US Politics: Mail and Managers for Mitch

[Tywin Manderly]

Please continue. 

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

There's something that I can't make sense of (Trump-related, so maybe that's the only explanation needed) which is the report that Trump hitting Soleimani was done in part to garner / ensure support from GOP Senators for the upcoming impeachment trial.  

Did he have any reason to doubt that he had overwhelming support?  

It could be something as simple as Stephen Miller saying, "Senator So and So will desert you if you chicken out on this." Josh Marshall's version of Occam's Razor for the Trump administration is to assume the stupidest possible explanation that fits available facts.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

There's something that I can't make sense of (Trump-related, so maybe that's the only explanation needed) which is the report that Trump hitting Soleimani was done in part to garner / ensure support from GOP Senators for the upcoming impeachment trial.  

Did he have any reason to doubt that he had overwhelming support?  

if, perhaps, there was a secret ballot.  I saw an article or two that claimed 30+ republican senators would vote to impeach were that the case.  however, a secret ballot, is, of course, highly unlikely.

[Martell Spy]

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

It could be something as simple as Stephen Miller saying, "Senator So and So will desert you if you chicken out on this." Josh Marshall's version of Occam's Razor for the Trump administration is to assume the stupidest possible explanation that fits available facts.

Well, then it was clearly something Hannity or Fox and Friends said. Or some random retired stock-broker at Mar-a-Lago.

[DMC]

Seen these reports and I don't buy it.  No one was "pressuring" Trump to kill Soleimani, the opportunity has been there for years now.  Based on the timing, Occam's razor strongly suggests Trump did it because he just got impeached and he thought this would look cool to his base - and generally serve as a distraction.  And, at least so far, it appears he was right.

[Martell Spy]

Amid Iran Crisis, Russia’s Mideast Presence Just Keeps Growing
One example: At the peak of the pre-war crises around Iran, German Chancellor Merkel has gone to see Putin, not Trump, looking for solutions.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/amid-iran-crisis-russias-mideast-presence-just-keeps-growing?ref=home

Quote

 

MOSCOW—The balance of power in the Middle East is shifting. German Chancellor Angela Merkel arrived in Moscow on Saturday to discuss the crises there with President Vladimir Putin and try to save what’s left of the Iran nuclear deal.

In spite of U.S. President Donald Trump’s calls to put “maximum pressure” on Iran’s “bad deal,” Merkel said everything should be done to keep the agreement.

And Russian politicians gloated: “This is remarkable, at the peak of the pre-war crises around Iran, Merkel is coming to Putin and not to Trump. Negotiations with Trump would make no sense, he would just repeat his statements,” Senator Aleksey Pushkov told Russian news agencies. 

Whoever has American bases on their territory (including Germany) should pay attention to Washington threatening Iraq with severe sanctions, Chair of the Federation Council Committee of Foreign Policy Konstantin Kosachev said: “Alliances with the USA might look romantic, devoted to values, peace and democracy but only on the surface.” 

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

17 hours ago, DMC said:

Seen these reports and I don't buy it.  No one was "pressuring" Trump to kill Soleimani, the opportunity has been there for years now.  Based on the timing, Occam's razor strongly suggests Trump did it because he just got impeached and he thought this would look cool to his base - and generally serve as a distraction.  And, at least so far, it appears he was right.

A good way for a president to guarantee re-election is to get the country into a popular war that has broad public support. The assassination could have been a dip of the toe into the water to see how much popular support there is for warring with Iran. Because if getting into a popular war is good for re-election, getting into an unpopular war can be bad for re-election. 

[kiko]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Amid Iran Crisis, Russia’s Mideast Presence Just Keeps Growing
One example: At the peak of the pre-war crises around Iran, German Chancellor Merkel has gone to see Putin, not Trump, looking for solutions.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/amid-iran-crisis-russias-mideast-presence-just-keeps-growing?ref=home

 

At this point it would be mad to trust the US government with anything. Ask the Kurds what it brought them.

