US Politics - All He Wants for Christmas Was His Two Dead Sheep

[Centrist Simon Steele]

5 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I really believe that on this big question, too centrist versus too progressive, that was out there before the UK vote, that there's evidence out there to support both positions, and no one is really sure.  I am not sure which is the better electoral strategy, and I agonize about it.  

Clinton's candidacy is not that clear cut if you ask me.  While she was perceived as too centrist by the Bernie crowd for sure she also tried to present a very progressive platform on inclusivity.  

Well, Trisk, the Chapo guys (I know, I know) kind of put it this way (and this is one area I tend to agree with their nonsense): the idea that centrism and experience is the winner in the upcoming election fundamentally ignores that this was the exact same tactic and message in 2016. And it failed. It's not that centrism is inherently bad, but these candidates feel so wishy-washy that you can't believe in them. I think about John Kasich (sp?, I don't care to look it up). He is fairly centrist in terms of the Republican party, but he doesn't paint it that way. He says he's a Republican and believes in Republican ideology, and the things he does are Republican. Compare that to Biden who's like, "Nah, I like Republicans, let's work with them!" Why not just say what you believe. If it's moderate, fine, but this whole argument on where you fit on the spectrum of left to right really makes you feel like these people aren't saying a single honest thing.

I think with Clinton, she may have had some very progressive views and policies, but she articulated a centrist platform. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

25 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

I’m fairly certain buying people is illegal. 

Maybe a lease would be better?

[Zorral]

This is an interesting report as to how Bloomberg has organized a base for his POTUS campaign. As it's in the NY Times, per usual I provide urls not links due to people liking to 'save' the articles allotted to non-subscribers before paywall locks them out:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/us/politics/bloomberg-mayors-2020.html?

Quote

As Mr. Bloomberg traverses the country as a presidential candidate, he is drawing on a vast network of city leaders whom he has funded as a philanthropist or advised as an elder statesman of municipal politics. Bloomberg Philanthropies, which has assets totaling $9 billion, has supported 196 different cities with grants, technical assistance and education programs worth a combined $350 million. Now, leaders in some of those cities are forming the spine of Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign: He has been endorsed so far by eight mayors — from larger cities like San Jose, Calif., and Louisville, Ky., and smaller ones like Gary, Ind., representing a total of more than 2.6 million Americans.

That he has focused on mayors and city leaders as his platform of support is particularly interest (to me, anyway) in light of Mayor Pete's campaign.

 

7 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I think with Clinton, she may have had some very progressive views and policies, but she articulated a centrist platform. 

This is all true.  Yet, beyond that, she really and truly -- with her husband -- effed Haiti every which way and up and down too.  That wasn't progressive; it was the most naked colonialism, hardly seen so undisguised since the Scramble for Africa at the end of the 19th century.  These are contradictions that are difficult to reconcile, or even to understand, beyond racism and naked greed, at least in my mind.  Just as why it's so difficult for me to understand how she ran such a poor campaign, making so many poor choices.

[DMC]

Yeah the question isn't an ideological one, especially against Trump - who has trouble with basic ideological concepts.  It's about presenting a fresh alternative that excites people when running against any incumbent.  Biden is pretty much the epitome of all the milquetoast nominees that have lost over the past 20 years - Clinton, Romney, Kerry, Gore, Dole, can even go back to Dukakis and Mondale.  The only recent losing challenger that could arguably be cast as remotely exciting is McCain.  As for Sanders, while ideologically he's obviously not, his message and presence is undoubtedly more of the same as well.  This is why I think nominating either would be the worst mistake.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Regarding unexciting candidates and with the background conditions of low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates, low gas prices and a high stock market ( the economic expansion still chugging along ). Democrats should not assume or take for granted, they are going to defeat the incumbent. Even a shitheel incumbent as terrible as Trump is going to benefit while this economy is humming like this.

I'm quite concerned he could win again. It seems every election you are relying on a "Vote AGAINST this terrible Republican" strategy, we lose.

The strategy has to be " Vote FOR this incredible and exciting Democrat".

I'm skeptical that weve yet produced that exciting vote FOR candidate yet. The field we have is fine for people that are already part of the base, but we don't need winning over.

