US Politics: Mail and Managers for Mitch

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There are certainly issues to gamble on, and of the three you listed I'd absolutely be willing to take a wild swing if we could get some meaningful action on climate change. But those type of wild swings have consequences. For example, Johnson was absolute in the right to pass the VRA and the CRA, but even he knew that the consequences would be severe. And they were.

See above. We have real life examples of it happening, and Sanders represents a real risk of it occurring and everything you just cited is a result of one of those massive swings.

But the Tea Party and Trump are direct swings cause by the mere presence of a black president. Would they have happened if a generic white male Democrat had won? Probably not. Hence, an increase in the scale of the swing.

Bolded:

Bull.  Fucking.  Shit.  That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back to bring them out of the woodwork, if I may combine colloquialisms.  But electing a black president didn't cause them.  If you want to take a Hegelian approach perhaps look at it as opposing but existing forces resolving.

Eta:. The right wing in this country has been on an acelerating course of batshit cruelty and hatred for way before 2008.  It's funny that you think electing Obama caused it though.

[IheartIheartTesla]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the reason you go safe is because there are a lot of people who don't like Trump, but won't support a legit leftist (see @Mlle. Zabzie). It's a lot easier to get them to go for a moderate.

There are also 6 million Obama-Trump voters for whom economic anxiety is paramount, and I dont see how a moderate like Biden will sway them when they already have Trump who is at least maintaining something of a status quo for them (or they are convinced he is). Now I don't think anyone knows which numbers are greater particularly in the swing states, or else we could be projecting our own electoral maps right now.

The truth is, we wont know how things will pan out until certain events are actually set into motion. The only thing that I worry about is the Republican's oppo research on Sanders, which wouldn't change my mind, but may give others some pause. Then again, the oppo research on Trump is probably just as brutal or worse and wont change many minds, so it seems to me that the old way of thinking about these things may not be as relevant.

[Mudguard]

59 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There are certainly issues to gamble on, and of the three you listed I'd absolutely be willing to take a wild swing if we could get some meaningful action on climate change. But those type of wild swings have consequences. For example, Johnson was absolute in the right to pass the VRA and the CRA, but even he knew that the consequences would be severe. And they were.

See above. We have real life examples of it happening, and Sanders represents a real risk of it occurring and everything you just cited is a result of one of those massive swings.

But the Tea Party and Trump are direct swings cause by the mere presence of a black president. Would they have happened if a generic white male Democrat had won? Probably not. Hence, an increase in the scale of the swing.

As everyone here agrees, Sanders isn't going to be able to pass any meaningful legislation, so the comparison to Johnson passing major legislation that caused severe consequences doesn't work.

I also don't agree that the election of a black president caused a swing to Republicans.  If that was the case, Obama shouldn't have gotten reelected, which he did easily.  And Trump barely won because Clinton was a terrible candidate that still was able to win the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. 

[Martell Spy]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the reason you go safe is because there are a lot of people who don't like Trump, but won't support a legit leftist (see @Mlle. Zabzie). It's a lot easier to get them to go for a moderate. 

Do not forget, Americans like liberal policies more than conservative ones, but the country's starting point is still from a conservative position.

It's nice to have gadflies in the legislature, not in the executive.

Didn't we try running the "safe" moderate candidate in 2016?

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Didn't we try running the "safe" moderate candidate in 2016?

No, because she was a woman. And a first of anything is never moderate. 

[Altherion]

Sanders recently tweeted something along the lines of him wanting to be at campaign events, but needing to be at the Senate for the trial and hoping that the American people will understand. There's obviously no way to prove this, but I've seen a really neat idea mentioned at a few sites: what if this was the true goal of Pelosi's delay of impeachment maneuver?

