Jump to content

US Politics: Ready, Set, Announce! Bookering the Odds


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Thanks, this is what I was alluding to.

The consensus may be over, but neo-liberalism is still haunting our lives. And yes, as I like to point out on a regular basis, contrary to what many on the right believe, right-wing populism and neo-liberalism are not mutually exclusive because neo-liberalism does not have to be globalist in nature.

And yes, there are some forces who will stop at nothing to prevent the actual alternatives to neo-liberalism (socialism, actual democracy, green new deal... etc) from being implemented. Can you imagine a world in which the common good would be crucial again? The horror!

Neoliberalism and political liberalism are not inherently intertwined (hell, neoliberalism was birthed in Pinochet's Chile). On the other hand, I'd suggest that right-wing populism represents opposition to neoliberalism from the Right (not least because the sort of people who support right-wing populists are not neoliberalism's winners. Ergo, Trump's Protectionism, and working class support for Brexit).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

On the other hand, I'd suggest that right-wing populism represents opposition to neoliberalism from the Right

I used to think that. But after looking at the policies of parties like Italy's League or France's National Front, I now think they're just promoting the nationalist version of neo-liberalism under the cover of ethno-nationalism/nativism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I used to think that. But after looking at the policies of parties like Italy's League or France's National Front, I now think they're just promoting the nationalist version of neo-liberalism under the cover of ethno-nationalism/nativism.

Well, on the ground, it looks a lot like the same old neo-liberalism. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Also, note that a lot of the protectionism promises at least in America turned out to just be stunts and re-branding. NAFTA is quite intact. I'm not sure what happened to dunking on the Canadians, but apparently we already beat them somehow and their dairy products are no longer a threat. 

The end of TPP was consequential, but it may well return at some point.

The trade war with China may be genuine. However, based upon past actions, what are the chances Trump is not looking for a way to declare victory and end it? 

Brexit effects are likely to have far more impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Triskele said:

Oh, no doubt.  Obama supporters talked a lot about Penn in this space back then.  The most fascinating question about Penn is whether he's more loathsome than Dick Morris who worked for Bill Clinton.  Both of these guys are out of central casting.

 

On the AOC marginal tax plan I saw David Brooks say something on PBS the other night which was, more or less, "no matter what we've done with tax rates, federal revenue has always been about 19%."  This set my BS meter off similar to that Bret Stephens column claiming that Venezuela's spending on social programs was some huge outlier, and google just led me to a concept I'd not heard of but maybe you guys have called Hauser's Law.   Brooks did not cite this "law" but I now suspect that this is where he got that figure.  And without too much further research, the early returns suggest that this law is no law at all and that revenue fluctuations are indeed larger than the law suggests and therefor Brooks is full of it.   He was of course making this argument as a way of saying we should not increase taxes on the top incomes.  

Pop quiz, what percent chance do you assign to the likelihood (of each man) that mark penn, dick Morris, or David breaks have dressed up in either blackface or as the klan in their lifetime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

You did though.

I'll throw this out and let ya'll sink your teeth in and rip and roar.

Who spent the time and money to research far back enough to find a photo in 1984 yearbook?

25 years ago. In 2044 you run the risk of being researched for social and political incorrectness.

Virginia is divided. Northern VA being in the hub of the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

Southern VA in 1970's and 1980's had social segregation.

Still does especially if church services are considered.

Not an excuse. Merely a truism.

I want to reiterate what you say today, the pictures you post today, the tweets you tweet today may verra well come back to haunt you 25 years from now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taking a pic with a clansman 25 years ago was a known stupidity. This isn't some, "Oh times have changed, derpy do."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, ya know what? Pictures we take 25 to 35 years from now may come back to haunt us, and we should own that. In 30 years anyone who owned a car may be vilified, especially an SUV. Own it, apologize sincerely, dont hide it and move on. Or dont seek public office at 60 and let those with less baggage govern. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DMC said:

Anyone that followed the 2008 Dem primary should have known how loathsome a creature Penn was back then.  Her whole 2008 campaign was, ironically, full of deplorables - Howard Wolfson and Lanny Davis weren't much better.