[Zorral]

I found Julían Castro exciting, also Elizabeth Warren is exciting, and Bernie does excite people.  But this is exactly what terrifies the old Dem guard that guard their perks and power so zealously.  So rid of them we must be!

Bloomberg's money purchase power, the strategies it's purchasing for him, as delineated in that NYT article above (really encourage people to read it -- studded with revealing nuggets as it is  -- and he didn't just start these initiatives yesterday or last month, does look smart.  But he's definitely not exciting to the average voter.  Nor can I believe for a nano that the answer to our problems is a billionaire, who owns a whole lot of the financial and other information infrastructure as well as media.

Quote

One graduate of the Bloomberg program at Harvard is a leading opponent in the presidential race — Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., whose city also received $1 million from a Bloomberg program in 2018.

The one thing we can be 100% certain about, if we wish to go back to the failure of Hillary, is that one can't overestimate the sheer hostility to a woman with power, who doesn't hide that she's got some, in any area.  Ultimately, my guess is, this is what did in Harris so early in the game, that combined with skin color.  Woman of color, who isn't apologizing in the least for speaking with authority.  Women hate that as much as men do. (Not to mention her other negatives, even with people of color.)

ETA -- btw, where's Deval Patrick?   

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

I think that most would agree with this.  If we abandon the term centrist for a moment she certainly came across as the establishment, non-candidate.  And Biden sure seems like he's going the same.  And kind of embracing it.  

Not me.  Then and now, I see Clinton as less than ethical corporate sock puppet.  Stems back to the overpriced speeches she gave to big biz

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

I’m fairly certain buying people is illegal. 

Yup, there's an example of where a comma would have really helped.

[ThinkerX]

I can't really see this going anywhere, but McConnell and a couple other republican senators appear to have pre-flunked the 'impartiality test.'  Maybe an appeal to Roberts (peremptory challenge type deal) when the trial starts? If that did happen, the Trump base would go ballistic....

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/some-democrats-asks-mcconnell-to-recuse-himself-from-possible-senate-impeachment-trial/ar-AAK7XwJ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

 

 

In a Thursday evening interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, described his planning with the White House. 

"We'll be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time in total coordination with the White House counsel's office and the people who are representing the president as well as the Senate," McConnell said. 

That didn't go over well with Democrats, who expressed concern over the relationship.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the top Senate Democrat, pointed to provisions in the Constitution governing impeachment: that senators are to act as impartial jurors during a Senate trial on whether to remove Trump from office.

“If articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate, every single senator will take an oath to render ‘impartial justice,’" Schumer said. "Making sure the Senate conducts a fair and honest trial that allows all the facts to come out is paramount."

....

House Judiciary Committee Democrats denounced McConnell's remarks and some even called for him to recuse himself from the Senate trial. 

Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., said in a statement after the committee passed the articles of impeachment, “Senator McConnell has promised to sabotage that trial and he must recuse himself."

Demings said McConnell had already violated the "oath of impartiality required by the Constitution." 

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., told reporters McConnell’s words show the Senate trial will be a “sham,” a word frequently used by the president and Republicans to describe the impeachment proceedings in the House.

“To have the foreman of the jury, the person who sets all of the rules in the Senate for this trial, to come out and say he's closely coordinating with the chief defendant, the White House, and that he has already decided that it's not going to happen. I think that is an outrage, and the American people will think it's an outrage as well,” she said. “That is a sham. It is disrespectful to the Constitution, and I think everyone should demand a fair trial, from their senator and from Mitch McConnell.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., told reporters McConnell's statement "is a defeat of the constitutional design," noting McConnell is supposed to hold a fair trial.

“So, if Sen. McConnell is saying there's no chance that there's a conviction and he's coordinating with the White House, he essentially has surrendered the constitutional mandate that the Senate conducted a trial," he said.

[Altherion]

7 hours ago, Zorral said:

This is an interesting report as to how Bloomberg has organized a base for his POTUS campaign.

Bloomberg's campaign is downright weird. At the moment, it's hard to tell whether it is working: according to the FiveThirtyEight average, he currently ranks fifth behind Biden, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg. On the one hand, he only has half the percentage of even the least of the main four, but on the other, everyone else has been campaigning a lot longer.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Between Nunes, Barr, McConnell, Stephen Miller, Lindsey Graham and Donald Trump, any normal mind has to question whether there's a single ethical Republican in D.C.?

