U.S. Politics: Huff and Puff the Socialism away

[Ran]

Echoing my thoughts on Sanders, PoI, except I would put Bernie behind the "centrist" or "moderate" politicians, for my part. I don't think he'd make a good president at all. For me, the difference between Warren and Sanders is that I feel like she has deep policy knowledge and plans... but then, as I've said, a couple of those plans concern me deeply and now I don't know what to think. There's also Sanders' age, which is a concern. 

If he won the nomination, though, he'll be who I vote for, because even a bad Sanders presidency will be miles better than what we have now.

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Long version: I think Bernie has an extraordinarily narrow view of problems and refuses to considers alternatives, no matter how obvious it becomes that his theories are out of touch. I think he's so set on going back to the state of the world 50 years ago he doesn't see how the larger world and environment has changed and those solutions aren't viable anymore. I think his heart is in the right place but he's only interested in what he wants to see and is oblivious to anything else, which is a terrible quality in a president.

Well yes, but that's doesn't necessarily disqualify one to be a candidate. Arguably Trump has set back the clock on quite a few issues himself while Obama, who was far more pragmatic and willing to compromise, crashed into the wall of Republican extremism.

The problem is more about selling the ideas, first to the voters and then to the other elected members of your own party... And quite honestly these days it's very much about how good one is at using the media for their own ends (Trump proved way better at this than most people thought).

I'm not convinced that many ideas are fundamentally "unviable," including those that seem outdated on the face of it (again, Trump's "ideas" aren't exactly new-ish), but the more radical an idea and the harder it is to sell it and implement it. However, that's how the game is played and it's not always easy to guess how good a politician will be at it before they are even elected (historically speaking there have been surprises). Not compromising as a candidate doesn't mean you won't be able to compromise if elected.
If we were to vote for only "viable" or moderate ideas there wouldn't be that much of a point to politics as a whole.

I'd be more concerned about Bernie's age and "marketing" strategies, because it has a huge impact on how his ideas are perceived. Are his theories really out of touch, or is it just that he can't "modernize" them well enough for them to sound attractive?

[ThinkerX]

Put bluntly, Sanders is too damn old - and so is Biden.  Warren is only marginally better in that regard, but has the best economic credentials.

Veep pics count this time around, since of the three, only Warren has a better than even shot of surviving the first term, and none are rated for a second. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Put bluntly, Sanders is too damn old - and so is Biden.  Warren is only marginally better in that regard, but has the best economic credentials.

 

These are our saviors, and all while Trump is trying (as he signaled he would long before he was POTUS) that he would President for life.  

ETA:  Sorry about how my computer is mangling the link. 

[sologdin]

extraordinarily narrow view of problems and refuses to considers alternatives

not taking up for sanders specifically, but this sort of metric is unstable--one person's stenotic belief is another's catholicity (as though, for instance, a pure, competitive, non-intersectional identity politics leads anywhere but to many miniature fascisms); the vice of declining alternatives is simultaneously a virtue of being consistent and principled. the instability of the metric permits parallel doublethought accusations of being both schematically ideological but philosophically relativist, of being coldly rationalist but unrealistically bleeding heart sentimentalist, of being rigidly committed but so open minded that all brains fell out. 

that is, from my perspective, narrow and fails to consider alternatives mainfestly applies to the vanilla liberal candidates who implicitly adopt a thatcherite mantra that there is no alternative to market economics, for whom it's easier to envision the end of the world (climate change, say) than the end of capitalism. 

[Zorral]

