Market politics

[dmunjal]

And Tulsi returns fire.........

View attachment 467750

This was from Wikileaks during the 2016 campaign. Hillary doesn't like Tulsi at all.

 

[Norbert]

Another possibility is that being around Trump the stupid rubs off on others?

I noted this back in 2017 that when Trump gets in a jam, he sets himself on fire to distract people from whatever the issue is. To some extent it has worked. Scandals that would have been the story 24/7 for months in a normal administration usually only last days because there is something new cray cray Trump has said or did.

But he now has to admit to or commit new crimes to distract people from his other crimes, so the effectiveness of this tactic is wearing out. He's always come across as a lunatic, but now he's reaching new heights at it. There are no analogies left because he has pretty much exceeded every public figure in the modern era for public lunacy.

There are some stories of past kings or emperors who might be as nutty, but we only have stories of their behavior and there is always the possibility the historians exaggerated something. And the vast majority of people aren't aware enough of history to know who those figures were.

Right. The more absurd, the better. Occasionally saying something that's close to the truth, just increases the absurdity of it all. Or do something completely self-destructive for no reason.

That way nobody ever succeeds in wrapping their head around the show.

 

[EVNow]

Jimmy Dore is not a progressive. He's a right winger who pretends to be left wing. He endorsed Trump in 2016, and in a debate with Sam Seders declared "The Supreme Court doesn't matter!"

Jimmy Dore is one of the perfect examples of why your uni-axis left-right is not useful when describing people.

In reality most people's ideologies are not "consistent" i.e. they don't follow party politics. Partisans tend to align their ideology to the party/leader's ideology. Just see how quickly millions of Republicans shifted their ideology when Trump won the primary. Were they all neocons during Bush years and suddenly changed after the Idaho primary ? Ofcourse not - they were just aligning their ideology with their party leaders.

BTW, Dore didn't endorse Trump. He endorsed Jill Stein. But he thought Trump's presidency would be tactically good for Progressives in the short run. The jury is out on that. I see some stuff on the internet saying he is a conspiracy theorist - I don't listen to him, so can't say for sure (there are always people misinterpreting stuff).

Jimmy Dore - Wikipedia

Dore was supportive of the Bernie Sanders campaign in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, being called "Sanders-obsessed" by The Washington Post.[9] He was critical of Senator Elizabeth Warren for not defending Sanders in the primaries.[10] Dore later asserted that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be worse for progressives and for the United States than a Donald Trump presidency, saying "don't freak out about a Donald Trump presidency! I think, in fact, my theory is that it's even better for progressives in the short-term, meaning in the two-year term, and in four years for sure."[11] A Washington Post article in January 2017 stated that since the presidential election, Jimmy Dore had "lit into Democrats for blaming hackers for their loss, raised doubts about the credibility of intelligence agencies, and seen the heavy hand of war hawks hyping the Russia connection to destabilize Europe and the Middle East."[12]​

 

[EVNow]

You don't have to adopt Trump's policies and still adopt his approach. Sanders will lose the nomination this time just like 2016 because he lacks the killer instinct. This is not about left or right but how you win elections.

Trump won the primary because of his brazen racist and xenophobic language - not because of his "killer instinct". Single most predictor of who would vote for Trump in the primary was their ideology w.r.t. immigration. They were "nativists" - which is a weird term because that doesn't mean they are pro Native Americans. Trump won in spite of his all other goofy comments and obvious personal problems, not because of them. It was also because he was a household name and a "successful" businessman (or so sold on TV). Even within the Republican party someone else who is a replica of Trump will probably not win the primary again. Afterall even in the reddest of states, Alabama, Roy Moore lost the election.

 

[Norbert]

This was from Wikileaks during the 2016 campaign. Hillary doesn't like Tulsi at all.

But FoxNews does. Tucker Carlson interviewing her: "I couldn't agree more". Tulsi: Continues to smile.

