US Politics - Term of surrender? Or is it wise to follow the Dumpty?

[Zorral]

Bloomberg has been putting his money into campaigns that are anti-NRA and pro gun control ever since Sandy Hook and the consequent NRA campaign to get Sandy Hook labeled a hoax.  That's for starters.  He would not be cozy with Russia or Saudi.  I don't know about China though.  But of course he's all about corporate rulership of everything, and he's certainly in favor of development of real estate of all kinds.  His own businesses, which he runs definitely top down, have a bad rep for how female employees are treated.  But he certainly has been in board rooms, charity event tables, etc. with bedbug all their lives so he knows the guy very well, and despises him.  He has lots of money all his own to spend to take the foney billionaire out.

But -- Bloomie isn't that well connected in D.C., but then neither was bedbug.

In the meantime, there is this:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/impeachment-trial-live-01-28?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage#what-c-span-viewers-didnt-see-once-the-defense-ended-its-arguments

[Maithanet]

30 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If the lefty left and minorities see Bloomberg as no different to Trump they will most likely vote 3rd party or not at all. But if they see him as a marginal improvement on key social issues then they will probably hold their nose and turn out. I doubt the lefty left will see daylight between him and Trump on economic issues. Minorities might see difference on the economic front.

I don't know or care enough about Bloomberg's policies to know how different he is from Trump, aside from the above mentioned PR and DC stance. I would think that alone might well be enough to push most minorities and lefties to vote for him if he's the D candidate. Is statehood for DC and PR not official Democratic party policy? It should be.

I think that Bloomberg would be like Bill Clinton 2.0, (hopefully minus the sexual harrassment issues?)  He's very pro-big business, he's willing to sell out some democratic principles in the name of dealmaking/compromise, and he is running as an outsider with executive experience.  That makes him clearly less appealing than really any of the other candidates to me, but still vastly better than Trump.  And when I say vastly, I mean it.  Like I would happily take 4 years of Bloomberg over 1 additional year of Trump plus three years of whatever Democrat I prefer.  His judicial appointments would be broadly center-left, his EPA would actually try to protect the environment, his immigration policy would be a return to normal, his foreign policy wouldn't piss on our allies, and he won't spread corruption and division as a matter of course. 

[maarsen]

50 minutes ago, Zorral said:

This same Brian Lehrer program is back on, doing special reporting, with call ins, on the trial.  I just turned it on.

The first caller I hear is from Staten Island, claims to be a life-long Dem voter but for the first time didn't when he voted for bedbug.  He repeated word for word the defense talking points, starting with Joe and Hunter and Obama's corruption in Ukraine, the Dems paid for the phony Steel Report through Ukraine, and above all he knows THE FACTS and dems are lying lying lying.  Nor can he, neither others of those callers, understand the difference as to who was in power in Ukraine at the time, who it was the Obama admin had Biden investigating, and they are not the same people that bedbug called and threatened and demanded to investigate the Bidens.

 

 

Rigged calls to phone in shows are a common feature in Canadian elections. I suspect more of the same here. That call sounded scripted.

[Zorral]

44 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Rigged calls to phone in shows are a common feature in Canadian elections. I suspect more of the same here. That call sounded scripted.

I thought so too.  Starting with, "I don't listen to NPR but I'm listening for the impeachement coverage.  He goes on to proudly demonstrate his deep listening to Faux Noose and a whole lot of other fake news / insane sources.  This after saying he's voted Dem all his life and voted rethug for the first time, for bedbug?  This makes no sense whatsoever.  Not with him repeating stuff bedbug was spewing already in Obama's administration.  Plus, from Staten Island, a fortress of these people within a sea of blue NYC.

~~~~~~

Funny though, the defense wrapped up before 3 PM today, not even coming close to using their full 12 hours.

What really chaps me, every time I hear it, and They Say it all the time, and did in the wrap up again -- and the callers in say it all the time too -- impeachment is Dems' way of trying to steal the 2016 election and now the up coming one.  There is an election coming soon!  Leave it all alone and let the American people decide by voting -- while, of course they suppress every vote They can find -- and that's how they stole the Supreme Court, blandly claiming that since there was going to be an election, Obama had no right to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.  And the Dems allowed that to stand. Shame.

