US Politics - Turtles crawl, the constipation sensation that's gripping the nation.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I know what you mean but it is a bit amazing to me as a 68 year old myself that being Jewish is no longer considered being "minority". 

You sure about that? Most of my family identifies as a religious minority.

[Ormond]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You sure about that? Most of my family identifies as a religious minority.

I personally would consider being Jewish a "minority" status in the USA. I was responding to Maithanet's characterization of Sanders and Bloomberg as merely being "78 year old white men" who would not be good fits for the party of "minorities." I do think most of the media seems to have a perception of this closer to Maithanet's, though, no matter how your family personally identifies. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

Well, the 90% figure is certainly true of the "us" that constitutes the tiny group who are regular posters on this thread. I worry that it does not translate to "typical Democratic voters".

In terms of actual numbers, Sanders favorability among Democrat voters is higher than what Trump enjoyed with Republicans at the same point in the cycle in 2016. There may be other metrics, but really I dont see any compelling evidence to the contrary. 

[Zorral]

Krugman --

Have Zombies Eaten Bloomberg’s and Buttigieg’s Brains?
Beware the Democrats of the living dead.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/17/opinion/bloomberg-buttigieg-economy.html?

Quote

 

.... Although few saw 2008 coming, in retrospect it was a classic banking panic, the type of thing that happened frequently before the 1930s. First, lenders got caught up in a gigantic housing bubble; then, when the bubble burst, much of the financial system just froze up.

What made this panic possible, after two generations of relative financial calm? The answer, clearly, was the erosion of effective financial regulation over the previous few decades.

But right-wingers refused to accept the obvious. Instead, they pushed an alternative narrative in which liberals somehow caused the crisis by forcing poor innocent bankers to lend money to people of color (they weren’t usually that explicit, but that was the clear message). This narrative was so nakedly self-serving that it’s hard to believe that anyone took it seriously; but some influential people bought it. And among those people was Michael Bloomberg.

At this point the evidence against the liberals-did-it story is overwhelming. The surge in bad loans came neither from government-sponsored agencies nor from regulated banks, but from unregulated mortgage originators. The fallout was so severe because investors believed, wrongly, that fancy financial instruments protected them from risk....

 

Ya, Bloomies so good at wanting to regulate the finance industry.  Such a smart biz man.  And Buttigieg is  Rhodes Scholar!

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

Well it's certainly not an endorsement.

It's also not a correlation. Especially given that Obama was to the right of Clinton on most policies. One could also make an equally truthful statement that it represents a complete and utter rejection of women. Both would be equally valid interpretations.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

Obama was elected ahead of a right-wing backlash that created the Tea Party and eventually facilitated the Republican takeover of Congress. If a Democrat takes the White House in 2020, they will be coming in on the momentum of a left-wing backlash against Trump.

You don't think there will be a right-wing backlash to a President Sanders?  And Obama was elected on a Democratic wave that lasted two cycles (2006 and 2008) as a backlash to Dubya.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

That's simply not true though. All the evidence shows that a lot of people who didn't switch in 2016 (though the Clinton campaign was banking on them doing so), did end up switching in 2018.

Not exactly. The evidence suggests that in places where Trump won in 2016, he lost with the same demographic, ish. This could mean people switched their vote - but it could also mean that people who didn't vote in 2016 voted in 2018, or people who voted in 2016 didn't vote as much in 2018. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I personally would consider being Jewish a "minority" status in the USA. I was responding to Maithanet's characterization of Sanders and Bloomberg as merely being "78 year old white men" who would not be good fits for the party of "minorities." I do think most of the media seems to have a perception of this closer to Maithanet's, though, no matter how your family personally identifies. 

I suspect that’s because Christians tend to see the two religions as generally being in the same lane while Jews very much do not believe that, by and large.

Talk about cultural appropriation 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

That's true, but Obama ran his campaigns as a liberal, even though he was kind of a conservative president in retrospect. Clinton, by contrast, sort of ran his first campaign as a centrist Republican that leaned left on social issues.

I'm talking about Hillary Clinton, who ran the most progressive and inclusive POTUS general campaign in history. The notion that this was a backlash against centrist policies is not supported by facts. It's most easily explained by the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the least liked POTUS nominees to run in recent times, and combined that with environmental factors that indicated a slight favorability towards a Republican candidate. The idea that this is some kind of grand rejection of centrism when that candidate wasn't particularly centrist and that candidate handily beat the non-centrist candidate is ludicrous wishful thinking. 