Except I haven't seen one iota of evidence that it is.  Looking at the latest Morning Consult poll, the only pattern among "Gen Z" when you look at issue attitudes (see pages 65-109) is Gen Z respondents are much more likely to have no opinion on pretty much every issue.  All that suggests is 18-21 year olds are less politically interested and thus less likely to vote, which is pretty damn standard.

And, if you look at the "Reducing the federal budget deficit" item specifically (pg. 97), 46% of Gen Z respondents thing it's at least an important priority, 19% thing it's not important or shouldn't be done, and 35% don't know or don't have an opinion.  This is compared to 75% that think its important and 14% that don't among all registered voters.  So, yeah, this notion seems pretty well pulled out of someone's ass.

Yeah, but only the crazy old "radical left" has to present evidence, along with 60 white papers explaining its ideas.

"Reasonable centrist" and conservatives never have to present any. That's why Bloomberg can just assert single payer will bankrupt the country, without further explanation or maybe making some lame reference to Venezuela. Or why Sgt. Shultz can complain about deficits, yet be completely allowed to do the old texas two step around the issue of corporate tax cuts creating deficits. Or just assert that Generation Z are fiscal hawks and "fiscal conservatism" is gonna be the hottest and hippest new thing evah.

So there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Altherion said:

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on memory for this: all of the posts are still there. I called him a demagogue from the start to the end (here's a post from just before the election) and I started a long thread in the first post of which I point out that Trump (like most of his fellow populists) is a member of the ruling class who is only in this for power. It's true that after Sanders lost and the only choices were Clinton and Trump, I preferred the latter, but to refer to that as being all for him is a gross exaggeration.

I'm not sure why you think any of that excuses you. Yes, you admitted he was a demagogue only in it for power, but you were all in for him nonetheless. You knew all that, and you didn't care: you reveled in the prospect of the damage he would do, cheering for it because you said (absurdly) that it was worth it for the tiny chance that by some magical process, it would bring about real change. You scoffed at those who pointed out that this was rubbish, or who decried the idea that you were willing that other people pay any price for the chance of change. 

That doesn't excuse you. It makes you look worse.

12 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Getting into political pogroms over events from the early 1980's? Especially in a state where racism to some degree is the norm, not the exception?  Well, that's one surefire way for the Democratic Party to snatch (near certain) defeat from the (likely) jaws of victory. 

The abuse of the word 'pogroms' there does not do your point any favours.

In any case, quite apart from the message ignoring this would send - racism is a price worth paying, sorry, black voters - the fact is that Northam has made such a mess of his handling of the whole affair that on pragmatic grounds alone, he needs to go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Northam should go, and the universe will right things (a little bit), since an African American will be his replacement as governor.

I'm not sure what's going on in this thread currently, but 35 years from now if someone digs up this post - no insult is meant to Serbians or Serbian Americans by me using a facsimile of one as my avatar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something has been worrying me about the state of the country.  I think that Trump is a slight underdog to be reelected in 2020.  But the stakes of this election are really worrisome.  Now I know we say that about every election, but the capacity of the system to withstand the recent Republican power grabs is starting to wane, and I'm not sure the country can survive a Trump victory. 

IF Trump wins, he probably wins the House (gerrymandering didn't go away with the 2018 victory, and there are a lot of vulnerable seats).  He definitely holds the Senate.  And the chance of RGB and Breyer making it to 2025 seems remote, so we're looking at a Supreme Court with swing justice Gorsuch.  Or possibly Alito.  Who knows.  But basically the Supreme Court becomes a Republican organ, rather than just a strong conservative lean, like we have now. 

So that's bad.  But a democratic win isn't exactly smooth sailing anyway.  If we manage to defeat Trump in the EC, Democrats probably hold the House, but if they fail to take the Senate, then in all likelihood McConnell won't let any justices through anyway, so we still get the Supreme Court Armageddon, we just have to wait a little longer for it. 