That is, trying to force the Senate to conduct a trial with rules imposed on them by the House with the alternative being that the articles of impeachment would not be sent always seemed silly -- McConnell doesn't care if the trial is delayed so holding the articles does not amount to leverage. However, Pelosi is one of the most canny politicians in Washington. What if she knew that she has no chance of making the Senate dance to her tune and never cared about influencing the rules of the trial in the first place? What if the the real purpose of this novel maneuver is the delay itself? Sanders and Warren are sitting Senators and must be present for the trial whereas Biden is no longer a Senator and gets to campaign just before the early primaries and caucuses unopposed by his two closest competitors?

Again, there's no way to prove this, but it would be pretty clever of Pelosi if this was her real goal all along.

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

No, because she was a woman. And a first of anything is never moderate. 

So, if Warren is nominated and loses, it will be because she is a woman and not her left-leaning policies? The leftists then get to try again next time, since this time did not count?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

So, if Warren is nominated and loses, it will be because she is a woman and not her left-leaning policies? The leftists then get to try again next time, since this time did not count?

The Democratic party is Lucy, and us leftists are Charlie Brown. The football is any progressive ask in the last 40 years.

[Guest]

Administration was bullshitting on the Iran missile retaliation. There were 11 US casualties. CNN link.

[Lollygag]

14 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Lollygag, it's something in the way you communicate that makes your positions very difficult to pinpoint. You seem to say you believe Bernie is in support of fascism, bread lines, etc. But then you say you don't believe he's supporting fascist communist policies. I think you're saying his "lines in the sand" aren't representative of socialism, but that doesn't make sense to me either.

Bernie's socialism is a unique brand of socialism, I suppose, but it's not his brand. It's similar in structure to other European countries. I'd say it's more intense than Canada's brand of socialism, but still, much closer to that than anything communist country.

Bernie's not in support of those countries--as the clip you posted of him upthread somewhere shows. He's not an interventionist, and very often, news outlets pick up his unwillingness to to support moves against other countries as though he's in support of those countries leaders. 

I'm sorry for that. I'm not a linear thinker (artsy) and expressing more complicated thoughts, writing papers or posting longer theories in the book forum requires a bit of work on my part. Sometimes I don't get it right. I'm very unsure of Bernie as he's doing what looks like contradictory things to me, but my only explanation right now for what I see is that socialism as an ideal is so important to him, that the ends justify the means (excusing authoritarianism), and he believes the ends justify the means to an extent that the average person would be uncomfortable with that. Or perhaps there's a blindness where socialism is concerned. 

This new article seems to indicate that. The former governor of Vermont says Bernie comes first, but it makes more sense if Bernie's become inseparable from his cause in his own mind. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/16/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-feud-100129

Bold: Thank you for the serious answer. Do European socialists tend to support other socialists without distinguishing between positive manifestations of socialism (Canada, Europe, Medicare) or negative manifestations of socialism (those cited above)? Is there a sort of party politics going on across countries like how party members rarely criticize members of their own party? 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

So, if Warren is nominated and loses, it will be because she is a woman and not her left-leaning policies? The leftists then get to try again next time, since this time did not count?

It probably will be both. The leftists should keep trying every time. Theyll keep losing and pissing people off, but they should always try. 

[Lollygag]

19 hours ago, DMC said:

That sounds interesting, but I can't access the article.  It's weird how snooty Daily Beast is about their paywall.  You were founded by friggen Tina Brown, you're not that special!  Anyway, be interested to hear Bernie's thoughts on Iran 1979. 

A quick google of "bernie sanders iran 1979" doesn't give me much (that link is the top result), but I wouldn't be surprised if he expressed criticism of Carter's decision to initiate Operation Eagle Claw.  Cy Vance - Carter's Secretary of State - resigned in protest based on that go order after a failed power struggle within the administration with NSA Brzezinski.  Dunno what "Marxist-Leninist" party Bernie apparently joined.  Wikipedia says he was part of the Liberty Union party for awhile.  That's not a Marxist-Leninist party.  Even if, they really don't like Bernie anymore.

My take was that Bernie just backed the Iranian Marxist-Leninists, but I can't access it either. I'm hoping another outlet without restrictions publishes their own version in a few days. 

