US Politics: Nancy's Knock on the Senate Door

[Tywin et al.]

58 minutes ago, DMC said:

Clinton's political skill wasn't really "authenticity," it was empathy - the "I feel your pain" *half thumbs-up* that became a parody (and indeed can come across as quite inauthentic).  The best example is the second debate in 1992.  It was the first presidential debate to employ the town hall format, and Clinton flourished.  Here's a write-up on Clinton' success in such a format.  Clinton expertly employed his charm this way, and he was definitely the best politician of my lifetime when it comes to those type of interpersonal interactions.

I skimmed the article and didn't see any a reference to it, but is that the debate that Bush famously looked at his watch like the audience wasn't worth his time? I recall that event along with not knowing how shop made him seem unlikable while Slick Willy laid out the maximum charm offensive. 

 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

is that the debate that Bush famously looked at his watch like the audience wasn't worth his time? I recall that event along with not knowing how shop made him seem unlikable

Yes, it was.  As for the second sentence, I believe you're referring to Bush not knowing the price of milk?  Not sure which of the 92 debates that was from off the top of my head.

[Tywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, it was.  As for the second sentence, I believe you're referring to Bush not knowing the price of milk?  Not sure which of the 92 debates that was from off the top of my head.

I could be mixing it up, but I swore one of the things that hurt him was that he simply didn't know how to shop because he had been so removed from normal everyday life for so long. It could have been someone else though. I just remember in a Campaigns and Elections course we went over limit moments from presidential elections from 1960-2008 that had outside influences on the election and not knowing how to shop was one of the examples.

 

(drink beer tonight you red wine swine ) 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I swore one of the things that hurt him was that he simply didn't know how to shop because he had been so removed from normal everyday life for so long.

Ah, yes, you're referring to this, which I believe is what motivated the price of milk question in the first place.  As that link details, that story may be apocryphal.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

(drink beer tonight you red wine swine ) 

Never - it's bourbon and gin all night long!

[Week]

Trump drawing us into the middle East way as a reelection gambit...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/us/politics/trump-iran-baghdad-embassy.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

[KingintheNorth4]

Happy New Year everybody, recreational marijuana is now legal in my home state of Illinois, so if you ever find yourself in the Land of Lincoln, go ahead and light up a blunt.

[Durckad]

Warren

1. She's obviously very progressive but seems more willing to compromise on some things than, say, Bernie and I'd be much less worried that she'd sell out to the moneyed interests than Buttigieg, Biden, or yes even Booker.

2. She has clearly articulated her goals and reasons for running for President. To me, Booker has not.

3. She is smart, articulate, and charismatic enough. Booker is too but I do not think he is to any greater degree.

4. She has a history of fighting for the things I most care about, mostly corruption, campaign finance, trying to rein in the big banks, and being ostensibly very much for the middle class.

I do think she has some weaknesses and my support for her has softened a bit lately but she is still my top pick. Her biggest weakness is I'm not sure how well she would do in a debate with Trump but honestly, I don't see Booker doing much better here either.

Booker just engenders no strong feelings in me whereas I really wanted Warren to run back in 2016 and was disappointed when she didn't.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Trump unilaterally pulling out of Iran deal continues to have lethal consequences.  Thanks, Obama. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Wasn't Booker a Rhodes Scholar as well as a college Football player?

His bio is pretty impressive, I too am surprised he hasn't gotten more traction. I can put myself in that camp though in that I'm leaning towards Warren and haven't put Corey as my favored nominee. Maybe a Warren/Booker ticket would be something attractive for me, but I don't think we'll see one.

Worst fear still is that Biden gets it because everyone is trying to be too cute with the "electability" dance and what we end up with is a ticket that inspires low turnout and results in the incumbent reelected........It could happen folks, this economy is strong enough that millions don't want any change.

[ThinkerX]

12 hours ago, Triskele said:

Folks, don't tell me why Booker is a flawed candidate.  Tell me why your general when we're going to war for democracy should be someone else and why.  

My take, for what little it might be worth.

Warren has a long history of combating financial corruption - among other things being one of the very few who legitimately called the 2007-2008 crash years before it happened.  My main concern with her is that she's old, and will be a one term president because of that.

 

With Booker, my very first thought is 'who?'  My second thought is 'fake.' 