Which means that our options are that anything sort of a complete victory for Democrats in 2020  (IE, win the presidency, hold the house, gain 3+ seats in the Senate) is going to be an absolute disaster for the country.  And even then there's a good chance the economy tanks between 2021 and 2024, since we are long past due for a recession, and any Republican who wins in 2024 will probably be every bit the strongman the Trump is, but with a bit more competence and message discipline. 

In short, I am starting to share the pessimism of many posters here.  I think the country is going to a very dark and scary place, and I'm really not sure what to do to stop it or to protect my family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

to protect my family. 

What's worse is that you pretty much have to invest in firearms and training, because when the shit hits the fan you don't want to be stuck as the only person without a fucking weapon. Man...what a shit show. 

On the other hand, given the other hand, a great deal of Trump supporters are 50 and up, and a fair amount are over 65. Given the way Americans go about feeding themselves, we can probably expect to uhhh..lose some of those folks in the near future. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I've already made my thoughts known on the whole Northam affair and those haven't changed in the interim. 

However, as I've learned a little more about how the story originally broke (initially published by a right-wing, Trump- backing website, picked up by the right-wing echo chamber until the mainstream press got wind of it), I started becoming very concerned about whether it will become a possibility that this kind of stuff becomes commonplace in the future, except where any such photos or video is actually fake. 

We already know the right doesn't give a shit about anything but winning. I mean hell, James O'Keefe is still considered a hero among most of the far-right crowd even though every "sting" he's perpetrated has been a hoax.

What happens when the technology of photoshopping and deep-fake videos becomes so advanced as to become almost indistinguishable from the real thing? We know the right will have no moral qualms when it comes to doctoring videos or pictures to manufacture a scandal (probably with the help of their new best buds, the Russians). And these kind of manufactured scandals won't even need to rise to the point of having the target actually resign; the right-wing will just keep hammering this inside their bubble, and force Democratic leaders to spend all their time and political capital answering baseless accusations instead of actually governing. 

Fighting fire with fire will only hasten the decline of any shred of bi-partisanship that may be left among the American populace, and will further degrade the already shaky epistemological foundation upon which the voting public relies to cast votes for candidates whom they believe to reflect their values. 

Right now, I believe that even if Northam wasn't one of the ones depicted in the yearbook, he probably has dressed up in blackface at some point in his life. But if something similar comes out in 10 years during the 2028 elections, how could we be certain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Relic said:

What's worse is that you pretty much have to invest in firearms and training, because when the shit hits the fan you don't want to be stuck as the only person without a fucking weapon. Man...what a shit show. 

On the other hand, given the other hand, a great deal of Trump supporters are 50 and up, and a fair amount are over 65. Given the way Americans go about feeding themselves, we can probably expect to uhhh..lose some of those folks in the near future. :unsure:

I don't think there's any need to be that pessimistic yet. Trump winning in 2020, assuming Republicans retake the House as well*, probably moves into current Hungary territory. Which is a bad place to be, but isn't a dystopian wasteland. The big existential threat is catastrophic climate change, and that seems to be staying on pace regardless of who wins.

*And I would not be so sure of this. It's pretty easy to see a 2020 election where Trump eeks out a close EC win, but Democrats blow out the suburbs and keep most of their 2018 gains. Although, if Trump does win, I think it's almost certain Republicans keep the Senate, which means he probably gets 2 more Supreme Court picks (assuming no more in his first term) and gets to continue to reshape the judiciary. So things are still pretty terrible even if House Democrats can keep a check on some things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Fez said:

. The big existential threat is catastrophic climate change, and that seems to be staying on pace regardless of who wins.

 

Oh, I totally agree, but 6 more years of Trump means the USA won't be at all prepared for the ravages of climate change that we are almost guaranteed to see in the next decade. The only walls we need to be building are fucking sea walls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Okay, so I've already made my thoughts known on the whole Northam affair and those haven't changed in the interim. 