~~~~~~~

Does anyone wonder if this tizzy about Bolton's revelations, and him as a witness -- is this going to amount to any more than the grand expectations of Mueller's live testimony will -- if it happens, of course?

~~~~~~~

In the wake of Pompeo melting down, berating, swearing at and otherwise abusing Michelle Kelly, and another NPR journalist,Michele Keleman, also a woman, has been barred from going with the press corps on Pompeo's next trip abroad.  He probably thinks they are the same person . . . .  And bedbug went off raving praise for Pompeo and making fun of Kelly -- "He really got her, did you see!"

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 1/26/2020 at 12:10 PM, Simon Steele said:

My "demands" for people getting a fair shot like in previous generations? Got ya. Your insistence on the moderate seems the purity test to me. I'm just asking for people to quit getting stomped, and the Dems largely have done nothing to help since before Clinton. So, if purity is about helping people getting fucked over, then I guess I'll take purity over whatever it is you want.

My purity test is the ability to win, and that applies doubly in a redistricting election. Now it is possible that Sanders could win, but if he were to be the nominee and fail, the likely down ballot effects would be staggering. It’s so easy for someone in the middle to vote against Trump, but those same people could struggle to support an open socialist, and if they don’t come out for Sanders, they’ll be skipping down ballot votes too.

[Zorral]

WaPo's banner breaking news headline: McConnell tells GOP senators he doesn't have the votes to block witnesses being called.

People don't seem to disagree about what he did.  They just disagree whether it matters.

 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

WaPo's banner breaking news headline: McConnell tells GOP senators he doesn't have the votes to block witnesses being called.

Interestingly, WSJ has the GOP incumbents facing tough reelection battles as warning against voting for witnesses:

Quote

Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who face competitive races in the fall, warned colleagues in the meeting against backing more witnesses, people familiar with the matter said. The senators said a drawn-out trial could lead to more Democratic attacks and hurt their re-election chances, the people said.

That same article has Portman (OH) and Toomey (PA) as GOP Senators willing to vote for more witnesses - along with the standard three.

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

The other counterargument is that a segment of Sanders supporters, or the kind of people he can drag out that other candidates can't, aren't the kind to vote in midterms.  Also, I think you can make the argument that Jonathan Chait has made a career out of this kind of shit and he's often wrong.  I mean he says that Sanders has more downside than any candidate since Goldwater.  I'd humbly submit Hillary Clinton as a candidate with more downside.  

Perhaps, save that Sanders lost to her, so what does that say about Sanders? 

Hell, right now he's losing to Joe Fucking Biden. 

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

On the bolded, what makes you say that?  I'm not saying they don't exist, but I don't think they're as big a group as any of the three groups I mentioned, and I definitely don't think they're primarily responsible for the midterm gains.

This was what I was talking about with @IheartIheartTesla too - they absolutely were. The places where they won were disaffected Trump voters in 2016 who thought he wouldn't be what he said he was going to be, and then are active. Suburban white women, basically. And they are largely moderate, do not want a ton of change, and want stability and things like healthcare and better wage growth. 

And they won their races in those suburban districts that went for Trump. And that's a big deal. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

Interestingly, WSJ has the GOP incumbents facing tough reelection battles as warning against voting for witnesses:

That same article has Portman (OH) and Toomey (PA) as GOP Senators willing to vote for more witnesses - along with the standard three.

It makes sense on some levels. If I was on the campaign trail in a tight race I might want to pick the option of hand waving away a cover up instead of either defending an obviously guilty Trump or trying to figure what to do if I can't defend him anymore. Conservative voters largely seem willing to defend Trump over anyone else.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It makes sense on some levels.

Oh, I think it makes a whole ton of sense.  Just interesting because it goes against conventional wisdom that they'd be the most under pressure to support calling more witnesses since it is widely popular.  Instead, their opposition emphasizes how polarization dominates reelection strategies even in "swing" states.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If the lefty left and minorities see Bloomberg as no different to Trump they will most likely vote 3rd party or not at all. But if they see him as a marginal improvement on key social issues then they will probably hold their nose and turn out. I doubt the lefty left will see daylight between him and Trump on economic issues. Minorities might see difference on the economic front.

I don't know or care enough about Bloomberg's policies to know how different he is from Trump, aside from the above mentioned PR and DC stance. I would think that alone might well be enough to push most minorities and lefties to vote for him if he's the D candidate. Is statehood for DC and PR not official Democratic party policy? It should be.

