US Politics: I Say a Little Prayer for You!

[SpaceChampion]

On 2/9/2020 at 4:20 PM, maarsen said:

Whichever Democrat wins the nomination, I fear that winning the Presidency without having a majority in the Senate is winning a wormy apple as a prize. Senate races are where one should focus attention and money. 

Didn't Bloomberg used to donate to Republicans to get them elected to the Senate?  Yes he did. 

 

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Triskele said:

[quoted from the link, not Trisk]  But he should be forced to acknowledge that these are, in fact, his opinions about the political world that he wants to inhabit.

My lord, Carville didn't expressly acknowledge he was stating his opinions during an interview in which a journalist was asking him to state his opinions?  The straight up audacity of that man!

[Altherion]

22 hours ago, DMC said:

Uh, hyperbole much?  Maybe not, you're right, the most corrupt dictators always hold 50 primary contests, and in the first one they would NEVER dream of giving a disproportionate advantage of a whole, like, THREE delegates to a certain candidate.  My stars, the very notion gives me the vapors...

It's not hyperbole and it's not about the outcome -- it's about the process. I think this has already been listed in a previous thread, but the problems with the Iowa system (independent of the execution) are:

1. There is no secret ballot.
2. To participate, people must go somewhere in person at a specific time and stay there for of order one hour (maybe more).
3. Instead of simply counting the votes, the delegates are allocated based on SDEs.
4. The process for calculating SDEs is complicated and prone to unrecoverable errors (switching from candidate to candidate is sometimes not allowed, but if people did so anyway, there might not be a way to fully correct for it depending on the order).

There is no country with a history of problematic elections where the intrinsic design is this obviously bad. They sometimes cheat and the results can be far more skewed than what happened in Iowa, but their systems are usually at least theoretically fair whereas this is not.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's not hyperbole and it's not about the outcome -- it's about the process. I think this has already been listed in a previous thread, but the problems with the Iowa system (independent of the execution) are:

1. There is no secret ballot.
2. To participate, people must go somewhere in person at a specific time and stay there for of order one hour (maybe more).
3. Instead of simply counting the votes, the delegates are allocated based on SDEs.
4. The process for calculating SDEs is complicated and prone to unrecoverable errors (switching from candidate to candidate is sometimes not allowed, but if people did so anyway, there might not be a way to fully correct for it depending on the order).

There is no country with a history of problematic elections where the intrinsic design is this obviously bad. They sometimes cheat and the results can be far more skewed than what happened in Iowa, but their systems are usually at least theoretically fair whereas this is not.

Sure, but it isn't specific to fucking over Sanders and the caucuses have always been this shitty, since 1972. 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's not hyperbole and it's not about the outcome

Yes, it is, full stop.  You compared it to "beyond" what the most corrupt dictator would do.  Dictators don't even bother having primaries.  They're almost always one party states to begin with.  Are there problems with the Iowa caucuses?  Of course.  But the analogy you used is patently absurd.  That's all.

[DireWolfSpirit]

5 hours ago, SpaceChampion said:

Didn't Bloomberg used to donate to Republicans to get them elected to the Senate?  Yes he did. 

 

Wtf?

That's unforgivable.  And here I was keeping an open mind because I am not comfortable with the notion of being against a candidate just because they are wealthy.

But donating to a Republican Senator, in a frikn swing state? 

That's a bridge too far, screw Bloomberg.

[OldGimletEye]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

 Part of it is electability - I could see a huge backlash from the left with him as the nominee. 

Yeah, about the only way I would endorse Bloomberg over all other Democratic candidates would be if I thought that he a significantly greater chance than all other candidates of defeating Trump, as I think that is becoming my number one priority. That would be about the only reason I would hold my nose and pull the lever for him. It would be akin to being in hell and desperately needing a glass of ice water.

But, yeah, I don't see him having a great electibility argument.

[Liffguard]

10 hours ago, karaddin said:

I think I feel similarly on him, with an added side dose of "if the only thing that can save you from a corrupt billionaire president is a less obviously corrupt but more successful billionaire then your democracy is already lost". It's yet another damaging precedent on top of all the ones from Trump.

This is similar to how I feel about Bloomberg. If Americans are put in the position in November of having to choose between a racist, misogynistic, sociopathic plutocrat or a racist, misogynistic, sociopathic plutocrat who’s a bit less crass and a bit less obviously immature, is that really a distinction with much of a difference? I’d be sympathetic to people who would vote for Bloomberg as an “anyone but Trump” vote, but if those are the two options then that speaks to much deeper, likely irredeemable problems with the American political process. In that situation, the mere act of voting feels like something of a sideshow.

One of the things where it seems like Bloomberg might be a substantial improvement over Trump is in his acknowledgement of the existence of climate change. But it also doesn’t seem like he’s willing to take the radical action that addressing it requires. What’s worse, someone who denies climate change or someone who accepts its existence but thinks it can be cured with band aids?

[mormont]

 

37 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

What’s worse, someone who denies climate change or someone who accepts its existence but thinks it can be cured with band aids?

The former. It's not even a question. The latter person can be persuaded to take action beyond a band-aid. The former can't be persuaded to act at all. 

[Liffguard]

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

The former. It's not even a question. The latter person can be persuaded to take action beyond a band-aid. The former can't be persuaded to act at all. 