However, as I've learned a little more about how the story originally broke (initially published by a right-wing, Trump- backing website, picked up by the right-wing echo chamber until the mainstream press got wind of it), I started becoming very concerned about whether it will become a possibility that this kind of stuff becomes commonplace in the future, except where any such photos or video is actually fake. 

We already know the right doesn't give a shit about anything but winning. I mean hell, James O'Keefe is still considered a hero among most of the far-right crowd even though every "sting" he's perpetrated has been a hoax.

What happens when the technology of photoshopping and deep-fake videos becomes so advanced as to become almost indistinguishable from the real thing? We know the right will have no moral qualms when it comes to doctoring videos or pictures to manufacture a scandal (probably with the help of their new best buds, the Russians). And these kind of manufactured scandals won't even need to rise to the point of having the target actually resign; the right-wing will just keep hammering this inside their bubble, and force Democratic leaders to spend all their time and political capital answering baseless accusations instead of actually governing. 

Fighting fire with fire will only hasten the decline of any shred of bi-partisanship that may be left among the American populace, and will further degrade the already shaky epistemological foundation upon which the voting public relies to cast votes for candidates whom they believe to reflect their values. 

Right now, I believe that even if Northam wasn't one of the ones depicted in the yearbook, he probably has dressed up in blackface at some point in his life. But if something similar comes out in 10 years during the 2028 elections, how could we be certain?

I think it's a valid concern but they've been doing that already - like you said the right doesn't even need quality high tech forgeries to propagate this stuff.  I suppose a more realistic video or audio could be more powerful than "pizza shop pedophile kill kill destroy" just typed out in plain text, but after awhile there will be diminishing returns on this stuff.  It's a trick that way work once or twice, but it that's it.  

I'd also be a little concerned about whether or not we have to start labelling satire and farce if they decide to combat this stuff with some kj did anti-propaganda legislation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have 24 replies and there's no bloody way I can keep up. No offense if I didn't read someone's reply. Got real life stuff...

Regarding my point about a substantial number of moderates being ignored when both the Rs and Ds have moved the extremes and the Ds risking losing by taking on a message that's too far left. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-february-3-2019-n966336

Paragraph breaks and bolded are mine for readability. 

Quote

CHUCK TODD:

We are back. Data Download time. Two years into the Trump presidency, and Americans now agree that the two political parties represent two drastically different points of view. Maybe that doesn't shock you today, but it's shocking. According to new data from Pew, 54% of Americans say there's a great deal of difference between the two parties. This is actually the first time that a majority of the country has agreed on that issue. Consider that, in 1987, only 25% of respondents said the same thing. In fact, the exact same percentage of people said there was hardly any difference between Republicans and Democrats back in the late '80s.

 

Right now though, this divide seems just fine, particularly with Republicans. In fact, they want more separation from the Democrats.

57% of Republicans say they want the party to be more conservative than it is now. Only 39% think it should be more moderate.

Democrats, on the other hand, though, seem to be a bit more uneasy about the party's move to the left. Only 40% of Democrats, not a majority, think the party should be more liberal. That's not something you'd like to hear, if you're, say, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. 54% of Democrats think the party should take a more-moderate route.

So do any of these divides provide an opening for a viable third-party candidate? According to a Gallup poll from the fall, 57% of Americans still believe a third major political party is necessary. Sometimes, I've seen that number as high as about 65%. But in this poll, it includes 54% of Democrats, the same percent who want Democrats to be more moderate. Those could be the voters that someone like Howard Schultz is hoping to pick up, if he runs as an Independent. Look, looking at this data, we can expect more of the same from President Trump, heading into the 2020 election. He knows what his voters want. And it's not moderation. On the other side, though, we keep hearing how the Democrats are lurching to the left. That may be true of some Democratic candidates. But this suggests that party voters may want something a bit more moderate. They may be looking for someone that's a bit more electable. And when we come back, we'll look at the fight for the Democratic nomination and at the looming deadline for another government shutdown.