The Senate trial will be such an unfortunate proceeding, McConnell will insure the dishonor is baked in from the first gavel. The people are the losers here, but also our institutions and system of checks and balances have fallen into a mockery.

[Darryk]

17 hours ago, Triskele said:

I really believe that on this big question, too centrist versus too progressive, that was out there before the UK vote, that there's evidence out there to support both positions, and no one is really sure.  I am not sure which is the better electoral strategy, and I agonize about it.  

Clinton's candidacy is not that clear cut if you ask me.  While she was perceived as too centrist by the Bernie crowd for sure she also tried to present a very progressive platform on inclusivity.  

She also lost by a very narrow margin; three traditionally blue states that were swung on a few thousand votes.

Her decision not to visit Wisconsin (it was Wisconsin, mot Michigan as I mistakenly said earlier) that may have been the pivotal factor in the election.

That said, her coziness with Wall Street, and her support for the Iraq War and NAFTA, were always going to be sticks that Trump could beat her with; even though he's a complete Hypocrite on all those issues he could still fool people into thinking otherwise until he got elected.

[Darryk]

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

Bloomberg's campaign is downright weird. At the moment, it's hard to tell whether it is working: according to the FiveThirtyEight average, he currently ranks fifth behind Biden, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg. On the one hand, he only has half the percentage of even the least of the main four, but on the other, everyone else has been campaigning a lot longer.

Wasn't one of his main campaign policies to raise taxes on fizzy drinks so that "the poor" would buy less of them and it would be better for their health

[Ormond]

19 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Wasn't one of his main campaign policies to raise taxes on fizzy drinks so that "the poor" would buy less of them and it would be better for their health

It is not the "fizziness" that's an issue, it's the sugar content. Bloomberg is in favor of raising taxes on soft drinks that contain a lot of sugar, but I don't think it's fair to call it a "main" campaign policy, and the idea is far from unique to him. It's something the World Health Organization advocates, and the UK has a tax on carbonated soft drinks with is higher for those with more than 8 grams of sugar per 100 milliliters than those with lower sugar content. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-14/tax-soda-and-other-sugary-drinks-to-fight-obesity

I am not a Bloomberg supporter myself but think whether one is for or against a tax on sugared soft drinks, it's not one of the more important issues in judging him.

 

[Darryk]

1 minute ago, Ormond said:

It is not the "fizziness" that's an issue, it's the sugar content. Bloomberg is in favor of raising taxes on soft drinks that contain a lot of sugar, but I don't think it's fair to call it a "main" campaign policy, and the idea is far from unique to him. It's something the World Health Organization advocates, and the UK has a tax on carbonated soft drinks with is higher for those with more than 8 grams of sugar per 100 milliliters than those with lower sugar content. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-14/tax-soda-and-other-sugary-drinks-to-fight-obesity

I am not a Bloomberg supporter myself but think whether one is for or against a tax on sugared soft drinks, it's not one of the more important issues in judging him.

 

Seems to me like a form of social engineering through taxes. It may only be one of many policies but it's an indication that he's a politician who believes he should be interfering in people's personal choices, and doing it a way that just hurts consumers.

Maybe he should be more focused on reducing income inequality, so that people can afford to pay for healthier, more wholesome food if they choose, and don't feel as much need to turn to high-sugar content to deal with the stress of crappy jobs and bills.

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I am not a Bloomberg supporter myself but think whether one is for or against a tax on sugared soft drinks, it's not one of the more important issues in judging him.

You just don't know how important soft drinks are to many voters!  For me, I need broad and cheap accessibility to soda so I can mix it with shitty whisky or gin in order to keep my alcoholism in check.  (Well, maybe not in check, but..)

52 minutes ago, Darryk said:

That said, her coziness with Wall Street, and her support for the Iraq War and NAFTA, were always going to be sticks that Trump could beat her with

The rapid polarization of attitudes on free trade during the 2016 campaign strongly suggests the direction of causality and answer to the "who leads whom" question was decidedly the candidate shifting public opinion.  In other words, GOP leaning voters became free-trade skeptics because they already supported Trump, rather than Trump capitalizing on GOP leaning voters already being free-trade skeptics.  As for the Iraq War, I think it's fairly apparent that was not remotely a salient issue for voters in the 2016 campaign.