I think Sanders can certainly win the nomination and possibly win the general, but not if you ignore most of American's desire to not rock the boat too much - especially when the economy is doing great.

6 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

I don't think there was ever really a backlash to Bush. He was more like a fart that just slowly died. Obama wasn't a backlash, he was a revelation that came out of nowhere. Or he seemed that way at least.

And this is revisionist history. There was a massive backlash to Bush, to the point where he was asked emphatically to not campaign or do any help to anyone running in 2008. His approval was something like 28%. You don't get a supermajority of senators in this day and age without a major swing against that party, and Republicans got blamed (entirely rightly) for the recession. 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

I don't think there was ever really a backlash to Bush. He was more like a fart that just slowly died.

Dubya had historically low approval ratings for a long period (last year and a half of his presidency) that can really only be historically rivaled by Truman and Nixon's last year.  There was definitely very discernible backlash.

[Zorral]

Bloomie's not running against Trump, he's running against Warren and Sanders.  It was their surge in the polls that got him in.  He spends 2 billion to defeat them and saves more billions than that in 'wealth tax.' i..e cheaper for him to run for POTUS than pay taxes.

However, Bloomberg = China -- so much of his biz, like Bezos's, depends on China.
Trump = Russia

It's really disgusting to watch Buttigieg smarm all over Bloomie now, as he did Biden, when it looked like Biden was The Guy. feh, spit.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

17 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

I don't think there was ever really a backlash to Bush. He was more like a fart that just slowly died. Obama wasn't a backlash, he was a revelation that came out of nowhere. Or he seemed that way at least.

This isn't what I remember at the time - by 2006 Bush was very unpopular (Iraq) and by the time the recession hit there was a massive backlash against him on all fronts.  Hell Republicans hardly argued when you'd mention he was the worst president in recent history.

Obama was absolutely a backlash against that - the fact he wasn't involved in going into Iraq was a massive point of appeal.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

Yeah but like, his party didn't implode on itself like they did when Obama was elected in 2008. McCain was just Bush with a little more dignity and not as stoked about torture. The face of the party didn't change the way the Republicans really started to after Obama and the way (I'd like to hope) the Democrats have begun to since Trump. 

So you're saying that they didn't change until they got their ass kicked, and then they changed incredibly? 

Kind of like Democrats in 2016 vs 2018 and 2020? Huh. 

Quote

Hillary's campaign kind of reminds me of a weed shop I visited in Maine over the holidays. The staff was super multicultural. Black people, white people, Asians of every hue, pink hair, dreadlocks, every shade or variety of human you could imagine. Very friendly, very inclusive, very welcoming environment. Almost enough to make one forget that the police are still arresting poor people and destroying their lives and families for selling the same plant that this corporate entity is colluding with law enforcement to corner the market on.

There was nothing progressive about Hillary Clinton or her campaign, and her family was really the beginning of the Democrat's shift to the right. I voted for her, and I wish she was president now. But honestly, fuck her. 

lol k

Quote

I didn't say it was a rejection of centrism. I said it was a rejection of the centrist brand of Democrat. Not the same thing as political centrism. And yeah, I don't doubt that misogyny played a role in the Clinton defeat. But I don't think those 98,000 people in Michigan who showed up to vote and left President line blank did so because they were scared of a woman. I think most of the hardcore misogynists probably went with Trump tbh.

Misogyny isn't being scared of women. But again, Lol k.

ETA: and no, you didn't, you said:

Quote

It's honestly a little baffling to me how anyone could have watched the 2016 election and seen anything other than America's complete and utter rejection of the center-left. Bloomberg stans, help me understand. Why?

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Speaking broadly, most of the Democratic field (including the ones who dropped out) are not particularly charismatic; they can't give an electrifying speech. Most of them are incapable of breaking through a Trump-saturated media landscape and getting their headlines; due to a combination of having rote, boring campaign events and speeches and not doing anything to viral. Many of them have large amounts of baggage that various types of Democratic voters dislike. Some of them were poor fundraisers, and some of them had poor strategies to attract voters (like Harris trying early to get to Sanders' left on health care) or made tactical missteps. Lastly, many of the top candidates are quite old for running for President, which is an issue for some voters.

