturally socialist society, because there is still so much racism, tribalism, and individualism in our culture that we don’t, collectively, really much like the idea of contributing to a common pot for the good of all, being terrified that someone not entirely like ourselves might benefit.
This is not just about racism, though: look at how young people react to the idea of having to pay for health care whose benefits would primarily accrue to those older than themselves. In many societies, young people would think, “yes, I put in now and I benefit when I’m older.” We’ve been socialized to think instead, “I’m not sick now, why should I have to pay?”
Our society is much more problematic, I believe, than those who think a Sanders win will solve things realize.
We are drowned in individualism and it is propped up by an advertising and marketing industry that is a large part of what remains in the US, since actually building things as opposed to manipulating people requires an industrial infrastructure which, as part of our optimization as a kleptocratic society, has been shipped off to low wage, low regulation environments whose political systems must bend to our kleptocrats’ military.
Still, I’d be thrilled if Sanders becomes president. I’d have preferred Warren.
February 29, 2020 at 9:25 am
Mitch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
When I was growing up, the public schools stressed the desire of the pilgrims for release from their religious persecution. Yeah, ok. The driver of European settlement in North America was the quest for private money.
February 29, 2020 at 9:28 am
Mitch
(I take back that link — I don’t know which trading company / corporations were meshed with the early colonies.)
February 29, 2020 at 9:37 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
In other words, and I hope I get this at least close, in your view we are a capitalist society based on the (private sector) institutional imperatives of our past and the beliefs of most or many of the voting population. I’d argue that isn’t something that we *are* but is something that we have become and could just as easily change. I’m not arguing for a socialist nation, I’m arguing we are neither and it ridiculous only one viable candidate for the Democratic Party is making this argument. I think this will change as people like Anand Giridharadas create the frames in which we view ourselves as a people.
February 29, 2020 at 9:43 am
Mitch
We are an individualistic society which has been choking for the past 150 years on the resolution of slavery and for the past 80 years on trying to incorporate socialist reforms introduced by FDR.
The Tea Party is the result of a program by the wealthiest few to mobilize the white working class, via individualism, against the FDR reforms, and against the underclass that resulted from the freeing of slaves without the provision of integration into our social and economic system.
We’re a mess.
February 29, 2020 at 9:44 am
Mitch
So was Reagan.
February 29, 2020 at 9:54 am
Mitch
And my thinking is that a program that stresses a “level and honest playing field” is going to get much more traction with the white working class than any program that says everyone gets treats.
That’s honest regulation of capitalism, not socialism. And IMO we’ll get either that or we’ll get a Potemkin socialism which somehow leaves half the economy in the hands of a dozen or two families. Potemkin socialism might still be better than what we’ve got now.
February 29, 2020 at 10:19 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
So, if we are an individualistic society and this is based on the racism of whites against others, isn’t it important that one of our two major parties make this argument using all economic theories and the entire English language, especially if that party depends on the votes of African Americans and the other party is all but entirely in on white nationalism?
And btw, “everyone gets treats is an incredibly right wing view of how socialism works. A Democrat running for office should be explaining explicitly that this is not how socialism works, this isn’t about treats, it’s about your rights as an individual, not the rights of you to your property or capital.
From what your are describing Mitch, we are not a capitalist society, you just happen to think we are based on your view of history. I don’t mean this to dismiss your argument, I’m again genuinely confused about this b/c so many important people on our society accept this as a fact.
I agree that we are a de facto capitalist society at this time, but to make the argument against a candidate who doesn’t have this view and would like to change things because we are capitalist seems like frustratingly circular arguments that have the ultimate goal of having the US remain a capitalist society.
February 29, 2020 at 10:37 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
In short, I agree we are a de facto capitalist society, but I see no reason why Democrats, of all people, shouldn’t be making the argument that we are not *defined* by that necessarily exploitative economic system.
February 29, 2020 at 11:07 am
Mitch
Jon,
I agree that “everyone gets treats” is too glib, sorry. But the pandering of the Democratic pols brings that out in me. It is not tied to socialism but to getting elected, and many of the so-called moderates participate.
The problem I see with using an explanation of our racist society as a campaign mechanism is that I don’t think people want to hear the truth and I don’t think many white people will vote for someone who tells it to them.
We are not a capitalist society; we are a kleptocratic society with capitalist (Kaiser Permanente) and socialist (Medicare) elements. We severely damaged our economic and political system when we put Reagan in, and it was further damaged when Gore was robbed of his election.
People who are for socialism, I think, are probably nicer and (yes, I mean this) better than people who are not. The problem is they don’t realize what the system brings out in large majorities — and it’s not very nice. They think everyone is as unselfish as they are, or they have no idea how selfish they are themselves, because they’ve never really had to give anything up for the benefit of someone they don’t view as family or friend.
February 29, 2020 at 11:25 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
One more point. The reason it’s so important how we define ourselves, Ie going back to Anand G’s point, is if we accept that we are a mixed economy capitalist and socialist rather that exclusively one or the other, is it opens up our minds to different, and I’d argue more Democratic, options and possibilities for who we are, what we expect and demand from the state whether that is that everyone in every state is eligible to Medicaid expansion, to what decisions the state is empowered to make wrt climate change.
Just like the change in language in gender from exclusively binary to a complexity that reflects reality and will help individuals understand their complex identities, a similarly sophisticated conversation about our economy will necessarily make electoral change toward a less rigidly capitalist society more possible.
Honestly, I don’t think Democrats like Dave Kirby, and there are tens of millions of them, can admit this either out loud or to themselves. Fighting the socialist tag isn’t so much about electability as it is a conservative policy preference when it comes to economic issues.
