Jump to content
Fragile Bird

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

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Lollygag

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Edited by OnionAhaiReborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

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.

Uh, that sort of ignores the brokered convention piece.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Triskele said:

Uh, that sort of ignores the brokered convention piece.  

No. That's why I said debatable if it's worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


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

Uh, that sort of ignores the brokered convention piece.  

Brokered convention is the worst case. So many voters would be rightly enraged when their candidate didn't make it. Hell, if Warren or even Pete won, I think we could convince the majority of Sanders supporters to come out in November. If Bernie wins the most delegates but it is taken from him, those voters will leave in droves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DMC yeah that one wasn't really directed at you, not only have you made it clear you'll support him if he wins the nomination, you've already made it clear you're factoring in his primary success when assessing his potential general election performance.

I don't expect anyone to change their support in the primary, but I do think you need to at least reassess your preferred candidates chances when they've failed to convince the Dem base in the primaries. If one of the moderates was consistently the second choice for the rest of the field then that might hold more weight but it's really just a mess. For some of them it will just boil down to "the timing is wrong" although I suspect the ones who believe that about themselves are the ones that have already dropped. 

Share this post


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

For some of them it will just boil down to "the timing is wrong" although I suspect the ones who believe that about themselves are the ones that have already dropped.

Yup.

Share this post


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

@DMC yeah that one wasn't really directed at you, not only have you made it clear you'll support him if he wins the nomination, you've already made it clear you're factoring in his primary success when assessing his potential general election performance.

I don't expect anyone to change their support in the primary, but I do think you need to at least reassess your preferred candidates chances when they've failed to convince the Dem base in the primaries. If one of the moderates was consistently the second choice for the rest of the field then that might hold more weight but it's really just a mess. For some of them it will just boil down to "the timing is wrong" although I suspect the ones who believe that about themselves are the ones that have already dropped. 

I find this most head scratching--that there is no clear preferred moderate, yet people assume if all the moderates but one dropped out, the one left would get all those votes. Because there is no consensus about those candidates, it stands to reason that many people could go to Bernie as easily as anyone else. A lot of people around here claim the politics of the moderate candidates are actually very progressive, so...if a bunch dropped out tomorrow, it could create a challenge for Bernie, or Bernie could run even further ahead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

that there is no clear preferred moderate, yet people assume if all the moderates but one dropped out, the one left would get all those votes. Because there is no consensus about those candidates, it stands to reason that many people could go to Bernie as easily as anyone else. A lot of people around here claim the politics of the moderate candidates are actually very progressive, so...if a bunch dropped out tomorrow, it could create a challenge for Bernie, or Bernie could run even further ahead. 

If everybody but one dropped out, sure, Bernie would definitely get a significant portion of that.  But a majority?  Very unlikely based on the combined second/third choices of most of those candidates.  Plus there's the added value of having a one-on-one matchup with Sanders, which Sanders himself benefitted from being the sole challenger to Clinton last cycle.  That's impossible to anticipate, but could be quite significant.  Sanders would still be the frontrunner, but his chances would be far less certain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

judging from the Nevada results posted by Kalbear, the Democratic establishment should be in full panic mode...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one thing we can say is that the attack on M4A that Unions are afraid of losing the healthcare they have is not as potent an attack as they had hoped. It really felt like the establishment really thought they had found the attack line that would slow Bernie's roll, but in a strongly union state it feel flat even with union leadership banging that drum.

As far as the results as they stand now, it shows that Amy in NH was probably an aberration, Pete takes a beating since his entire argument is predicated on him doing well in two incredibly white states. Biden is looking ok so far as more returns come in, but South Carolina will be where we learn if he is actually going to be a contender, or just a paper tiger. It gives me no pleasure to say this because I do really like her, but I think that Warren is done, even a strong debate performance didn't really move the needle in Nevada.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From exit polls, Bernie won a plurality with self-described moderates (23% -- more than any single moderate candidate) and conservative Democrats.  Perhaps some moderates and conservatives prefer a movement-funded socialist over anyone corporate-funded.  People are sick of money buying legislation to order.

Share this post


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

×