<-------- Lefty-left (by U.S. standards), would vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat if it means beating Trump.

[James Arryn]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Oh, I think it makes a whole ton of sense.  Just interesting because it goes against conventional wisdom that they'd be the most under pressure to support calling more witnesses since it is widely popular.  Instead, their opposition emphasizes how polarization dominates reelection strategies even in "swing" states.

Kinda more of that ‘tiger by the tail’ vibe we used to get when Trump would do or say something repugnant, they’d make disappointed noises, only to walk it back once they saw the base was totally fine with repugnance.

[Kalbear]

My wife raised that point recently. Why are there not huge protests about this farce of a trial? Why are people not up in arms about this injustice? Why are people accepting that no witnesses being called is at all reasonable and fair? Or that it's entirely reasonable to simply block all ways of getting information from the White House? 

I suspect people are simply tired, the active people are out campaigning for dems right now, and most everyone is just at this point resigned to autocracy. But I'm curious if others see it the same way. 

[Kalbear]

Also, this is your reminder to not read too much into Iowa's results one way or another. Ted Cruz won Iowa and Rubio tied with Trump. Sanders and Clinton tied in Iowa. It is not a bad sign if you win, but it is hardly the end times if you don't. 

[Gertrude]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, this is your reminder to not read too much into Iowa's results one way or another. Ted Cruz won Iowa and Rubio tied with Trump. Sanders and Clinton tied in Iowa. It is not a bad sign if you win, but it is hardly the end times if you don't. 

While this is true, Iowa has a pretty good track record of picking the eventual Dem nominee - not as much the R one. I have a hard time believing that we have that much influence just by going first, but I also find it more difficult to believe we have our finger on the pulse of the country.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I suspect people are simply tired, the active people are out campaigning for dems right now, and most everyone is just at this point resigned to autocracy. But I'm curious if others see it the same way. 

I'd agree with the first two, but I don't think it's a sign of being "resigned to autocracy."  There's a rational reason to not care about the Senate trial because he's certainly not getting removed - and simultaneously certainly not think any active opposition is futile.  But yeah, even a quarter of Democrats think impeachment is a waste of Congress' time.

[Gertrude]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

There's a rational reason to not care about the Senate trial because he's certainly not getting removed

This is where I'm at. I've called and sent emails to my senators, but that's the extent of it. It's not that I don't care, I just don't think anything will sway the outcome. I just wanted to have stood up to Trump's abuses and have the Rs on record as not giving a shit. It was inevitable that more evidence would leak out and make Trump look even more guilty after he was acquitted, I just didn't expect Parnas and  Bolton's words to come out during the trial, so in that way it's turning out better than expected. Sad, but true.

[Kalbear]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'd agree with the first two, but I don't think it's a sign of being "resigned to autocracy."  There's a rational reason to not care about the Senate trial because he's certainly not getting removed - and simultaneously certainly not think any active opposition is futile.  But yeah, even a quarter of Democrats think impeachment is a waste of Congress' time.

But again, why aren't people enraged by this? Why is it acceptable that people aren't protesting this? She basically doesnt understand why if you think he should be removed and is going through a sham trial with biased judges why wouldn't there be protests?

And I dont know. I dont know why everyone is simply accepting the idea that republicans will choose party over justice and that is just fine. 

[DMC]

Another point to emphasize about their not being a lack of enthusiasm or a pervasive feeling of resignation - look at the fundraising headlines that come out just today.  The Dem Senate's PAC raised records amount of money in 2019, trouncing their GOP counterpart's haul.  Likewise on the House side, where Kevin McCarthy went on record saying "they are kicking our ass," with the NRCC chair literally raising the alarm.

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

But again, why aren't people enraged by this? Why is it acceptable that people aren't protesting this?

Like you said, I think a lot of it has to do with Trump fatigue - people are just tired.  And the other aspect is that there is a rational basis - if you're going to spend your time and effort to try to counteract this presidency - to focus your energy on defeating him in November rather than engaging protests that don't promise to yield any real substantive results.  I certainly would encourage any protest movement of the trial, but right now I doubt I myself would attend because I frankly don't have the time (now if this was last year, different story, so that's pretty much just based on me).