US Politics: I Say a Little Prayer for You!

[mcbigski]

52 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Right, I’m not really talking about the openness of that primary- I know anyone can vote in that, and that’s cool.  I’m talking about weaponizing the openness.

I’m asking whether there’s anything to the rumors, reported in those 3 sources I cited, regarding organized efforts by GOP activists to encourage republicans to go in and vote for Sanders to tip the results in his favor as the candidate they feel will be easiest to defeat in the general.  So I’m asking whether there’s anything to the rumor that GOP activists are actually doing this, and secondly, whether this could have an impact on this primary (and by extension, any open primary).  Or is the danger really just in sowing the notion that this is happening to get the anti-Sanders camp to clutch pearls the way the Sanders camp does about rigging?

Actually we had a meeting about this at the country club last week.  Word is its not a GOP operation.  It comes direct from Vlad himself.  Dont tell Mueller!!

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm unaware of any organized effort, but then, I'm not a member of the SC GOP and I don't have much contact with those active in the SC GOP.  It wouldn't shock me.  I did see an acquaintance on Facebook, who is fairly conservative, expressing hope that Sanders would be the Democratic nominee.  I reminded him that many in the Democratic Party were hoping for Trump as the Republican nominee in 2016 and said, "be careful what you wish for" same as I said here in 2016.

"Strategic voting" in primaries can have very serious consequences.  

Yea I don’t if this is a real thing- I was asking because even though google gives a lot of hits for this I haven’t seen it mentioned in papers of record so far.   It looks like there are activists trying make it happen (in SC case, this is in part to inspire dems to get on board with making all primaries closed) so I’m curious if it would have much of an impact.   I could see a bunch of trump shitposters obliging.   I could also see utility in merely spreading the rumor because everyone’s on edge with election integrity and fairness at the moment.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Yea I don’t if this is a real thing- I was asking because even though google gives a lot of hits for this I haven’t seen it mentioned in papers of record so far.   It looks like there are activists trying make it happen (in SC case, this is in part to inspire dems to get on board with making all primaries closed) so I’m curious if it would have much of an impact.   I could see a bunch of trump shitposters obliging.   I could also see utility in merely spreading the rumor because everyone’s on edge with election integrity and fairness at the moment.  

Closed primaries really get under my skin.  If political parties want primaries that are closed they should organize and pay for them.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

As much as pragmatic moderates worry that Sanders will keep centrists home in November, I have to say Bloomberg worries me in the same way--I cannot fathom a world where Sanders' supporters rally behind a billionaire--especially one like Bloomberg. I do think many supporters would come around to Buttigeg or Warren given the overwhelming evil that radiates from the White House. Bloomberg though? I think it'd be over.

The most annoying aspect of Sanders supporters is exactly this, the implied threat that they won’t come out for anyone other than Bernie.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

As far as rankings go,

1a: Mayor Pete

1b: Bloomberg

That’s it really. I don’t want Sanders and Biden and Warren are pretty clearly finished absent some monster changes.

[Darryk]

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Last time Washington was in May, it was a caucus, and it was well past any actual value. My wife and daughter went Sanders, I went Clinton. Our caucus wasn't insane like Iowa; you go to a place, you find your area, you can then simply put in your vote and then leave if you want. 

This year Washington has gone to primary instead, and the primary is in March. It still might not matter - it's after Super Tuesday - but it's certainly more meaningful than it was before, and we're actually getting people and workers in the state campaigning. 

Wow, wasn't expecting that. Dinner table conversations in your household really want to avoid politics.

[Darryk]

After that ridiculous State of the Union debacle with a bigoted hack radio show host troll being given a medal of freedom I'm not sure I care who the Democratic candidate is anymore, just anyone who can get this orange orangutan out before he turns the most powerful nation in history into a banana republic with nukes.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Darryk said:

After that ridiculous State of the Union debacle with a bigoted hack radio show host troll being given a medal of freedom I'm not sure I care who the Democratic candidate is anymore, just anyone who can get this orange orangutan out before he turns the most powerful nation in history into a banana republic with nukes.

This is where I'm at as well. I will still defend my preferred candidate, but I'm a yellow-dog Democrat this cycle (although I've almost always been a yellow-dog Democrat, as I've been voting straight-ticket since 2004 I believe).

[OldGimletEye]

28 minutes ago, Darryk said:

After that ridiculous State of the Union debacle with a bigoted hack radio show host troll being given a medal of freedom I'm not sure I care who the Democratic candidate is anymore, just anyone who can get this orange orangutan out before he turns the most powerful nation in history into a banana republic with nukes.