Link: Wow. 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Lollygag said:

My take was that Bernie just backed the Iranian Marxist-Leninists, but I can't access it either. I'm hoping another outlet without restrictions publishes their own version in a few days. 

Iran (since 1979) is a theocracy, or a theocratic-republic.  That's..considerably distinct from a "Marxist-Leninist" state.  The only remaining states with one-party regimes that officially espouse a Marxist-Leninist ideology are China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

18 hours ago, Fez said:

I would've guessed Super Communism.

It's like regular communism, but it's got blackjack and hookers. 

Just for the sake of pendantry how can there be "hookers" in a society with no cash and everything is jointly owned by everyone (recognizing that people can't be owned anyway)? How can anyone gamble when everything is jointed owned?

[Mindwalker]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Just for the sake of pendantry how can there be "hookers" in a society with no cash and everything is jointly owned by everyone? 

Women will, of course, gladly provide those services for free, because the men will be so nice (think Tyrion in GoT), and serving is what women want to do in a truly liberated, socialist society.

 

Regarding electability (and disregarding the slippery slope of black or women candidates vs. electability), I see that Biden has a lot going for him. But I also feel that he has a lot against him:  His age (he looks a lot more frail than Sanders, Warren, and, most of all, Trump), and most importantly, fear Trump would eat him alive in a debate - without any kind of substance, of course - just his usual pseudo-energetic, dumb rhetoric, imbecile jokes vs. Biden's slowness and tendency to gaffes.

[FalagarV2]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Iran (since 1979) is a theocracy, or a theocratic-republic.  That's..considerably distinct from a "Marxist-Leninist" state.  The only remaining states with one-party regimes that officially espouse a Marxist-Leninist ideology are China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba.

However, many of the Iranian revolutionaries in 1979 were indeed Marxist-Leninist (or other leftwing groups, such as those influenced by the Socialist-Shiite thinker Ali Shariati). Bernie may well have supported those.

[Maithanet]

10 hours ago, Triskele said:

Any of you Senate election geeks like @Maithanet or @Fez able to put odds on Arizona?  I keep seeing stuff about how the Dem, Kellly, is fundraising like crazy over McSally.  

I have to think Arizona is a better bet than Kansas but do these two states not represent a slightly better chance of getting the Senate back than what we usually hear about Maine and Colorado and whatnot being the only possible pickups?  

I've not forgotten about Alabama though and how tough it'll be for Jones to hang on in that state in a Trump election year.  

I am not following the Senate super closely yet, but everything I've heard about Kelly is good, that he's likeable and a good fundraiser.  McSally has a good resume, but she already lost one Senate race in 2018, and got awarded the other Senate seat anyway, which doesn't always sit well with people.  I think that it is an absolute must win if the Democrats are going to take the Senate.  I don't see any scenario where McSally hangs on and the Dems pick up CO, ME, NC and hold AL. 

AZ is also going to be one of the top 5 biggest states for the Presidential election, with a reasonable chance of replacing Wisconsin as the tipping point state.  There will be an astonishing amount of money pouring into the state, and split ticket voting will probably be rare.  Whoever wins AZ probably wins the presidency, and probably wins the Senate seat too.

Just to remind everyone, there is a very realistic nightmare scenario on the horizon in Arizona.  If the Presidential election is super close and the Democrat wins MI+PA, but loses NC, FL and WI, then it will come down to AZ.  Arizona has a weird rule where you can get your ballot by mail and then just drop it off at a polling location on election day.  That sounds innocuous enough, but for some reason I don't understand, it takes them ~ 2 weeks to verify and count all those ballots.  Those ballots also generally lean Democratic by maybe 5-10 points.  So if election day ends with Trump ahead in Arizona by say, 2%, then he'll no doubt declare victory.  But last election it was something like 30-40% (pulling these numbers from memory, FYI) of the ballots that remained uncounted after election day.  This exact scenario happened in 2018.  McSally was ahead by like 1.5% on the morning after election day.  But then they counted the hundreds of thousands outstanding ballots, and Sinema not only won, but won by 2.4% of the vote, and even still, the election wasn't called for Sinema until six days after the election.  And that wasn't even a super close finish.  In the week after the midterms, Trump was tweeting conspiracies that the Arizona election is being "stolen", but fortunately both McSally herself and the state GOP never really got behind that, because everyone who knows anything about Arizona's vote counting knows that this was normal, and could see that McSally was going to lose.