[DMC]

Not much going on, but thought this was interesting and might drum up discussion:

Why Pete Buttigieg Enrages the Young Left:  It’s deeply personal—and not just because he’s challenging Bernie

Quote

The unspoken truth about the furor Buttigieg arouses is that his success threatens a core belief of young progressives: that their ideology owns the future, and that the rise of millennials into Democratic politics is going to bring an inevitable demographic triumph for the party’s far left wing.

The left believes the youth are on its side—and as shown by Bernie Sanders’ popularity among the under-30 set, as shown in a recent Quinnipiac poll, they’re apparently right. In a primary debate with the incumbent former Rep. Joe Crowley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, “I represent not just my campaign, but a movement.” Mobilized young Democratic Socialists of America members have raved to the New York Times about how the DSA is “what the Democratic Party should be.” Waleed Shahid, spokesman for the Ocasio-Cortez-aligned Justice Democrats, has dramatized the generational struggle by interpolating a famous Gramsci quote with his pinned tweet: “The old America is dying. A new America is struggling to be born. Now is a time of monsters.”

So it’s especially galling that the first millennial to take a serious run at the presidency is nothing like the left’s imagined savior. Buttigieg is a veteran, an outspoken Christian, a former McKinsey consultant, and, frankly, closer to Mitt Romney than Sanders or generational peer AOC in his aw shucks personal affect. In the eyes of radicalized young leftists, Buttigieg isn’t just an ideological foe, he’s worse than that: He’s a square.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

39 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not much going on, but thought this was interesting and might drum up discussion:

Why Pete Buttigieg Enrages the Young Left:  It’s deeply personal—and not just because he’s challenging Bernie

 

I love how the media is losing their collective shit about why the left and young progressives aren't swooning over Buttigieg. 

Maybe it's because he's been attacking progressive policies and doesn't represent their ideals, parrots Republican talking points on M4A , and is out of touch with the working class, young people, and people of color.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Maybe it's because he's been attacking progressive policies and doesn't represent their ideals, parrots Republican talking points on M4A , and is out of touch with the working class, young people, and people of color.

I think this type of vehemence in a damn primary is the reason why it's so surprising to media types.  Like, I worked my ass off trying to get Obama to beat Hillary, but I never described her with such invective, unless I got blackout I guess.  The policy differences are minimal and the candidates are going to gin those differences up because they are competing, but if any one of the nominees does beat Trump, their administration is going to look strikingly similar to any other primary rivals' in terms of policy outcomes - outside of Gabbard I suppose.  I agree that a lot of the assumptions made in that piece are questionable to say the least, but I think it raises a very good point that the faction of the left that is this "outraged" by Pete Fucking Buttigieg is overemphasized and not truly representative of where many in the younger generational - Millennial and Gen Z - voters really are.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I love how the media is losing their collective shit about why the left and young progressives aren't swooning over Buttigieg. 

Maybe it's because he's been attacking progressive policies and doesn't represent their ideals, parrots Republican talking points on M4A , and is out of touch with the working class, young people, and people of color.

No, it's because he's a square. I don't care that he represents the very ideology I believe is hurting millions of U.S. citizens (let alone the rest of the world). He's just a fucking square.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Something related to that though that's another interesting development is that Warren seems to be dialing down talking about M4A lately.

If it's true that Sanders is is really back in the mix I suspect that he will not go that route like Warren and will continue to talk it up.  

If Sanders were to win the Dem nomination that will be very risky to continue to talk up M4A in the general election.  It's like Warren has already determined that it's too risky even for the Dem primary.

I don't know, some argue that it's precisely Warren's (and others) walking back M4A that contributed to her backwards slide. I would be shocked if Bernie walked it back, even if it did hurt him. He's got his stances, and he's not shifting those due to polling. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I don't know, some argue that it's precisely Warren's (and others) walking back M4A that contributed to her backwards slide.

As I've said before, while her slide does coincide with capitulating on MFA, her losses are very easily identified as predominately going to Buttigieg rather than Sanders.  Which clearly indicates objection to her compromising on MFA based on support for the policy is classic correlation without causation. 