And this isn't just the moderates either. Sanders has less of these problems than most, which is why he's the frontrunner right now, but he does have a lot of baggage to moderate voters. Warren had more of these problems.

Now let's look at Bloomberg. He's not that charismatic either, he's also old (though some people don't seem to realize it) and he's got plenty of baggage for a lot of voters, but he doesn't suffer from the other problems. The money helps him for certain. But I think if another candidate were able to avoid all, or at least most, of these problems, Bloomberg would never have gotten anywhere. Hell, I think if Sanders had all his same positions but were 30 years younger, 6'2" with a winning smile, and sounded less grouchy, he'd already have the nomination wrapped up.  On the flip side, if Buttigeig was a senator, straight (I do think that's an issue for some still), slightly older, and not quite as smarmy, I think he'd be far and away the frontrunner right now.

You lay out six flaws in the field- lack of charisma, inability to break through a Trump saturated media landscape, baggage, poor fundraising, strategic /tactical mistakes, and age.

Of these you concede that Bloomberg is uncharismatic, has baggage, and is old.

His ability to break through the Trump saturated media landscape is due to the immense amount of money he's put into advertising. Lack of fundraising is a non-issue for him. So these two are just down to his vast wealth, which is exactly what I identified as his sole advantage over the rest of the 'moderate' also-rans. 

That leaves only strategic/tactical mistakes as an area of advantage for Bloomberg that isn't based in his wealth. I think you may have a good point on Harris & health care, although we might see her mistake somewhat differently. You may think supporting single payer at all was a liability straight up for someone who wanted to compete in the 'moderate' lane (don't want to put words in your mouth, I could be wrong). I think voters reacted poorly to her attempt to posture as both on the party's left wrt single-payer, while also retreating on the question of maintaining a role for private insurance. Warren may have made a similar mistake in announcing a two step approach, first a public option and then single payer years later. I do not think voters respond well to this kind of waffling, regardless of the policy.

In any case, I think it would be difficult to argue that a vast field of qualified moderate Democrats were done in by strategic mistakes while Bloomberg is emerging as a credible alternative to Sanders on the basis of running a strategically impeccable campaign. You may be correct that this is part of the puzzle, but compared to Bloomberg's obvious advantage in money it just doesn't stack up as an important factor in my mind.

 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sanders won’t get 5% of what he’s campaigning on done even if Democrats retake the Senate. And that begs the question, will a Sanders victory actually set his causes back? I think it will.

Sanders' causes are indefinitely set back if we don't even bother trying until victory is certain. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

Yeah but like, his party didn't implode on itself like they did when Obama was elected in 2008. McCain was just Bush with a little more dignity and not as stoked about torture. The face of the party didn't change the way the Republicans really started to after Obama and the way (I'd like to hope) the Democrats have begun to since Trump.

Like Kal said your arguments here are simply rife with revisionist, or just downright inaccurate, history.  The trends of the GOP becoming what it is today already existed in 2008 - (asymmetric) polarization trends were already long established and the elite elements pushing the party right were already well positioned in Congress and among the party organization.  McCain certainly is a more moderate/establishment candidate than Trump, sure, but so was Romney in 2012 (arguably more so) -- after the GOP backlash you're referring to happened.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Listen, the biggest hurdles I have to voting for Bloomberg in the general (I wont vote for him in the primary) are:

Stop and Frisk - caveat, he has apologized for it, not sure how genuine but ok

Comments and attitude towards women - again, I think he has apologized, but may just be political expedience

The Muslim surveillance - this is the one that hasnt got much attention, and Bloomberg has not been apologetic about it (as well as its general uselessness). Maybe he could use his fancy grey matter to think a little about the shoddy science behind some of these surveillance programs (and stop/frisk too). I'd hate if he was a fan of *shudder* 'broken window' theory as well.

It will be a bit of a bitter pill to swallow, but I also probably wont put bumper stickers on my car or go out canvassing for him

[Fragile Bird]

26 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Bloomie's not running against Trump, he's running against Warren and Sanders.  It was their surge in the polls that got him in.  He spends 2 billion to defeat them and saves more billions than that in 'wealth tax.' i..e cheaper for him to run for POTUS than pay taxes.