Yeah, fair point, that was a pretty dumb thing for me to write. Bloomberg's campaign gets me a bit incensed and I ran away with myself.

I remain unconvinced that an investment billionaire will ever make the necessary structural changes required to even begin to mitigate climate change. That said, yes he is undoubtedly better than Trump on the issue.

 

[mormont]

'Better than Trump' on any issue is a low, low bar to clear, and I can completely understand why folks at all parts of the political spectrum might have to grit their teeth to vote for someone who doesn't clear that bar by much. But, that's what life, and politics, is sometimes.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I cannot even imagine how the mainstream media is going to lose its collective shit if it's Sanders vs Trump.  They are already clamoring for Bloomberg.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

'Better than Trump' on any issue is a low, low bar to clear, and I can completely understand why folks at all parts of the political spectrum might have to grit their teeth to vote for someone who doesn't clear that bar by much. But, that's what life, and politics, is sometimes.

Look, that's how I feel about Sanders.  But, he's better than Trump, so he clears that bar.  I actually am kinda not opposed to Bloomberg.  I think he was in the big picture a pretty good mayor (of course, I'm comparing him against the one before and the one after, so, you know, low bar).  Stop and frisk aside (which I think was a mistake, which he has apologized for, which may be a politically motivated, empty apology, but honestly, I try to give folks the benefit of growth, and that includes Sanders (ugh)), if nothing else, I give him full credit for the fact that I can go ALMOST ANYWHERE and be free of cigarette smoke.  This is why I kind of agree with you on your view on him and climate change.  He has actually shown himself willing to do things that were at the time unpopular with at least a certain vocal segment of the relevant business community to make structural social change.  I understand why people don't like Bloomberg, but to put him in the same basket as Trump isn't quite fair.  I think the Democratic party has squandered an opportunity to find a real new leader. The people I thought were most inspiring are all out of the race.  We have a bunch of old men, a guy who has (barely) run a small city, and Elizabeth Warren (I am sadly discounting Klobuchar at this point).  So, to conclude my stream of consciousness wandering, (i) TEAM WARREN (even though I disagree with her on almost everything), (ii) I more realistically think we are looking at 4 more years of Trump, and I actually think he will win by a landslide, because I think he'll take Virginia and some of the other more "purple" states.

[Gaston de Foix]

3 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Wtf?

That's unforgivable.  And here I was keeping an open mind because I am not comfortable with the notion of being against a candidate just because they are wealthy.

But donating to a Republican Senator, in a frikn swing state? 

That's a bridge too far, screw Bloomberg.

I don't disagree with you about the regrettable effect of his prior actions.  But another way to look at this is that a President Bloomberg will have relationships with both Rs and D Senators and will be more likely to get something done than a standard Democrat President. 

Toomey, for example, is up for re-election in 2022 and has demonstrated some openness to gun reform.  At the very least a President Bloomberg is effectively a walking talking Super PAC and can fund Dem challengers in 2022 (where 2/3 of the Senators up for re-election are Rs) 

[mormont]

43 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 (ii) I more realistically think we are looking at 4 more years of Trump, and I actually think he will win by a landslide, because I think he'll take Virginia and some of the other more "purple" states.

I like the post but this is the bit I disagree with. I think there's a pessimism among Dem voters that likely isn't merited. (I've read all the predictions of doom, so no need to repeat them, folks.)

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, mormont said:

I like the post but this is the bit I disagree with. I think there's a pessimism among Dem voters that likely isn't merited. (I've read all the predictions of doom, so no need to repeat them, folks.)

I agree, particularly when a lot of people were pretty optomistic just a few months ago.  The dynamics of the race have not changed dramatically, and the ways in which they have changed are likely to be very different in November than they are now. 

[Rippounet]

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

I like the post but this is the bit I disagree with. I think there's a pessimism among Dem voters that likely isn't merited. (I've read all the predictions of doom, so no need to repeat them, folks.)

2016 was such an -unpleasant- surprise that people aren't sure what they can reasonably expect anymore.
And from a technical point of view it's impossible to tell whether the "natural" advantage of incumbency can be offset by rejection of Trump and his policies. Not to mention the unsuccessful impeachment doesn't help with morale. So it's fair to say we're in the unknown.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Idk why, but all the comments about Bloomberg remind me of this hilarious, amazing clip:  

 

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The dynamics of the race have not changed dramatically, and the ways in which they have changed are likely to be very different in November than they are now. 

Yep.  Look at the congressional ballot polls and the fundraising.  All indicators point up for the Dems.  Due to the economy and the entire "meh" list of Dem candidates, there's tons of reasons to be cynical about Trump being elected.  But he's not gonna win in a landslide of any sorts unless there are some very dramatic changes to the environment.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Triskele said:

If one had to search for a policy where Bloomberg is really legit for just about any liberal or progressive it's gotta be guns, no?  

Man, if Jewish Michael Bloomberg is coming for their guns that's going to go down well...

Not so much with Bloomberg, but I’m surprised Sanders’ faith, or lack thereof, hasn’t been discussed much. I wouldn’t expect it to come up directly in a Democratic primary, but as a non-practicing Jew, I’m highly skeptical that it won’t be used against him if he’s the eventual nominee.