[Jeor]

For politicians it used to be an asset to be safe and boring, a "steady pair of hands" and so on. People could almost legitimately run on an "I'm not going to stuff things up" sort of platform. But I think there's been a gradual shift in politics where people now want to be excited and entertained, and they demand and expect more from their candidate than they used to (compromise is a dirty word, etc etc). This is amplified in the primaries, where this tendency towards infotainment is bread and butter for the media.

I think Booker and Buttigieg suffer from this, in that they're inherently boring. Sanders and Warren have had hardcore, fanatical support at times.

I think it also explains Trump's ascendancy. He won the Republican primary by taking out the "boring" candidates - low energy Jeb Bush et al. His major challenger, Ted Cruz, was also a conservative firebrand who was controversial and outspoken. Trump entertains and excites his base.

What it doesn't explain is Joe Biden. Maybe he overcomes his "boringness" because of the nostalgic Obama memories and the fact that he, out of all candidates, is the most anti-Trump on a personal level.

[Paladin of Ice]

On 12/31/2019 at 7:03 PM, Week said:

Trump drawing us into the middle East way as a reelection gambit...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/us/politics/trump-iran-baghdad-embassy.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I doubt it personally. He'll most likely saber rattle and then do nothing. He doesn't have the guts for a fight that might not go his way, and he definitely doesn't want to fight Russia's client state and make daddy Putin mad.

By the way, the Iranian, Chinese, and Russian navies just did 4 days of joint exercises together in the Indian Ocean. That alone would be a pretty unsubtle statement,  but the the commander of Iran's navy said the quiet part out loud just in case we didn't get it and said that it marks the end of U.S. dominance in the region. As far as Iran is concerned, it now has Russia and China's backing to be the #1 power in the region.

Trump wouldn't stand up to threats from the Turks. I doubt he's suddenly willing to stand up to Iran, Russia, and China in a shooting war. Take your pick of which news source you want. Navy Times. Al-Jazeera. Newsweek.

Quote

Iran has kicked off the first joint naval drill with Russia and China in the northern part of the Indian Ocean, Iranian state TV has reported.

The four-day exercise comes at a time of heightened tensions since the United States withdrew from a landmark 2015 nuclear deal with Iran in May last year.

"The message of this exercise is peace, friendship and lasting security through cooperation and unity ... and its effect will be to show that Iran cannot be isolated," Rear Admiral Gholamreza Tahani said on state television.

Tahani added that the drills included rescuing ships on fire or vessels under attack by pirates and shooting exercises, with both Iran's navy and its Revolutionary Guards participating.

State television showed what it said was a Russian warship arriving at Chabahar port in southern Iran and said the Chinese will join shortly, calling the three countries "the new triangle of power in the sea".

"The aim of this drill is to bolster security of international maritime commerce, combatting piracy and terrorism and sharing information ... and experience," the flotilla commander said.

"Us hosting these powers shows that our relations have reached a meaningful point and may have an international impact," he added.

Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Wu Qian said on Thursday the drill would "deepen exchange and cooperation between the navies of the three countries." He said the Chinese navy's guided-missile destroyer "Xining" was taking part in the exercise. 

 

Quote

The commander of Iran's navy has warned that the U.S. has no business in Middle Eastern waters after his forces held joint naval drills with Russia and China.

Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi told reporters Sunday that the four-day exercise in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Oman—dubbed "Marine Security Belt"—was a signal to U.S. forces operating in the region.

"Today, the era of American free action in the region is over," Khanzadi said, according to the Iranian Tasnim news agency. "They must leave the region gradually," he added.

The rear admiral said U.S. forces are not needed to ensure security in the area, where American and Iranian forces have been facing off amid high tensions between Washington and Tehran over the collapsed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal.

The joint drills coincided with an attack on American forces in Iraq, suspected to have been launched by an Iranian-backed militia.

...

"Regional countries themselves can ensure security together," he said. "The presence of Americans only creates insecurity in the region," he added, according to the state-backed Fars news agency.

The rear admiral suggested that Iran's "friends" would be reassured by the exercises, while its adversaries should take the drills as a warning. He also said he hoped more regional nations would join future Iranian exercises. "We believe that maritime security definitely needs collective action," Khanzadi explained.

