Jump to content

US Politics: Money, Money, Money Makes the World Go Round


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

Well Chris Matthews is a fucking idiot then, and he's wrong. 

I mean I'm sure you'll find a couple other people with those sentiments, there's never 100% of any group in favor of anything; but the vast majority of the Democratic establishment just wants to win. Especially against someone like Trump, who is basically a slow-moving existential threat to American democracy. But they'd want to win against anyone. When you win, you can get stuff done; when you lose you're powerless. Especially in this environment. If Trump wins, Republicans certainly have kept the Senate, and there's a good chance they retake the House.

I think his statement may have been pulled out of context.

Earlier, I think on Joy Reid's show (was multi-tasking and not paying full attention), there was a lot of discussion of Bernie being both socialist and anti-capitalist. Sanders apparently has some recent statements that sound not unifying, but more like he's staging a hostile take-over of the Democratic party infrastructure which is not socialist (at least not the type Bernie has associated with in the past) and pro-capitalist. It's reminding people of what Trump did to the Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I think his statement may have been pulled out of context.

Earlier, I think on Joy Reid's show (was multi-tasking and not paying full attention), there was a lot of discussion of Bernie being both socialist and anti-capitalist. Sanders apparently has some recent statements that sound not unifying, but more like he's staging a hostile take-over of the Democratic party infrastructure which is not socialist (at least not the type Bernie has associated with in the past) and pro-capitalist. It's reminding people of what Trump did to the Republicans.

So far, Sanders is handily winning non-white vote, youth vote and working class vote. Those groups are also collectively known as the Democratic party base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gorn said:

So far, Sanders is handily winning non-white vote, youth vote and working class vote. Those groups are also collectively known as the Democratic party base.

He's still not doing well with white suburban women who turned the House. It was just reported that this is still the case in NV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

He's still not doing well with white suburban women who turned the House. It was just reported that this is still the case in NV.

Well, he's also doing well among Independents, also known as people who decide general elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Well, he's also doing well among Independents, also known as people who decide general elections.

Independents that participate in a Democratic primary (let alone a caucus, although I suppose with the early vote Nevada is kinda both) are not necessarily known as the people who decide general elections, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lollygag

Yeah, everytime I try to quote, something goes wrong so, no more of that for me.

I can see that but I took the analogy to be more about identifying specific problems and ruling out simpler, targeted solutions first rather than bypassing that altogether and going through the long-term chaos that comes with tearing up the entire house complex US economy.

I think the issue here is that the history of US politics suggests that those applying the simpler, targeted solution are often wont to declare victory, pat themselves on the back, and forget about the issue entirely, mostly because even getting that simpler, targeted fix is so fucking difficult to do. After applying multiple, targeted solutions over a period of time, someone does need to chime in and say, "Maybe we should just take a look at the whole plumbing system here?"

And again, ultimately, we (ie, the US) just has a fundamental disagreement of whether a simple, targeted solution will result in any meaningful improvement in the lives of the citizenry. Sanders (and Warren to a lesser extent) doesn't think it will and the more moderates voices disagree. 

 Republicans in power totally agree on there being a big 'ole clog (insert the McConnell smirk here). For the average Republican, they're moving towards populism.

If we're talking about trickle-down economics, then no I don't think they do agree that it's a problem at all. Just look at how many Trump supporters trot out the same, nonsensical, neo-conservative arguments in favor of trickle-down economics despite, ostensibly, being populists on the surface.

But, yes, they certainly do believe that there are clogs in the system, they're just pointing in different places than Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Well, he's also doing well among Independents, also known as people who decide general elections.

And this still doesn't address my point. Bernie's a socialist and anti-capitalist. Democrats are not. Seeing this as establishment/anti-establishment isn't entirely accurate.

I'm not denying that he's doing well in certain circles. But he's still only pulling a quarter to a third of the votes (much lower than 2016) and the moderate lane collectively is still winning and he's definitely not winning across the board with most demographics.

I have a problem with the strength of Bernie's support itself. I don't think people at looking very closely at Bernie himself, his past, and what he has yet to disavow. While Bernie is great at identifying the problems, his solutions are nebulous at best and the viability of those few actual solutions is worse yet.

It looks like most people are supporting their own personal Headcanon Bernie and he's letting them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

and the moderate lane collectively is still winning and he's definitely not winning across the board.

