Jump to content
Fragile Bird

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

Recommended Posts

Just now, SpaceChampion said:

Actually Chris Matthews was just speculating the Dem establishment would rather lose to Trump than win with Sanders. 

Yeah, I was going to say:

While there is no doubt that some in the more establishment lane just fear that Sanders is a bad candidate who will lose, it's also clear that this is not exclusively where resistance to Sanders comes from.  I find that curious and don't really know why exactly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Yeah, I was going to say:

While there is no doubt that some in the more establishment lane just fear that Sanders is a bad candidate who will lose, it's also clear that this is not exclusively where resistance to Sanders comes from.  I find that curious and don't really know why exactly.  

The "better Trump than Bernie" faction is probably mostly the lobbyists and consultants that suck up a few billion dollars every cycle and lose elections.  Some of them are actually get selected as delegates from each campaign.  If the party shifts to rejecting corporate cash, they're all unemployed.

If it is a contested convention those set will likely try to take it from Sanders, while I have some faith the party leaders from the State delegations might see how that would destroy the party.

Edited by SpaceChampion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Triskele said:

While there is no doubt that some in the more establishment lane just fear that Sanders is a bad candidate who will lose, it's also clear that this is not exclusively where resistance to Sanders comes from.  I find that curious and don't really know why exactly. 

Mathews has always been fairly conservative.  He may be a Democrat, but he is a distinctly conservative Democrat.  So, too, is Clair McCaskill, and Nicole Wallace is a Republican.  It's not surprising this group - who along with Williams and Kornacki have dominated MSNBC coverage the past few hours from what I've seen - have pretty "out there" views compared to most of the Democratic electorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

Actually Chris Matthews was just speculating the Dem establishment would rather lose to Trump than win with Sanders. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Yeah, I was going to say:

While there is no doubt that some in the more establishment lane just fear that Sanders is a bad candidate who will lose, it's also clear that this is not exclusively where resistance to Sanders comes from.  I find that curious and don't really know why exactly.  

I think sometimes rank-and-file Democrats have trouble fully appreciating that money affects Democratic politicians just as it does Republicans. The Democratic Party is substantially backed by corporate interests and Sanders' hostility to the same easily explains establishment resistance to his candidacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Durckad

Can't quote for some reason. Site's weird today.

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.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I think sometimes rank-and-file Democrats have trouble fully appreciating that money affects Democratic politicians just as it does Republicans. The Democratic Party is substantially backed by corporate interests and Sanders' hostility to the same easily explains establishment resistance to his candidacy. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Edited by Lollygag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also noticed that Chris Matthews compared a likely victory of a Jewish candidate who lost family in the Holocaust... to Nazi Germany conquering France.

Nice one, Chris.

Edited by Gorn

Share this post


Link to post
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:

Edited by Gorn

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spin is a funny thing.  Getting a distant 2nd to Bernie is not a good thing for Biden in another context, but if that's the result tonight you know the Biden camp has to hype that as a big victory or something.  

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Edited by OnionAhaiReborn

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×