I pretty much agree. If Jar Jar Binks becomes the democratic candidate, I'll vote for him, even if he did single handedly ruin Star Wars.

[sologdin]

sundowning episodes more and more frequently occurring

dunno.  seems to me there's a zone of indistinction between the symptomology of dementia and the ideology of conservatism, wherein rightwing policy preferences and the practical effects of cerebral defect coincide without remainder.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I pretty much agree. If Jar Jar Binks becomes the democratic candidate, I'll vote for him, even if he did single handedly ruin Star Wars.

I care about America a lot more than I care about Star Wars. 

On candidate preferences, I'm at:

1. Warren

2. Pete

3. Bloomberg/Sanders

5. Biden

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

I care about America a lot more than I care about Star Wars. 

Really? I'd would have never guessed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, sologdin said:

sundowning episodes more and more frequently occurring

dunno.  seems to me there's a zone of indistinction between the symptomology of dementia and the ideology of conservatism, wherein rightwing policy preferences and the practical effects of cerebral defect coincide without remainder.

I'm frequently surprised by my Mother, who is one of the most compassionate and caring people I know, and her insistent and unwavering support for Trump.  Every time I question her on her support of Trump she goes off on how horrible Sec. Clinton is (not was, is).  I point out that Clinton hasn't held public office since 2012 and that she isn't running for any office today.  It doesn't even slow her down... she's 73.

[sologdin]

how much of that unwavering support is rooted in conservative principle (i mean real conservatism--monarchism, theocracy, herrenvolk, true illiberalism) and how much is some sort of local status signification based in the cult of personality and mechanisms therein that mark members of the cult by exclusion of enemies?

[maarsen]

53 minutes ago, Darryk said:

After that ridiculous State of the Union debacle with a bigoted hack radio show host troll being given a medal of freedom I'm not sure I care who the Democratic candidate is anymore, just anyone who can get this orange orangutan out before he turns the most powerful nation in history into a banana republic with nukes.

From my vantage point up here in Canada, I think it is a bit late for that.

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone, who is a registered in SC, from voting in the primary on 2/29.  As it should be.  Personally, as long as the State is footing the bill I think everyone should be allowed to participate in both primaries.

(There is only the Democratic primary this year because the Republican Party canceled the SC Republican primary when it looked like their might be opposition to Trump).

Is there serious enough opposition to Trump that actually having a primary may show him as a loser? Can a nomination come from the floor at the Republican national convention if there are no primaries to actually test Trump's support?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, maarsen said:

Is there serious enough opposition to Trump that actually having a primary may show him as a loser? Can a nomination come from the floor at the Republican national convention if there are no primaries to actually test Trump's support?

I have no clue.  But given the lockstep support the Republican Party has been providing for Trump so far I'd be surprised if the RNC let something like that occur.  That said a separate nominee from the Republican Party from the President who (barring his death) would never refrain from running in the 2020 election would be almost a guarantee of a Democratic President in 2020.

[Altherion]

7 hours ago, Darzin said:

I won't vote for Sanders in the primary. I supported him in the 16 primary but I now have severe concerns about his electability he is the least vetted candidate and there are piles of unused opposition research on him.

This is a really bizarre thing to say -- can you elaborate on it? Sanders has not only been a Senator for a long time, but was the challenger to the eventual winner of a long-lasting primary during the last cycle. I'm sure people tried to do opposition research on him, but why would it be unused? He eventually won the Senate races and he was a serious nuisance in the primary. Compare this to, say, Buttigieg, who is the mayor of a small town. There are many arguments one can make against Sanders, but "least vetted" is just strange -- only Biden is more vetted.

[DanteGabriel]

I meant to respond to @Triskele's post a couple days ago about Lamar Alexander and the worries of these retiring Republicans about how they'll be treated if they cross Trump. There was a Vox article last week about just that topic, and I think it cites tweets from the Politico reporter you mentioned. It also argues for a "right wing political correctness" which is an interesting take. It might also be relevant to why Scot's mom is defending Trump.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/31/21116689/trump-impeachment-lamar-alexander-witness-bolton

Quote

First, it’s an example of the dangers of what political scientist Lilliana Mason calls “mega-identity” in politics: Partisanship has come to be so closely linked to other parts of people’s identities, like their religion and racial self-identification, that it has become a kind of master stand-in for cultural belonging.