February 29, 2020 at 11:33 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Or a capitalist/kleptocratic society having read your last comment Mitch. No need to apologize Mitch, ever, but again you are making a double right-wing talking point by blaming your response on pandering Democratic *pols* (not “politicians”) without giving specific examples. Democrats come in many shapes and sizes depending on their constituents and all have to navigate difficult and sometimes seemingly contradictory political and rhetorical terrain.
February 29, 2020 at 1:52 pm
Eric Kirk
I still have the feeling that hillary somehow gets involved in the race. If not, there’s still 2024. After all, she’ll only be 76, which would qualify as a “youth movement” compared to this year!
She’s done.
But there is talk of recruiting Michelle Obama to run as VP.
February 29, 2020 at 6:54 pm
Anonymous
After SC, if Warren really cared about the progressive agenda, she would drop out and swing her support to bernie.
February 29, 2020 at 7:05 pm
Eric Kirk
She will definitely drop out on Wednesday if she loses her own state.
March 1, 2020 at 8:34 am
Mitch
Jon,
I don’t think it would have been possible to watch, not the most recent debate but one of the earlier ones, without coming to the conclusion that a whole lot of pandering was going on. At least it wasn’t possible for me.
Pols (as in politicians pandering to the public) took the Sanders message and, in my opinion, did translate it into “treats for everyone” and started outbidding one another.
I’d take any one of them, or any one of their pets, over trump. But it didn’t strike me as a pretty sight.
If covid-19 is as bad in the United States as I now expect it will be, it may be the true death knell of many of our institutions, which would clear the way for Sanders in a sane world. Ours isn’t a sane world, however, and people may double down on trump — he is great at flipping reality on its backside.
How bad do I expect it to be? Worse than any medical problem that has affected the general population in 100 years.
March 1, 2020 at 11:00 am
Anonymous
I think mitch is off his meds again.
March 1, 2020 at 11:41 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Blue Anon I genuinely hope and assume you don’t, given your unfunny comment, know people you love who have struggled with mental health issues. In fact with that kind of attitude they may have but never wanted to bring it to your attention.
In Humboldt in particular we have incredibly sparse and incomplete services and programs to address mental health and it should be an even greater concern for us in particular.
To admit mental health challenges to oneself, not to mention publicly to strangers takes incredible courage. To mock that takes an incredible dose of cruelty imo. I won’t waste my time responding to you any longer in this forum.
March 1, 2020 at 11:51 am
Eric Kirk
Mitch – I don’t think it will bring down any institutions. But many people will get sick and some will die because of a lackadaisical response from an administration that didn’t want to cause alarm which might cause a stock market slow down. Well, now he has worse. The Wall Street collapse reflects a lack of confidence.
But more importantly, people will die who didn’t have to die. Might be in the dozens. Might be in the hundreds. But it is happening.
March 1, 2020 at 11:53 am
Anonymous
Mitch…I think jon just dissed you, while making it seem like he was concerned for you. Very creative.
March 1, 2020 at 12:09 pm
Mitch
No anonymous, I’m still on my anti-depressants, and they minimize the amount of obsessing I do. But even without obsessing, it seems like this particular virus is going to spread widely in the US, and given a five to fourteen day asymptomatic period, it has perhaps already spread widely in the Sacramento area.
Here’s my thinking. First, the infection spreads not just through droplets but through aerosol. Scores of health workers near Travis AFB were exposed for four days to a patient, without having been advised to use protection against aerosol infection. Some of them are probably infected. Then the federal HHS sent immigration workers to visit with some of the asymptomatic infected people, without advising any protection at all. Some of them are infected, and at least one is reported to have traveled on a commercial airliner.
Eighty percent of the cases are mild, about 13% require hospitalization, and about 6% require intensive care. There’s no immunity in anyone, and the infection doubling rate is now about 4 days. That means one case takes one month to becomes 256 cases, in two months it becomes potentially 60,000 cases. Nobody is predicting a vaccine within two months.
Eric is estimating dozens or hundreds of deaths resulting from this virus. I have no idea from where he is getting that estimate, but it seems almost ridiculously low.
I’m not a prepper — in particular I thought the hysteria around Y2K was idiotic, and I’ve never worried about catching ebola or anything like that. But this is in a completely different league. And, of course, the trump administration will make it worse, because it makes everything worse. I expect a lot of Northern California hospitals to have to turn people away starting in six weeks or less. But those aren’t the institutions I believe will die; I’m talking about the population totally losing whatever trust remains in the federal government, the news media, the “authorities.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/01/the-worst-case-scenario-for-coronavirus-dr-jonathan-quick-q-and-a-laura-spinney
March 1, 2020 at 12:22 pm
Mitch
I’ll add a bit about my mental health. I’ve been on Escitalopram (Lexapro) for more than a decade. The main change it has brought about is that where I used to be immobilized by looking at the stupidity and meanness of various people in positions of authority, it now just upsets me terribly.
Prior to starting on Lexapro, I’d thought of it as a “happy pill,” like pot or similar drugs. It’s not — you don’t notice any effect at all until it’s built up in your system over a few days or weeks, and then people close to you will notice before you do.
I view our society as a complete and total disaster. I felt that way before starting on anti-depressants and I feel that way today. My only concern about anti-depressants is they take away from me the immediacy and urgency that some people might otherwise need to feel to devote greater efforts to bringing about change. But I recognize that I need to take them if I’m to function at all in this society, so I take them.