 

[dmunjal]

Trump won the primary because of his brazen racist and xenophobic language - not because of his "killer instinct". Single most predictor of who would vote for Trump in the primary was their ideology w.r.t. immigration. They were "nativists" - which is a weird term because that doesn't mean they are pro Native Americans. Trump won in spite of his all other goofy comments and obvious personal problems, not because of them. It was also because he was a household name and a "successful" businessman (or so sold on TV). Even within the Republican party someone else who is a replica of Trump will probably not win the primary again. Afterall even in the reddest of states, Alabama, Roy Moore lost the election.

I don't agree with this assessment. Jeb Bush was the leading candidate during the primary and then Rubio, Cruz, et all. Trump trashed all of them one by one by attacking them directly and aggressively. Like progressives feel about Clinton/Obama today, many Republicans were tired of the Bush legacy and Trump gave them a clean break. Bernie tried to do that in 2016 in the Democratic primary but was ultimately unsuccessful. I see Bernie and Tulsi trying to do the same in 2020. The fact that Hillary is still trying to keep her legacy alive (through Warren?) with her attacks on them is telling.

 

[Norbert]

I don't need to see the candidates fighting, and I wouldn't want a show fight for entertainment purposes.

Bernie is a bit of a solo fighter but the others aren't. I'd be more interested to see them discuss it it like a team, and just let the best win. So that after the primaries, they can all "fight" together. That would be an interesting change, instead of that personality cult and circus around Trump.

 

[EVNow]

The leading Dem candidate when asked about Hillary-Tulsi fight. He is truly the only Dem who can be as incomprehensible as Trump.

 

[EVNow]

I don't agree with this assessment. Jeb Bush was the leading candidate during the primary and then Rubio, Cruz, et all.

Trump led in the national primary polls all the way through, starting soon after he entered the race.

 

[wdolson]

Jimmy Dore is one of the perfect examples of why your uni-axis left-right is not useful when describing people.

In reality most people's ideologies are not "consistent" i.e. they don't follow party politics. Partisans tend to align their ideology to the party/leader's ideology. Just see how quickly millions of Republicans shifted their ideology when Trump won the primary. Were they all neocons during Bush years and suddenly changed after the Idaho primary ? Ofcourse not - they were just aligning their ideology with their party leaders.

BTW, Dore didn't endorse Trump. He endorsed Jill Stein. But he thought Trump's presidency would be tactically good for Progressives in the short run. The jury is out on that. I see some stuff on the internet saying he is a conspiracy theorist - I don't listen to him, so can't say for sure (there are always people misinterpreting stuff).

Jimmy Dore - Wikipedia

Dore was supportive of the Bernie Sanders campaign in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, being called "Sanders-obsessed" by The Washington Post.[9] He was critical of Senator Elizabeth Warren for not defending Sanders in the primaries.[10] Dore later asserted that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be worse for progressives and for the United States than a Donald Trump presidency, saying "don't freak out about a Donald Trump presidency! I think, in fact, my theory is that it's even better for progressives in the short-term, meaning in the two-year term, and in four years for sure."[11] A Washington Post article in January 2017 stated that since the presidential election, Jimmy Dore had "lit into Democrats for blaming hackers for their loss, raised doubts about the credibility of intelligence agencies, and seen the heavy hand of war hawks hyping the Russia connection to destabilize Europe and the Middle East."[12]​

He may be right in assessing that Trump would be good for progressives, but the cost is astronomically high. Trump has solidified a new coalition in American politics which hasn't completely come to the surface yet, but was showing signs of it last fall in the Midterms.

The Republican party has been demographically challenged for years. The "Southern Strategy" of Nixon appealed indirectly to white voters at a time when there were enough whites to be wooed by faintly racist campaigns. But the white majority in the population has been shrinking since the 60s and it was predicted it would be not enough to win for Republicans in 2016, but Trump defied that by getting a lot of whites who had given up voting to turn out at a time when the left leaning vote was suppressed for a number of reasons.