The big question is who is the next US ally who will be stabbed in the back. If I were a   cleptocrat somewhere in the middle east with US bases in the Co, I would have a very, very bad sleep right now.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Booker is out.  

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Booker is out.  

 

[Zorral]

This guy essentially advised the only way for the Dems to win the election is to run hard, harder and hardest AGAINST the incumbent.  No agenda -- left, right, middle -- will fire up the voters that are necessary to win, only being louder than he is and more constant in the message of NOT HIM ANYMORE, HE IS KILLING YOU, YOUR CHILDRN, THE PLANET and YOUR ECONOMY. If whomever the Dem DNC chooses doesn't do that, the Dems lose the electoral college. Whether or not one hates the electoral college with all the heat of a thousand burning suns, the electoral college is the fact, and that is that.

He can be heard expounding here:

https://www.wnyc.org/story/the-brian-lehrer-show-2020-01-13

Quote

Rick Wilson, former Republican political strategist, political commentator and the author of Running Against the Devil: A Plot to Save America from Trump--and Democrats from Themselves (Crown, 2020), argues the 2020 presidential election is the Democrats to lose, and weighs in on who he wants them to pick.

He thinks Amy Klobachar is The One.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bloomberg says he's willing to spend much of his fortune to rid the USA of the bedbug infestation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg/im-spending-all-my-money-to-get-rid-of-trump-michael-bloomberg-idUSKBN1ZB08S

[Kalbear]

@Triskele, wanted to bring back something you said earlier, which was that Sanders was leading with black voters. That poll appears to be something of an outlier. In general, they are supporting Biden, though younger black voters tend to support Sanders.

 

[Fez]

The Washington Post has updated their "Which Democratic candidates agree with you the most?" poll. It's 20 questions now and only covers the candidates still in the race; though a couple gadflys (lol Michael Bennett) were left off.

Yang still scores surprisingly high for me, at 14/20, but I do think overall its better calibrated than before. I'm most aligned with Biden at 15/20, and Klobuchar is also at 14/20. And I'm least aligned with Sanders at 6/20 and Warren at 7/20. Bloomberg is also only at 6/20, but that appears to be because he hasn't given a position on half the questions being asked.

Unless Klobuchar has a moment for herself in the next couple months I think I've resigned myself to voting for Biden. I wish he was younger, less gaffe prone, and less stuck in ways about bipartisanship; but I can't ignore how consistently he polls the strongest in general election matchups. I was kinda excited about Buttigeig at first, but he has been a disappointment. And Booker never took off at all and is now out; same goes for the various governors that might've been the strongest general election nominees of all (I can envision a world where Steve Bullock beats Trump in a landslide).

[Zorral]

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

Bloomberg is also only at 6/20, but that appears to be because he hasn't given a position on half the questions being asked.

Well, we know his position is fumigate bedbug infestation. Some say that is the only position a Dem should be bothering with, since the situation is this dire.

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

Not sure what this is referring to.  Definitely didn't say Sanders was leading; just that I was surprised that he was comfortably in second 20% to Warren's 9% (to Biden's 48%).

Ah, I thought you were saying that Sanders was ahead. Gotcha. 

I'm not surprised he's ahead of Warren. Women are in general going to have a harder time, and Warren has not spent a lot of time developing those contacts. Sanders isn't great either, mind you, but he's spent a lot more time. 

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

The Washington Post has updated their "Which Democratic candidates agree with you the most?" poll. It's 20 questions now and only covers the candidates still in the race; though a couple gadflys (lol Michael Bennett) were left off.

Yang still scores surprisingly high for me, at 14/20, but I do think overall its better calibrated than before. I'm most aligned with Biden at 15/20, and Klobuchar is also at 14/20. And I'm least aligned with Sanders at 6/20 and Warren at 7/20. Bloomberg is also only at 6/20, but that appears to be because he hasn't given a position on half the questions being asked.