[Zorral]

Bloomberg's essentially bought he Dem Donor Establishment.

This article gives actual dollar amounts (millions and millions and millions) he's doled out at least since the 2016 campaign to various organizations -- some of which he created and funds -- and specific individuals.

Rather than sugary drinks one might think he'd best known for his gun control, anti-NRA campaign and his save the environment efforts. That's what the rethugs and xtians and etc. are more concerned about anyway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mike-bloombergs-spending-spree-8-billion-in-philanthropy-and-tens-of-millions-to-political-causes/2019/12/14/8a9e1956-1d13-11ea-87f7-f2e91143c60d_story.html

Quote

 

....Though he has sworn off fundraising for his own campaign, he has made himself a top Democratic Party donor in just the past few weeks, quietly giving the party $625,000 to distribute to infrastructure efforts atop the $175,000 required of all candidates for access to the Democratic National Committee’s voter data. In coming days, his campaign plans to rally wealthy New York activists and donors to give more money to state parties for their programs to register and turn out voters....

....When he travels, large sums of his money tend to precede him or get left in his wake. When he makes phone calls, rank-and-file Democratic leaders buzz with excitement at the possibility of a check. It is a distinct advantage that no other candidate has ever had — an effectively bottomless pocketbook to achieve his aims of making himself the nominee and defeating President Trump.

Bloomberg’s new spending builds on a spree that extends back years, reflecting his political priorities and benefiting groups with influence in determining the Democratic nomination Bloomberg is now seeking....

 

 

[Darryk]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

You just don't know how important soft drinks are to many voters!  For me, I need broad and cheap accessibility to soda so I can mix it with shitty whisky or gin in order to keep my alcoholism in check.  (Well, maybe not in check, but..)

The rapid polarization of attitudes on free trade during the 2016 campaign strongly suggests the direction of causality and answer to the "who leads whom" question was decidedly the candidate shifting public opinion.  In other words, GOP leaning voters became free-trade skeptics because they already supported Trump, rather than Trump capitalizing on GOP leaning voters already being free-trade skeptics.  As for the Iraq War, I think it's fairly apparent that was not remotely a salient issue for voters in the 2016 campaign.

It's not so much the GOP-leaning voters, who are basically cult worshipers of Trump at this point, but rather independents who live in the Rust Belt who would have been swayed by his rhetoric on trade. Correct me if I'm wrong but the three Rust Belt states that won Trump the election (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) had all voted for Obama in the previous two elections.

As for the Iraq War it just contributed to Hillary's reputation as a war hawk, and Trump's thing of "we should spend less time invading countries and more time rebuilding our own infrastructure" surely resonated with a lot of voters, even though Trump turned out to be full of shit on that issue as he was on all the others that won him the election.

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, Darryk said:

It's not so much the GOP-leaning voters, who are basically cult worshipers of Trump at this point, but rather independents who live in the Rust Belt who would have been swayed by his rhetoric on trade.

I was referring to them as "GOP-leaning voters" to conform to the methodology of the poll I linked - there was no "independent" option item, so you have to assume if the respondent said they were GOP-leaning in 2016, they almost certainly voted for Trump (a pretty safe assumption).  Anyway, while you can conceivably arguing almost anything would have switched the results in the 3 rust belt states since they were so close, there's little evidence indicating trade policy had any discernible impact on vote choice.

And no, no one really cared about foreign policy overall in the general, let alone Hillary's vote on Iraq 14 years earlier.

[Fragile Bird]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

Bloomberg's essentially bought he Dem Donor Establishment.

This article gives actual dollar amounts (millions and millions and millions) he's doled out at least since the 2016 campaign to various organizations -- some of which he created and funds -- and specific individuals.

At least he puts his money where his mouth is! How much has Trump donated? He didn’t even donate to his own damn campaign, he lent his campaign money and paid himself back with donations.

While we can all be very cynical about billionaires buying elections, you don’t see many other billionaires spending both politically and philanthropically the way he does. Bill Gates spends philanthropically, but he has a helluva a lot more money. I’m not sure about his political donations.

eta: looks like Gates has only made minor political donations, about a million, mainly to Democrats, 88%.