Does the "moderate lane" plan to timeshare Oval Office? Biden on Monday, Klobuchar on Tuesday, etc? Are they all going to sit at the same desk? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gorn said:

Does the "moderate lane" plan to timeshare Oval Office? Biden on Monday, Klobuchar on Tuesday, etc? :lol:

They're not all staying in for the entire primary. Don't be willfully ignorant just to make a (bad) point. It establishes that Bernie's policies are not the will of the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, it depends on what you mean by "establishment" Democrats.  If you're referring to those dominating coverage on MSNBC, sure?  But if you're referring to the party elite as officeholders, no.  Nancy Pelosi is not worried about Sanders' anti-corporate hostility.  Schumer might, but the median Dem Senator isn't.  And even on MSNBC you have Gibbs and Plouffe presenting much less alarmist analysis of Bernie as the nominee.  Plouffe detailed that there are many positive aspects to Sanders' campaign, "but if we don't win the health care debate, we don't deserve to beat Trump.  And the cold hard fact is if Bernie doesn't bend on M4A, he makes that much more difficult to do when it should be a layup.  That's the concern.  Even Carville's, really, even if I agree he's coming off as quite unhinged.  These old-hand political operatives - the establishment - simply want to win and there's a clear obstacle there with a Bernie candidacy that there isn't even with Warren.

I don't watch MSNBC (or any cable news) so that's not really what I'm referring to, though I see some clips and I gather that many of their top pundits loathe Sanders. 

I simply do not buy that elite Democratic office holders are secretly ok with Sanders' policy agenda but only concerned that it renders him unelectable. That may be the good faith view of some. It may even be the case that establishment Democrats believe Sanders' agenda makes him unelectable and they oppose it, but I do not believe they are would-be democratic socialists simply concerned about electability. There is real hostility within the Democratic Party to the substantive changes Sanders would like to make. And I believe that hostility is in large part due to the influence of money. 

I come to this view from years of reading about politics but the most recent example I can offer is this Times piece on Bloomberg's spending. It's clear that liberal organizations and politicians are susceptible to pressure from big money donors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I simply do not buy that elite Democratic office holders are secretly ok with Sanders' policy agenda but only concerned that it renders him unelectable.

Their problem with his agenda is because they think it's unelectable, secretly or publicly (although many have not gone public with that, and likely won't).  Of course that doesn't mean any are democratic socialists, but none are too concerned solely with his "anti-corporate" message.  That's a winner politically.  It's the policies that pool poorly and he still insists on not only supporting but emphasizing that worry the establishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Durckad said:

@Lollygag

Yeah, everytime I try to quote, something goes wrong so, no more of that for me.

I can see that but I took the analogy to be more about identifying specific problems and ruling out simpler, targeted solutions first rather than bypassing that altogether and going through the long-term chaos that comes with tearing up the entire house complex US economy.

I think the issue here is that the history of US politics suggests that those applying the simpler, targeted solution are often wont to declare victory, pat themselves on the back, and forget about the issue entirely, mostly because even getting that simpler, targeted fix is so fucking difficult to do. After applying multiple, targeted solutions over a period of time, someone does need to chime in and say, "Maybe we should just take a look at the whole plumbing system here?"

And again, ultimately, we (ie, the US) just has a fundamental disagreement of whether a simple, targeted solution will result in any meaningful improvement in the lives of the citizenry. Sanders (and Warren to a lesser extent) doesn't think it will and the more moderates voices disagree. 

 Republicans in power totally agree on there being a big 'ole clog (insert the McConnell smirk here). For the average Republican, they're moving towards populism.

If we're talking about trickle-down economics, then no I don't think they do agree that it's a problem at all. Just look at how many Trump supporters trot out the same, nonsensical, neo-conservative arguments in favor of trickle-down economics despite, ostensibly, being populists on the surface.

But, yes, they certainly do believe that there are clogs in the system, they're just pointing in different places than Democrats.

I completely agree with your assessment here. But in regards to this specifically, Hillary campaigned on fixing the wealth gap but didn't win. Trump made it worse. So no one has had the chance to make a real attempt yet. I agree with looking at the whole plumbing system, but you still need to go through the process rather than jump to the long-term chaos of tearing it all up. And with Sanders, he still can't pass anything substantive anyhow and his track record for getting things done beyond talking is less than impressive.

We've not really had a substantive discussion of policies which might fix things beyond Warren and I've yet to hear anyone say that Warren's solutions (reasonable btw) won't fix things. Even the rich folks haven't been able to tear her ideas down (except healthcare but no one's got a good comprehensive idea on that) in any substantive way and you know they want to. You can't really accuse her of being someone to not get results on this - it's her life's work. It looks like folks want to flip tables for the sake of flipping tables.