Unless Klobuchar has a moment for herself in the next couple months I think I've resigned myself to voting for Biden. I wish he was younger, less gaffe prone, and less stuck in ways about bipartisanship; but I can't ignore how consistently he polls the strongest in general election matchups. I was kinda excited about Buttigeig at first, but he has been a disappointment. And Booker never took off at all and is now out; same goes for the various governors that might've been the strongest general election nominees of all (I can envision a world where Steve Bullock beats Trump in a landslide).

just took this.  pretty much a six way 'blah' tie, with no candidate coming in above 13 points (most at 12).  Sanders and Warren came in the lowest.  

 

I'd also point out that the poll did not address my concerns about age, big money ties, or ethics.

 

guess I'm not a democrat.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

The Washington Post has updated their "Which Democratic candidates agree with you the most?" poll. It's 20 questions now and only covers the candidates still in the race; though a couple gadflys (lol Michael Bennett) were left off.

Yang still scores surprisingly high for me, at 14/20, but I do think overall its better calibrated than before. I'm most aligned with Biden at 15/20, and Klobuchar is also at 14/20. And I'm least aligned with Sanders at 6/20 and Warren at 7/20. Bloomberg is also only at 6/20, but that appears to be because he hasn't given a position on half the questions being asked.

Unless Klobuchar has a moment for herself in the next couple months I think I've resigned myself to voting for Biden. I wish he was younger, less gaffe prone, and less stuck in ways about bipartisanship; but I can't ignore how consistently he polls the strongest in general election matchups. I was kinda excited about Buttigeig at first, but he has been a disappointment. And Booker never took off at all and is now out; same goes for the various governors that might've been the strongest general election nominees of all (I can envision a world where Steve Bullock beats Trump in a landslide).

Not that it matters for me, but I didn't click strongly with any candidate's positions. Warren was highest with 11 everyone else was under 10. I suspected I would be most well aligned with either Warren or Sanders.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Booker is out.  

I saw a graphic last week that told you all you needed to know. Booker’s campaign spent around $250,000 in T.V. ads. Compare that with the two billionaires who have both spent over $100,000,000. There’s no way to break through against that kind of money.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Zorral said:

He thinks Amy Klobachar is The One.

Amy could probably clean his clock, but she'll never win the primary. Too boring and too moderate for the current zeitgeist. 

[Mudguard]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

The Washington Post has updated their "Which Democratic candidates agree with you the most?" poll. It's 20 questions now and only covers the candidates still in the race; though a couple gadflys (lol Michael Bennett) were left off.

Yang still scores surprisingly high for me, at 14/20, but I do think overall its better calibrated than before. I'm most aligned with Biden at 15/20, and Klobuchar is also at 14/20. And I'm least aligned with Sanders at 6/20 and Warren at 7/20. Bloomberg is also only at 6/20, but that appears to be because he hasn't given a position on half the questions being asked.

Unless Klobuchar has a moment for herself in the next couple months I think I've resigned myself to voting for Biden. I wish he was younger, less gaffe prone, and less stuck in ways about bipartisanship; but I can't ignore how consistently he polls the strongest in general election matchups. I was kinda excited about Buttigeig at first, but he has been a disappointment. And Booker never took off at all and is now out; same goes for the various governors that might've been the strongest general election nominees of all (I can envision a world where Steve Bullock beats Trump in a landslide).

I'm most aligned with Yang (15/20), Bloomberg (14/20), and Biden (13/20).  Gabbard (9/20), Warren (7/20) and Sanders (4/20) are my bottom three.  I'll probably vote Yang in the primary.  I very much doubt that he'll win the nomination, but I like him the most so far. 

Even though I don't match as closely with Sanders ideologically, I don't have a problem with the direction he wants to go, and I wouldn't have a problem voting for him.  I like Sander's authenticity.  I'd rather vote Sanders than Biden.  

Of the top 4 polling candidates, I like Sanders the most, followed by Buttigieg, Warren, and Biden.  I'd be totally OK with any of my top three, just don't want Biden.