Trying to label any billionaire Bloomberg as a democratic moderate is like calling a cess pool a freshwater pond.

~~~~~~~~~~~

In the meantime this is what the billionaires are up to:

https://www.politico.eu/article/labour-nhs-conservatives-leaked-papers-hint-at-post-brexit-trade-priorities-for-uk-us/

[Ormond]

7 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Put bluntly, Sanders is too damn old - and so is Biden.  Warren is only marginally better in that regard, but has the best economic credentials.

Veep pics count this time around, since of the three, only Warren has a better than even shot of surviving the first term, and none are rated for a second. 

The expected years of life for a 78 year old male American (as Biden will be at inauguration) is 9.43 years and that for a 79 year old male (Sanders) is 8.88 years. The expected years of life for a 71 year old woman (Warren) is 15.82.

Given that all three of these people are among those Americans who have probably gotten the best health care over their lifespans, and that the highly educated live longer lives than average, I think both Biden and Sanders would definitely have a "better than even shot" of surviving their first term.

I personally would also agree that they are too old. But I would certainly expect all three of these people to have an excellent shot at living four more years after January 2021.

[sologdin]

no pleasing some voters.  AOC 2024 is too pitt-the-even-younger; sanders is too methuselah.  

time to remove this objection by delegating the presidency to immortal corporate persons who can be neither too old nor too young.

[Zorral]

Again, calling any billionaire, and particularly Bloomberg a moderate is preposterous.

Look at the vile Hill berating him for being too moderate.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/472188-mike-bloombergs-heaven-and-hell

This guy ain't gonna beat the bedbug. Voters who aren't really well off, white and mostly male can't relate to him, and he's got no political instincts at all.  He could buy the mayorship of NYC, one that was already being run in the interests for decades by the real estate moghuls, but not even he can buy the whole US voting public. Moreover the hinterlands perceive as among the entire eastern elite they hate so much, they'll vote bedbug any time before they'll even listen to one of those.

[DMC]

14 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

I want a lot of the things Bernie wants. I just don't think he's going to be able to deliver on any of it. Meanwhile Warren wants very similar things and almost always has a far more solid idea of how to get it. And because I do worry about Bernie screwing up an attempt at getting solid momentum for a leftward push in US politics, I would be willing to accept some candidates with more modest proposals (such as Booker) before him.

I think this homes in on the personality-based problem with Bernie.  A President Sanders may well be the worst thing possible for the left in this country.  He's been a recalcitrant gasbag for 30 years in Congress - resulting in a shockingly ineffective legislative record for a MC that long-tenured with national exposure to boot.  So when that obstinance inevitably leads to a comprehensive failure of his agenda, what then?  We have Larry David as president yelling at all of establishment Washington, the media, and a huge portion of the voters.  Other than the Jewish wit (which is a marked improvement), that sounds eerily familiar.  

@Rippounet is right to point out that conceptually virtually no policy is "unviable."  The problem with Bernie isn't his policies, it's that he has no vision and apparently no interest in implementing them.  He's been harping about the needed revolution long before he ran for president.  News to Bernie:  You're a United States Senator, and a pretty damn popular one.  If you want to spark a revolution, try sponsoring legislation and building coalitions.  You "wrote the bill" for MFA?  Great!  Now maybe try to use that increased salience and public opinion to actually get something done?  Nope, wouldn't want compromise, might actually look like a legislator.  You fucking founded the CPC - now the second-largest caucus in the party.  Gonna galvanize and lead that group to influence policy?  Nah man, all that sounds way too hierarchical and authoritarian.  Ideologically, Russ Feingold was about as close to Sanders as you can get.  But he was an adult and actually had legislative accomplishments.

14 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

If it came down to Bernie vs one of the "moderates" like Biden, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, or Buttigieg, I'd go with Bernie.

Disagree there.  I'd definitely go with Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg over Bernie.  Bloomberg?  Yikes, I don't wanna answer that one.

[ThinkerX]

10 hours ago, Triskele said:

These are our saviors, and all while Trump is trying (as he signaled he would long before he was POTUS) that he would President for life.  

ETA:  Sorry about how my computer is mangling the link. 

Given Trump's ill health, he may very well be 'President for Life.'  How does two or three years of 'President Pence' sound?

As to the democratic candidates, well, the presidency ages a person in a hurry...and Sanders has already had one heart attack this campaign.  Biden, I am wondering more and more about.  

Apart from them, there is McCain.  Had he beaten Obama the first time around, gotten reelected for a second term...well, he was grievously ill for the last year or two he was around.

More and more, the vice presidential pics of the candidates will become paramount.  

 

[SFDanny]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

I think this homes in on the personality-based problem with Bernie.  A President Sanders may well be the worst thing possible for the left in this country.  He's been a recalcitrant gasbag for 30 years in Congress - resulting in a shockingly ineffective legislative record for a MC that long-tenured with national exposure to boot.  So when that obstinance inevitably leads to a comprehensive failure of his agenda, what then?  We have Larry David as president yelling at all of establishment Washington, the media, and a huge portion of the voters.  Other than the Jewish wit (which is a marked improvement), that sounds eerily familiar.  