Republicans: 57% say they should be more conservative, 39% say they should go more moderate. 

Democrats: 40% say they should be more liberal, 54% say they should go more moderate

57% to 65% Americans believe a third party is necessary. 

Chuck Todd makes the connection between the percentage of Democrats who think the party should be more moderate to the number of Americans believing a third party is necessary. 

 

 

Bolded mine. 

Quote

CHUCK TODD:

All right, I want to interrupt the conversation. But let me just add one more little additive here. Howard Schultz's sort of budding campaign, it's not official, but they did some polling. They released some of it. They did polling following this week, where he got beaten the living daylights out of on the media. Here's one matchup. They sent us two matchups of Trump-Harris-Schultz and Trump-Warren-Schultz. As you can see here, this is a poll conducted after the rollout, so in the last two days of Thursday and Friday. Essentially, Trump and Harris tied, Schultz sitting at 17. The point they wanted to make here, Mark Leibovich, is that, hey, even after this horrible rollout, where he got battered, left and sometimes right, he's still sitting in the mid-teens, which, their argument is, shows you how much room there is for an independent.

More discussion on the full transcript linked above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I started becoming very concerned about whether it will become a possibility that this kind of stuff becomes commonplace in the future, except where any such photos or video is actually fake. 

Where have you been?  Oppo digging, phony information and lies, have been in play since at least Reagan's day (actually  -- see Cadwallader, Adams and Hamilton and the Thomas Jefferson dirty campaigns).  It's gotten to be the public order of the day  targeting every voter, now, since the internet has made it possible to drown out responsible reporting.  It goes on all the time, with the orange nazi's trumpeting of fake news.

If you think the tech isn't there yet to alter, edit and create media to make it look 'real' -- I really don't have a clue as to where you have been living and what you've been doing for at least 15 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Chuck Todd makes the connection between the percentage of Democrats who think the party should be more moderate to the number of Americans believing a third party is necessary. 

Bolded mine. 

 More discussion on the full transcript linked above. 

Sure! That's a reasonable thing, and it's something we saw in the 2016 election when many Democrats were decrying that they had to vote for a moderate centrist Democrat like Clinton. The notion that Democrats are inherently fractious and want more choices is an obvious conclusion from them being an ideological and cultural heterogeneous party. There's a phrase that I use regularly - Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love. This isn't surprising in the least.

Now, here's the heavy lift - take THOSE numbers, and turn them into the idea that those people are going to support someone who hates taxing the rich at all costs, doesn't want any kind of expanded health insurance, wants deficit reduction (not just debt reduction), and is not particularly socially liberal beyond supporting pro-choice (which itself is a moderate view). 

Add to that that of the people who know about who Schultz is, only 4% from ANY group like him (compared to about 40-50% who disapprove), and you really have a problem of proving that Schultz is going to do much for that group or that he has any kind of chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Have 24 replies and there's no bloody way I can keep up. No offense if I didn't read someone's reply. Got real life stuff...

Regarding my point about a substantial number of moderates being ignored when both the Rs and Ds have moved the extremes and the Ds risking losing by taking on a message that's too far left. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-february-3-2019-n966336

Paragraph breaks and bolded are mine for readability. 

Republicans: 57% say they should be more conservative, 39% say they should go more moderate. 

Democrats: 40% say they should be more liberal, 54% say they should go more moderate

57% to 65% Americans believe a third party is necessary. 

Chuck Todd makes the connection between the percentage of Democrats who think the party should be more moderate to the number of Americans believing a third party is necessary. 

 

 

Bolded mine. 

More discussion on the full transcript linked above. 

This is a giant nothing burger.  Third parties don't work with our electoral system.  No Democrat is going to vote for Schultz over whoever gets the D nomination.  Not in any way that matters - a moderate candidate would likely pull more Repubs over the Dems.  Do you live in the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...