But if the Presidential election is undecided for six days, and in that time every night AZ announces new ballots counted and Trump's lead shrinks...that is going to be very very scary.  Trump will be doing everything he can to make the situation worse, and that might include troops on the streets or paramilitaries storming AZ buildings to "protect democracy".  Could be real bad.  FYI, the AZ governor is a Republican and the SecState (who administers the elections) is a Democrat. 

[A True Kaniggit]

54 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Just for the sake of pendantry how can there be "hookers" in a society with no cash and everything is jointly owned by everyone (recognizing that people can't be owned anyway)? How can anyone gamble when everything is jointed owned?

Sorry. @Ser Scot A Ellison for quoting a random post of yours  to get your attention.

But I was wondering, as a fellow southerner, how you convince others that the Civil War was actually about slavery, and not about State's Rights.

The methods I've been trying haven't been working as well as I've hoped.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Sorry. @Ser Scot A Ellison for quoting a random post of yours  to get your attention.

But I was wondering, as a fellow southerner, how you convince others that the Civil War was actually about slavery, and not about State's Rights.

The method I've been trying hasn't been working.

I'm not Scot, but I bring up the Fugitive Slave Act (which trampled on northern states rights for the purpose of preserving slavery) and the Declarations of Independence that the various states themselves wrote, which unambiguously point to slavery as the primary reason for them leaving the union.  Not that this convinces everyone (nothing will), but I've never encountered even a halfway decent counterargument. 

[Fez]

10 hours ago, Triskele said:

Any of you Senate election geeks like @Maithanet or @Fez able to put odds on Arizona?  I keep seeing stuff about how the Dem, Kellly, is fundraising like crazy over McSally.  

I have to think Arizona is a better bet than Kansas but do these two states not represent a slightly better chance of getting the Senate back than what we usually hear about Maine and Colorado and whatnot being the only possible pickups?  

I've not forgotten about Alabama though and how tough it'll be for Jones to hang on in that state in a Trump election year.  

Colorado is the safest (but still not a guaranteed) pick-up. Its really hard to know with Maine, if Collins' personal brand with the voters is still there or not. But since 4 seats are needed, something from outside the "traditional" (as defined by the past few election cycles) pick-up opportunities is needed.

Personally, I think Arizona is much better bet than Kansas. Arizona already elected a Democratic senator last year, proving it could be done, and its a state Trump only won by 3.5% in 2016; whereas Romney won it by about 9% in 2012. It's going the right direction for Democrats. It's also a state that already has a tradition of voting for Democrats. Republicans only have a 31-29 majority in the state house and a 17-13 majority in the state senate; Democrats actually have a majority of the congressional delegation 6-5.

Whereas Kansas is a much more Republican state. Yes it just elected a Democratic governor in 2018, but as we've seen over and over, its still possible for Governors to get pretty significant cross-over votes that are unthinkable in other elections. Trump won the state by 21%, about the same as Romney got in 2012. And there's no Democratic voting tradition right now; Republicans have an 84-41 majority in the state house and a 29-11 majority in the state senate. Republicans have a 5-1 congressional delegation majority.

Point being, Kelly can win Arizona by holding his base and appealing to a pretty small number of independents, who already voted for a Democratic senator last year. The nominee in Kansas (probably Bollier) can only win if she gets significant cross-over votes from Republicans. Maybe Kobach is toxic enough for that to happen. But a lot of people thought Blackburn in Tennessee might be toxic enough to put Bresden over the top, and she won by 11%. And that's hardly been the only race where we've seen that cross-over senate voting doesn't really happen anymore.

Now the plus side to that though, is that hopefully Collins won't benefit from cross-over voting either.