Trickle-down is a problem that's very beneficial to rich Republicans hence the smirk. If they wanted to avoid the problem (and also their benefiting from the problem), they'd have made the trickle-down a requirement for the tax cuts rather than leaving it as optional. The Republican base is lost to brainwashing so don't expect them to be completely reasonable hence supporting unenforced trickle-down economics and seeing populism as the answer. That they recognize the same problems is why we got stuck with Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Their problem with his agenda is because they think it's unelectable, secretly or publicly (although many have not gone public with that, and likely won't).  Of course that doesn't mean any are democratic socialists, but none are too concerned solely with his "anti-corporate" message.  That's a winner politically.  It's the policies that pool poorly and he still insists on not only supporting but emphasizing that worry the establishment.

Right, well I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't think they're merely concerned that, say, single-payer, polls poorly (even if that might be a valid concern!). I think they know it will also engender intense opposition from powerful interest groups whose money they want to keep getting, or for whom they want to one day work or have their friends or family members work as consultants or lobbyists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I think they know it will also engender intense opposition from powerful interest groups whose money they want to keep getting, or for whom they want to one day work for or have their friends or family members work for as consultants or lobbyists. 

Well, yes, partly why it is unpopular is how powerful interest groups have demonized it really since Hillarycare.  And, of course, they are also concerned because those powerful interest groups are not going to let it happen with the congressional majorities a Sanders nominee (or, to be fair, any Dem nominee) is going to result in - so maybe it's a bad idea to stridently run on it rather than acknowledging compromise is likely gonna have to be made to get something done.

As for the second part of your sentence, what you're referring to is revolving door lobbying.  That's certainly a worry to some extent, but ensuring the Dem presidential nominee has the best chance to win is much more important to the elites immediate self-interest than that.  Besides, they'll still be able to sell their soul and influence on the hill when their electoral career is over anyway. 

2 minutes ago, Triskele said:

To ask:  is there not a case that's developing that one wants Sanders to wrap this up quickly so that it doesn't go there?  I'm starting to think that I could justify a vote for Sanders in the California Super Tuesday primary on these grounds alone. 

I don't think I'd vote for Sanders if I was in a Super Tuesday state.  However, immediately after if he builds an insurmountable lead (which I think is quite likely)?  Yes.  So, not very helpful of an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Triskele said:

 Even if one isn't a Sanders fan isn't the brokered convention a potential disaster?

To ask:  is there not a case that's developing that one wants Sanders to wrap this up quickly so that it doesn't go there?  I'm starting to think that I could justify a vote for Sanders in the California Super Tuesday primary on these grounds alone.  

The longer Trump and the Republican spin machine can't put their full power on a single target, the better. Debatable if it's worth it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand why people might worry about his electability, but surely the same logic that was used last time applies now.

If none of the moderate candidates can actually gain enough traction with the Democratic base to seize a plurality of voters, then their campaign isn't connecting well enough to have any confidence that they'd do better than Sanders in the general.

I had concerns about whether he can win the election as well, but if he's going to dominate the primary (which is the current direction) then none of the other candidates are better for election. Fall in line behind him and do your best to make him win. Obviously he hasn't actually won it yet, but we're talking the hypothetical where that happens - any establishment attempts to steal it back at that point will ensure defeat regardless of what their motivation is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I had concerns about whether he can win the election as well, but if he's going to dominate the primary (which is the current direction) then none of the other candidates are better for election. Fall in line behind him and do your best to make him win. Obviously he hasn't actually won it yet, but we're talking the hypothetical where that happens - any establishment attempts to steal it back at that point will ensure defeat regardless of what their motivation is.

Sure, I never said I'm not gonna work as hard for him to beat Trump (which I really won't have time to do until May anyway) - I certainly will.  But I don't think there's anything wrong with saying it's unfortunate none of the "moderate" candidates could consolidate the vote and give him a real challenge - while also acknowledging his clear, empirically identifiable, and rather unique electoral weaknesses from an analytical perspective.  Definitely shouldn't be freaking out about it like Carville of course, but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Contrary to popular belief among the far left, the Democratic establishment isn't afraid of Sanders winning in November, they're terrified of him losing. They're terrified of anyone losing, but they (and I) think that Sanders would be a significantly weaker candidate than the others.

I really truly hope they (and I) are wrong.

Don't worry, I can assure you now that you're wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...