Trump won by voicing the things other Republicans have only hinted at for decades. But in the process he may have sown the seeds of the party's extinction. The Republican coalition is more fragile than the Democrats. Democrats have spats, but at the end of the day most are willing to compromise and get things done.

But Republicans have become increasingly intolerant of anyone who isn't willing to tow the line. From Reagan to recently most Republicans have sucked it up and followed whoever the leader was, even if they disagreed. But Trump has created a lot of fractures in that system and it's driven away a lot of the soft support for the GOP. 20202 has to be a massive win for Democrats to end this cancer on the right. If the GOP loses big, the factions will go to war with one another blaming the other factions for their loss and eventually a new conservative movement will form which hopefully will be sane again. The smartest conservatives are angling for this.

I don't agree with this assessment. Jeb Bush was the leading candidate during the primary and then Rubio, Cruz, et all. Trump trashed all of them one by one by attacking them directly and aggressively. Like progressives feel about Clinton/Obama today, many Republicans were tired of the Bush legacy and Trump gave them a clean break. Bernie tried to do that in 2016 in the Democratic primary but was ultimately unsuccessful. I see Bernie and Tulsi trying to do the same in 2020. The fact that Hillary is still trying to keep her legacy alive (through Warren?) with her attacks on them is telling.

Trump won by breaking all the unwritten rules. Republicans have dog whistled their base for decades, but Trump came right out and said it. To the base, this seemed more honest and they moved towards him. His reality TV star history helped him too because he had a myth of being a successful business leader going for him.

I do think Clinton should have kept her mouth shut about Tulsi Gabbard. I don't like Gabbard's politics and a third party run by her would not be great, but she's probably not going to get much support. Gabbard has a complex set of political beliefs and those who agree with her is small. And the left is unified in the "vote blue no matter who" attitude this time. More so than ever before.

The left coalition this round is like the US after Pearl Harbor. The US's sub-cultures have never gotten along, but the attack on Pearl Harbor unified the country like never before. Trump has done the same politically. We now have conservative voices like David Brooks telling people to vote for Warren if she's the nominee. There other sane conservatives who are advocating voting blue no matter who also. Any third party candidates who might sap votes from Democrats in normal times will have a hard sell this time, though more conservative third party candidates might do well.

 

[Paracelsus]

We now have conservative voices like David Brooks telling people to vote for Warren if she's the nominee.

I agree that the trend of Centrist Republicans rallying for Warren IS having an effect.............it is rapidly undermining any hope of support for Warren from Progressives and from people simply wanting change by cementing her position among her Centrist Democrat peers while alienating the support she must get if she is going to have any chance of success - as we saw yesterday from this crowd of almost 26,000 people in Queens who gathered within sight of Wall Street to watch Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michael Moore make their endorsements (the largest crowd at any rally event this year). Nice comment from Snowden too

 

[Curt Renz]

My congressional district is rather interesting. It’s the Illinois 14th. It has a Gerrymander shape traversing through far western and far northern Chicagoland. It skews hugely white and Republican. However, in 2018 a 32-year-old black female Democrat, Lauren Underwood, unseated a four-term Republican congressman, Randy Hultgren.

In 2018, seven Democrats competed for the right to run against the Republican incumbent who was uncontested in his primary. In primary debates each Democrat tried to show that he/she was further left and more anti-Trump than the others.

In 2020, seven Republicans (so far) will compete for the right to run against the Democratic incumbent who likely will be uncontested in her primary. Each Republican has been trying to show that he/she is further right and more pro-Trump than the others.

My biggest gripe with the primary system is that it so often results in the most extreme candidates running in the general elections. Back in the old days (my youth), party officials would select or promote candidates that would appeal not only to their base but also to middle of the road independent voters. Unfortunately, the current primary system results in members of Congress who find it extremely difficult to cooperate or compromise.