Honestly, even if he was trying to ride a war into reelection, I think he'd find that much of the US public is tapped out on war. And maybe if he tries throwing his (considerable) weight around somewhere, perhaps other nations that have leverage over him due to his own stupidity decide to screw him over in time for his election. Like maybe China decides not to do anything further towards a trade deal until 2021, just to screw him over so he doesn't have a deal to sell the 45 cult as proof of his "stable genius".

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Honestly, even if he was trying to ride a war into reelection, I think he'd find that much of the US public is tapped out on war. And maybe if he tries throwing his (considerable) weight around somewhere, perhaps other nations that have leverage over him due to his own stupidity decide to screw him over in time for his election. Like maybe China decides not to do anything further towards a trade deal until 2021, just to screw him over so he doesn't have a deal to sell the 45 cult as proof of his "stable genius".

While China no doubt finds Trump irritating, indications are that they see how rapidly American power is declining on his watch, and are willing to accept the headaches.  I fully expect that China will tacitly (and quite possibly actively) work to help Trump get reelected. 

[Paladin of Ice]

13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

While China no doubt finds Trump irritating, indications are that they see how rapidly American power is declining on his watch, and are willing to accept the headaches.  I fully expect that China will tacitly (and quite possibly actively) work to help Trump get reelected. 

Oh sure. I believe China considers Trump a simultaneous threat, (because he's an idiotic giant flailing blindly, which means he could fuck up anything at any given time and nobody could know what it'll be) and an opportunity, because... well, just read the bit in the parenthesis again.

Plus every time Trump calls alliances into question, every time he cuts back on aid to other countries or trashes multi-lateral international agreements, Chinese leaders rub their hands together and see a chance to spread their influence instead. Just like they love the refusal to invest in Green Energy, since it lets them corner the market on solar instead.

10 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I love how the media is losing their collective shit about why the left and young progressives aren't swooning over Buttigieg. 

Maybe it's because he's been attacking progressive policies and doesn't represent their ideals, parrots Republican talking points on M4A , and is out of touch with the working class, young people, and people of color.

Yeah, there's no way it could be because "Mayor Pete" is a slightly tweaked and updated form of the neoliberalism that has been failing most people under 40 their entire lives. It must be something else. If only we could figure out what...

6 hours ago, Jeor said:

What it doesn't explain is Joe Biden. Maybe he overcomes his "boringness" because of the nostalgic Obama memories and the fact that he, out of all candidates, is the most anti-Trump on a personal level.

I'd say Biden benefits from a number of things including: Obama nostalgia, "I just want things to go back to normal" voters, union support due to his history of being a union backer, the Dem voters who follow the party's lead loyally, and, ironically enough, identity politics.

By the last I don't mean the BS identity politics that all the frustrated non-PC alt-Reich types decry, but the real sort that happens in the minds of everyone, which boils down to "Do I relate to this candidate? Do I see myself in them?" And for a lot of older voters, the answer is yes when they look at Biden. Things that should mark him as out of touch and a fossil make them smile because they feel the same way and remember the same things.

Like the 1981 Biden op-ed Gilibrand brought up in the 2nd debate (IIRC) about subsidizing day care for families where both people worked. The next day on call in news shows on NPR I heard a ton of people whose call-in didn't touch on the issues of the '81 bill, whether the proposed subsidies should have had a certain income cut-off point, or whether Gilibrand was summarizing it accurately, but instead essentially went "Hey, I was an adult in '81 and I remember how I thought back then that my wife shouldn't have to work either. This doesn't make me less inclined to vote for Biden, only more!"

That sort of identifying misses what should have been the point, namely that the person calling in who thought that is Joe Schmoe, and Biden was a U.S. Senator who had access to all the information in the world pointing out how the financial reality was changing for the worse for Americans and that they could no longer get by with one person staying at home. Then, rather than do something about it, he took the news to rail against the existence of daycares and nursing homes and say that people showed a lack of responsibility by not forcing themselves to take care of their kids, aging parents, and elderly grandparents on the salary of a single breadwinner. By all rights, between the info Biden had access to and having had to raise his kids by himself after his wife died, he should have been ahead of the pack on that one, but instead he was behind.

It also misses the point that missing the point in such a fashion is more or less the hallmark of Biden's time in office, despite the fact that he has inarguably also done a lot of good in that time. (For one, thanks for keeping Bork off the bench Biden. That did a world of good.)

 

Shifting gears, in inevitable news, Castro has formally dropped out of the race.