In a country defined by two mega-identities, defeat for your side isn’t merely a political loss, but an existential threat to your entire way of life. When Republicans feel this way about politics, then it makes sense that they’d see a vote against their president as an act of deep betrayal — and treat the person responsible accordingly, even in private life. This kind of extreme identity polarization poisons politics in ways often invisible in day-to-day observation that, nonetheless, contribute to the fundamental dysfunction of our political system.

The second thing is that it shows the ways in which the modern right depends on its own form of “political correctness.” We’re often told that the modern left is in some ways uniquely censorious, particularly on issues relating to race, gender, and sexual orientation. “There’s no right-wing equivalent to this kind of ideological policing toward people sympathetic to right-wing causes,” as the journalist Cathy Young recently put it.

Alberta’s explanation of Alexander’s vote shows us that this is simply not true. In conservative cultural spaces, even a very long right-wing record like Alexander’s doesn’t immunize you from the consequences of violating the community’s political standards. Stalwart conservative legislators are, according to Alberta, terrified of what people in their communities think of them. Imagine the ways in which many ordinary people in red areas, who have far less financial and social capital than the Lamar Alexanders of the world, feel about expressing anti-Trump sentiment!

The fact that this kind of censorship plays out in local communities, rather than the pages of national magazines, makes it no less powerful — and arguably more so. In fact, right-wing political correctness appears to be an important reason why Trump is about to get away with a monumental attack on the integrity of our democracy.

As for my own Dem primary preferences, it's become a litany of ugh and meh. I have reservations about the character, policies, or electability of each one. But sure, let me see...

1. Warren -- Is she really dead in the water? Is third place in Iowa not enough to be optimistic? I have the fewest doubts about her character or policies but I don't want to underestimate America's capacity for misogyny again, especially given the opponent.

2. Buttigieg, I guess? I have strong doubts about his character and potential policies. He may be more electable than the others just because the only Democrats who've been elected President in my lifetime have been young and charismatic, which I guess he sort of is. I suspect a gay man may have an easier time with the national electorate than a woman. Too bad he's probably The Smiler from Transmetropolitan.

3. Sanders, because I think there's a decent chance he can overcome the socialism narrative. I don't think the socialist label is a death kiss for most people under 50 or so. It's a bit of a turnaround from my relatively enthusiastic support for him in the 2016 primary. My change in opinion on him was largely due to his own actions, but the very real Bernie Bro phenomenon has contributed. If Bernie wins the nomination and loses in the general, will his most earnest supporters at least shut up about being cheated out of their inevitable glorious victory by the DNC? I bet not.

4. Bloomberg or Biden, because fine whatever just no more Trump.

[Ormond]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

So, who would have to stop him?  The military; the "sword."  Any dictator is going to need their backing to overthrow a "democracy," such as ours is.  And there's no indication I can see thus far to suggest they would go along with official descent into dictatorship.  I mean, who would actually physically remove him from the Oval Office if he just refused to leave?  I dunno, not really sure.  I'd guess Congress would order the Capitol Police to.  Or, in the incredibly unlikely event he can get both chambers to go along with it, I suppose the courts could order the Marshals to do it - and the military or the secret service will stand aside.

If Trump would actually refuse to leave the White House after losing the election, I would hope that they would be wise enough NOT to try to physically remove him. The power of the Presidency is not determined by who is living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in DC. The new president can set up his or her office someplace else, and you can use the Capitol Police or whoever to prevent food deliveries or even cut off electricity and water to the White House. Trump is not someone who is going to "rough it" in such a situation and I'm sure would actually physically leave on his own in a week or so. If you use physical force to bodily remove him, you make him more of a martyr with his base. 

As for primary preferences: Nebraska's primary isn't until May, so it would be really unusual for things not to be decided by then. 

Among those still in the running as of this hour, I would prefer Klobuchar. But there is over a 99% probability she will have dropped out by then.

My second choice would be Warren. But I think there's about an 85% probability she will be gone by then.

My third choice would be Buttigieg. I am not really happy about that, because it galls me to think of the Dems nominating someone who is just the mayor of a medium sized Indiana city, and I am really worried that antipathy toward him in the African-American community (whether justified or not) will be a big problem in vote turnout for November. But he's way better than Bloomberg, Biden, or Sanders in my estimation.

And if Buttigieg is gone by then and the other three are all still in I'd go with Biden.

Of course if either Bloomberg or Sanders is the nominee I will vote for them in November.