@Rippounet is right to point out that conceptually virtually no policy is "unviable."  The problem with Bernie isn't his policies, it's that he has no vision and apparently no interest in implementing them.  He's been harping about the needed revolution long before he ran for president.  News to Bernie:  You're a United States Senator, and a pretty damn popular one.  If you want to spark a revolution, try sponsoring legislation and building coalitions.  You "wrote the bill" for MFA?  Great!  Now maybe try to use that increased salience and public opinion to actually get something done?  Nope, wouldn't want compromise, might actually look like a legislator.  You fucking founded the CPC - now the second-largest caucus in the party.  Gonna galvanize and lead that group to influence policy?  Nah man, all that sounds way too hierarchical and authoritarian.  Ideologically, Russ Feingold was about as close to Sanders as you can get.  But he was an adult and actually had legislative accomplishments.

Disagree there.  I'd definitely go with Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg over Bernie.  Bloomberg?  Yikes, I don't wanna answer that one.

I agree.

Sanders has been the primary sponsor of seven, count them, seven bills that have become law over his long career. Two of those laws renamed Post Offices. One of the worst records of any politician in this country. By way of contrast Sanders fellow Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy over the course of his longer career (starting in the 1970s) has been the primary sponsor of 105 bills that have become law. My state's junior senator, Kamala Harris has four bills that have become law - over half of Sander's total in her first unfinished term. That is not a record of a legislative leader. So, when I hear him talk about how he "wrote the damn bill" on the medicare for all I want to ask is where will be the votes be to pass it even if the Democrats take back the Senate? Successful presidents are those who can build broad coalitions to both be elected and to govern. Bernie can possibly hold together a coalition of anti-Trump voters to be elected. I will certainly be one of them if he gets the nomination. He has little chance of governing and passing his own agenda. Perhaps he will learn in office how to compromise, but I doubt it.

But that is not the only reason this lifelong socialist won't vote for Sanders in the California primary. I voted for him last time and regretted it. I wanted Bernie to push an agenda that moved the Democratic party in a more progressive direction, but I did so believing his promise to unite the party behind Clinton if she won. Sanders instead put his ego ahead of the needs of people and waged a battle into the convention that help divide and discourage unity behind Clinton. He never spoke out against those in his movement who spread the most outrageous and quite frankly sexist attacks against Clinton, and he put desperation tactics ahead of principles when he continued his campaign after the pledge delegates were selected by the voters. 

I'm not as old as Bernie, but I've spent most of my adult life in the socialist movement, and the movements of my lifetime. As such I've seen a lot of so-called leaders put their egos before the needs of the people. In that regard, Bernie is nothing new. But when he equates himself with the struggle for universal healthcare or even for single payer systems, I get very annoyed. I know single payer systems have been in place for decades and decades in Canada and elsewhere. He didn't author the idea, even if he wrote a bill supporting something that is very unlikely to pass. Bernie has too many of these types of weaknesses for my taste.

Lastly, as an old man in his sixties, let me just say I think there is a peculiar kind of sexism I've seen among my fellow leftists and socialists. One that goes something like this. When a woman runs the idea comes out that somehow voting to elect a woman to the highest office isn't part of the critical breaking of barriers that is needed to transform our nation. Or at least it can be left to some undefined time in the distant future. I think such thinking is horribly mistaken. Any of the women, with the possible exception of Gabbard, who are running on the Democratic side would represent a massive breakthrough in women's rights and the destruction of barriers to equality. Harris and Warren are the two best I see, and at this point I'm voting for Harris.

[Kalbear]

27 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Lastly, as an old man in his sixties, let me just say I think there is a peculiar kind of sexism I've seen among my fellow leftists and socialists. One that goes something like this. When a woman runs the idea comes out that somehow voting to elect a woman to the highest office isn't part of the critical breaking of barriers that is needed to transform our nation. Or at least it can be left to some undefined time in the distant future. I think such thinking is horribly mistaken. Any of the women, with the possible exception of Gabbard, who are running on the Democratic side would represent a massive breakthrough in women's rights and the destruction of barriers to equality. Harris and Warren are the two best I see, and at this point I'm voting for Harris.

To be fair to Gabbard, her running and even succeeding would be a major breakthrough - it would show that the US finally is willing to accept completely horrible human beings as elected officials if they're women, and we'd finally have our own Thatcher or Peron. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, sologdin said:

extraordinarily narrow view of problems and refuses to considers alternatives

not taking up for sanders specifically, but this sort of metric is unstable--one person's stenotic belief is another's catholicity (as though, for instance, a pure, competitive, non-intersectional identity politics leads anywhere but to many miniature fascisms); the vice of declining alternatives is simultaneously a virtue of being consistent and principled. the instability of the metric permits parallel doublethought accusations of being both schematically ideological but philosophically relativist, of being coldly rationalist but unrealistically bleeding heart sentimentalist, of being rigidly committed but so open minded that all brains fell out. 

