Jump to content
Fragile Bird

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

Recommended Posts

Apparently, they're having a meltdown on MSNBC over Sanders leading in Nevada, especially James Carville, who wants to do everything to stop Sanders from getting the nom. It brings me joy watching the establishment panic like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DMC said:

The Nevada results are all good news for Sanders on a number of levels.  His strength with Hispanic voters - even in the face of the Culinary Workers union going after him - is very good news for California and Texas.  Nobody else standing out/outperforming expectations to come in a strong second obviously helps.  He's actually gaining on the second ballot - whereas his margin shrank in Iowa.  That difference suggests people are coming around to the fact he's probably gonna be the nominee.  And, of course, he's already busy campaigning in Texas.  It's starting to look very likely Bernie will have an insurmountable delegate lead following Super Tuesday.

I bet the next 4 years of Trump will be even more awesome than the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I bet the next 4 years of Trump will be even more awesome than the last.

One generally good sign is it sounds like turnout is up - and that's the main reason for the delay in actual results.  That didn't happen in Iowa, but did in NH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I bet the next 4 years of Trump will be even more awesome than the last.

You're right, he won't stop tweeting after getting kicked out of the White House.  That IS going to be pretty awesome.

Edited by SpaceChampion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

Apparently, they're having a meltdown on MSNBC over Sanders leading in Nevada, especially James Carville, who wants to do everything to stop Sanders from getting the nom. It brings me joy watching the establishment panic like this. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DMC said:

One generally good sign is it sounds like turnout is up - and that's the main reason for the delay in actual results.  That didn't happen in Iowa, but did in NH.

Does NV always vote on a weekend?    I just want to confirm the increase is based on a consistent comparison.    
Sanders has gotten a lot of establishment whining, but he’s been mostly treated with kid gloves.  Which I’m sure will not be the case in the general.  I’m going to need a pallet of depends to make it through this.  

Edited by butterbumps!

Share this post


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

Does NV always vote on a weekend?

They have since they moved up in the schedule in 2008 (I honestly don't remember before then).  I agree Sanders has been treated with kid gloves thus far, and one would expect that to change soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes 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.

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

 

Share this post


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

×