 

[wdolson]

The Republicans have become so extreme that to win many primaries Republicans need to out extreme each other. It happens too in some very left wing districts, but it's far less universal among Democrats.

 

[Curt Renz]

The Republicans have become so extreme that to win many primaries Republicans need to out extreme each other. It happens too in some very left wing districts, but it's far less universal among Democrats.

There do not seem to be many American politicians today of the type we used to call statesmen. Now they are largely panderers to their bases. For that situation, it appears we can thank the modern primary voting system.

 

[EVNow]

My biggest gripe with the primary system is that it so often results in the most extreme candidates running in the general elections. Back in the old days (my youth), party officials would select or promote candidates that would appeal not only to their base but also to middle of the road independent voters. Unfortunately, the current primary system results in members of Congress who find it extremely difficult to cooperate or compromise.

So, what do you think is more democratic and what system would be pro-status quo ?

BTW, the answer to this is a truly democratic multi-party system, where there are multiple parties more closely representing the electorate.

The Republicans have become so extreme that to win many primaries Republicans need to out extreme each other. It happens too in some very left wing districts, but it's far less universal among Democrats.

There is little doubt the whole political class has moved to the right. Very popular Republican politicians of the old days would probably not get elected today in the primary. Very popular Democratic politicians would be called extreme left (*cough* FDR *cough* ).

Not just that - if you see other western industrialized countries, the American "center" is definitely somewhere in the far right.

 

[Curt Renz]

So, what do you think is more democratic...

Most municipalities in Chicagoland, including the city of Chicago, have had non-partisan elections for a couple of decades. Party allegiances are not declared. All candidates run against each other in an initial election. If someone wins at least 50% of the vote, that person is elected. Otherwise, a runoff election is held not long afterward between the top two candidates.

Under this non-partisan system, candidates from the very beginning must appeal for votes from the general electorate and not just a narrow base. They get elected based on the public's perceptions of their overall capabilities, character and individual positions on separate issues, not party platforms.

I propose that this system also be applied to higher levels of government. Although an improvement has been suggested, in which during a non-partisan election, voters order their selections numerically, if more than two people are running for an office. This would make a second election for that office unnecessary.

 

[EVNow]

I propose that this system also be applied to higher levels of government. Although an improvement has been suggested, in which during a non-partisan election, voters order their selections numerically, if more than two people are running for an office. This would make a second election for that office unnecessary.

Ranked choice is great.

BTW, top 2 primary is what we have in WA (CA too?) for all positions. In WA it has made no difference- except in some elections we see two Dems.

 

[Norbert]

For one thing, democrats need to emphasize sanity in a solid and consistent way.
Trumpians will have difficulties with that.
That's why he started calling democrats crazy: to deter anyone from claiming that position.

 

[wdolson]

Ranked choice is great.

BTW, top 2 primary is what we have in WA (CA too?) for all positions. In WA it has made no difference- except in some elections we see two Dems.

WA used to have the most open primary system in the country. Everyone ran together on one ballot and the top vote getting from each party moved on to the general. Many third party candidates moved on to the general because they were the only person from that party on the ballot.

Polls showed something like 97% of Washingtonians liked this system. However the Democrats and Republicans both sued the state and I believe it went all the way to SCOTUS who ruled the system unconstitutional. I believe the reason was that the Democrats and Republicans were private organizations and primaries were put on for their benefit and the completely open primary basically hurt their feelings.

So Washington cast about for replacement systems that would be acceptable to our lords and masters and finally settled on the current system. California copied Washington after a few successful election cycles.

I wish we had the old system back, I was in the majority in liking it.

WA still doesn't have official party registration. You simply register to vote and the state doesn't care what party you prefer, or don't.

 

[Norbert]

Also the electoral college should be defined in such a way that it can never have a majority in one direction, when the popular vote has a majority in the other direction. That's not really difficult to do. Otherwise one person's vote counts more than another person's vote.