that is, from my perspective, narrow and fails to consider alternatives mainfestly applies to the vanilla liberal candidates who implicitly adopt a thatcherite mantra that there is no alternative to market economics, for whom it's easier to envision the end of the world (climate change, say) than the end of capitalism. 

Not only all of this, but let's say Biden or Warren wins and then their platform,, such as it is, falls completely flat, as it surely will.

Why is that so different from Sanders?  And if it's not that different then why is it so outside the box to vote for Sanders especially if one thinks he the best chance of taking back Penn/Michigan/Wisc/Iowa/Ohio.  

ETA:  It's not a very optimistic place to be, but I think that everyone is looking at this election backwards.  It's not about whether Biden or Warren or Bernie can pass universal healthcare.  It is about having their appointments rather than Trump's in cabinet positions and in the courts, period.  

[Guest]

Also, sort of US politics:

JB is now saying that Leo DiCaprio is responsible for the rain forest fires cause he secretly funneled money to non-profits to light the fires or something.  

The disappointment I feel in the Brazilians who voted for this guy....

[DMC]

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

He has little chance of governing and passing his own agenda. Perhaps he will learn in office how to compromise, but I doubt it.

Yeah, and this reminds me, let me clarify by what I mean when emphasizing Sanders' lack of ability to compromise.  I'm not talking about compromising with the GOP, that ship's sailed passed Valinor.  Why did Hillarycare fail while Obamacare passed?  Clinton had comparable majorities in both chambers and the filibuster wasn't even really weaponized at the time.  It's because the Hillary-led "task force" was entirely insular, neglecting even input let alone a bonafide group effort with congressional Democratic leadership to the point they alienated Ways & Means Chair Dan Rostenkowski and Senate Majority Leader Mitchell.  Whereas Obama let Pelosi and Reid take the lead and focused on uniting the party in order to get enough intraparty votes to pass the damn thing, mountains of countervailing interests be damned.

Even then, it was no easy thing.  Rahm Emanuel wanted to settle for piecemeal bills (which, granted, would have been politically/strategically better in the short run) and when the ACA finally did get passed that was pretty much its last chance.  Biden and Warren?  I believe they can unite the party behind big social policy.  Or at least I think it's plausible.  Hell with most of the other candidates.  Sanders?  I decidedly do not.  Clinton adapted, but it was the same damn thing with Carter, another guy whose legislative strategy essentially boiled down to "I'm right and you're wrong."  That's antithetical to the Neustadtian concept of presidential power.

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Why is that so different from Sanders?  And if it's not that different then why is it so outside the box to vote for Sanders especially if one thinks he the best chance of taking back Penn/Michigan/Wisc/Iowa/Ohio.  

First, I emphatically do not think Sanders is the best chance to win the Midwestern-ish states.  In fact I think he has the worst chance of the current top four.  And before anyone says anything, no, his 2016 primary results in such states is not valid evidence.  Second, see above.

[ThinkerX]

2 hours ago, Triskele said:

Not only all of this, but let's say Biden or Warren wins and then their platform,, such as it is, falls completely flat, as it surely will.

Why is that so different from Sanders?  And if it's not that different then why is it so outside the box to vote for Sanders especially if one thinks he the best chance of taking back Penn/Michigan/Wisc/Iowa/Ohio.  

ETA:  It's not a very optimistic place to be, but I think that everyone is looking at this election backwards.  It's not about whether Biden or Warren or Bernie can pass universal healthcare.  It is

You have a fundamental misunderstanding, at least about Warren, at least from my POV:

 

Her proposed plans are starting points for negotiations, not do or die cast in concrete demands.  Ask for the moon, take what you can get.  Yes, beyond all doubt, huge chunks of what she's asking for will be gleefully hacked off by members of both parties - but quite a bit will make it through.  

[SFDanny]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

To be fair to Gabbard, her running and even succeeding would be a major breakthrough - it would show that the US finally is willing to accept completely horrible human beings as elected officials if they're women, and we'd finally have our own Thatcher or Peron. 

I don't worry so much about Gabbard as I think people are catching on to her scam and her chance of winning the nomination is very, very low. Who does concern me in this regard is Nikki Haley. She would face a hard time getting through a primary process dominated by far right anti-women forces, but she could represent a real threat in a general election. We don't need the first women president to be an anti-feminist icon. People who believe in equality need to be the leaders in breaking down this barrier, not those who want women to stay in subservient roles. If Trump doesn't succeed  in making himself President-for-Life, watch out for Haley in 2024.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

You have a fundamental misunderstanding, at least about Warren, at least from my POV:

 

Her proposed plans are starting points for negotiations, not do or die cast in concrete demands.  Ask for the moon, take what you can get.  Yes, beyond all doubt, huge chunks of what she's asking for will be gleefully hacked off by members of both parties - but quite a bit will make it through.  

I think that's right in terms of things being a big opening ask, but I do have doubts about how much can get done.  It does appear at least that Warren is thinking about this and it's probably a good sign that she's got something like the consumer protection bureau in her background.

Fairly terrifying piece here about how Trump is signaling he's pro war crime and how this could impact the military.  Posting it partly though just to draw attention to the fact that there is a person named Waitman Beorn.  

[James Arryn]

New Economist poll: 53% of Republicans say Trump is a better President than Lincoln was.