However, Bloomberg = China -- so much of his biz, like Bezos's, depends on China.
Trump = Russia

Uh, what?

Amazon has tried to make inroads into China but the local equivalents have cleaned it’s clock so far. The combined Walton family members have more money than Bezos, and they sell a ton of Chinese goods in their stores, but they, like Amazon, are trying to make sure they have alternative suppliers.

And in what fantasy world does Bloomberg rely on China? Like all big businesses he wants to sell his product there, but China provides 1% of the company’s income. Bloomberg has 320,000 clients around the world paying $2,000 a month for financial news and analysis and $5,700 a month for the political version. You can be sure there are loads of terminals in Washington.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

No, they changed over the course of three elections between 2010 and 2014. The Tea Party was never about rejecting the Bush era brand of Republicanism, it was a reaction to the Obama presidency. But yes, I'm the one revising history. 

I don't think that's accurate, especially given what we saw of Palin - and later, Trump. So yes, I'm glad we're in agreement that you're the one revising history. 

2 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

Very mature 

There's very little else to say. There's clearly no convincing you that you're inaccurate or you're viewing things with entirely weird tinges, or that you're callously dismissing every single inclusive moment as woke culture and saying that it doesn't matter in the least. To you, none of those things matter. So seriously, if you only define progressiveness by economic progressiveness, you are STILL totally inaccurate. 

2 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

Kind of is in the context of voting for President.

Not really. I doubt most people didn't vote for a woman because they feared a woman. They didn't vote for a woman because they actively despised a woman running for office. 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

In any case, I think it would be difficult to argue that a vast field of qualified moderate Democrats were done in by strategic mistakes while Bloomberg is emerging as a credible alternative to Sanders on the basis of running a strategically impeccable campaign. You may be correct that this is part of the puzzle, but compared to Bloomberg's obvious advantage in money it just doesn't stack up as an important factor in my mind.

Well, Bloomberg's emergence is because he waited a long time to get in and was able to forego the first four contests.  The only reason he was able to do that, of course, was because of his money.  So, in that way, I guess you could say the strategic employment of his spending advantage was sound.

[Fez]

15 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

You lay out six flaws in the field- lack of charisma, inability to break through a Trump saturated media landscape, baggage, poor fundraising, strategic /tactical mistakes, and age.

Of these you concede that Bloomberg is uncharismatic, has baggage, and is old.

His ability to break through the Trump saturated media landscape is due to the immense amount of money he's put into advertising. Lack of fundraising is a non-issue for him. So these two are just down to his vast wealth, which is exactly what I identified as his sole advantage over the rest of the 'moderate' also-rans. 

That leaves only strategic/tactical mistakes as an area of advantage for Bloomberg that isn't based in his wealth. I think you may have a good point on Harris & health care, although we might see her mistake somewhat differently. You may think supporting single payer at all was a liability straight up for someone who wanted to compete in the 'moderate' lane (don't want to put words in your mouth, I could be wrong). I think voters reacted poorly to her attempt to posture as both on the party's left wrt single-payer, while also retreating on the question of maintaining a role for private insurance. Warren may have made a similar mistake in announcing a two step approach, first a public option and then single payer years later. I do not think voters respond well to this kind of waffling, regardless of the policy.

In any case, I think it would be difficult to argue that a vast field of qualified moderate Democrats were done in by strategic mistakes while Bloomberg is emerging as a credible alternative to Sanders on the basis of running a strategically impeccable campaign. You may be correct that this is part of the puzzle, but compared to Bloomberg's obvious advantage in money it just doesn't stack up as an important factor in my mind.

I'm not arguing Bloomberg's money doesn't help him; of course it does. My argument is that Bloomberg is filling a void in the nominee field that existed already, and I don't think he'd get any traction, regardless of how much money he spent, if that void didn't exist. And that's why I don't think he's potentially "buying" the Democratic electorate. Because I think the kinds of voters supporting him were already dissatisified with the field and were looking for an alternative. 

Also, it's weird, but the age thing hasn't hurt Bloomberg yet. I've seen political reporters recount conversations with voters who said they were going to vote for Bloomberg because Sanders and Biden are too old. Bloomberg is the same age, but for whatever reason that fact hasn't sunk in yet.