Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-24-2020, 09:15 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that a distinctly conservative website is being used by the OP as the central argument on what Democrats need to do to save their party?

Good points may or may not have been made in the article but anyone should find it deeply suspicious that a self described conservative publication seems so intent on making Democrats a better party.

All of your bullshit meters should be twitching pretty strongly and the prescriptions offered should be eyed with deep suspicion.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #102  
Old 02-24-2020, 10:18 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
why is Bernie allowed to bring out AOC to persuade voters to support him, but more moderate candidates are not allowed to do the same? :
Because kidnapping is a federal offense?

Not sure I get your point, arenít the other candidates free to collect endorsements from other elected officials and have them stump for them? Bloomberg has Lucy McBathís endorsement, after all.
  #103  
Old 02-24-2020, 10:32 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that a distinctly conservative website is being used by the OP as the central argument on what Democrats need to do to save their party?

Good points may or may not have been made in the article but anyone should find it deeply suspicious that a self described conservative publication seems so intent on making Democrats a better party.

All of your bullshit meters should be twitching pretty strongly and the prescriptions offered should be eyed with deep suspicion.

Yes, it's a conservative website--a NeverTrump conservative site. Its raison d'etre is to oppose Trump, and to seek any way possible to remove him from office.

Examples:

https://thebulwark.com/we-already-kn...-will-do-next/
Quote:
The president’s behavior was boorish and childish, but also predictable. Entirely, completely predictable.
Trump is the most imitable human being on the planet. His beats and phrases have become so familiar that anyone can do a passable imitation and actually predicting what he’ll say is as easy as consulting anyone who has ingested bath salts in the past twelve hours.
If, during his post-impeachment speech, Trump had claimed he had once been the punter for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, or that he had invented seedless oranges, or that he had recently signed a trade deal with Wakanda, no one in America would have been surprised. And his Republican supporters would have nodded intently and clapped, like the trained seals they are.

https://thebulwark.com/inside-the-trump-bubble/
Quote:
In a moment of weakness and jet-lagged naivete I found myself musing that maybe, possibly, the new revelations about Donald Trump’s fleecing of taxpayers by charging the Secret Service exorbitant rates might make a difference with some of Trump’s base.
When I said this aloud, a younger and wiser colleague lowered his eyes, and shook his head. I think he was embarrassed for me.
Because of course it wouldn’t matter.
Just like the evidence about Trump’s meddling in Ukraine didn’t matter, or last week’s dual meltdowns at the Prayer Breakfast and in the East Room didn’t matter. You think the new budget and deficit numbers will move the needle? Or the fallout from the trade war? Or the 15,000-plus false statements he’s made since taking office? The probability of any of this mattering to Trump’s base ranges from “impossible” to “no effing way.”

https://thebulwark.com/trump-justice...-american-way/
Quote:
Trump has never made any secret of his predilections for rule-breaking, irrationality, and revenge. The difference now is that he knows for certain that the constitutional system of separated powers will not function to slow him down—let alone stop him.[…]
It is no exaggeration to say that we are in a dark and dangerous phase of American democracy—one that challenges our system of justice and many of the norms and protections we have long taken for granted. Like a troubled alcoholic, America may need to hit rock bottom before we can begin the long process of becoming a nation of integrity again. Then again, not every alcoholic is so lucky.

These are the kinds of allies we should be welcoming with open arms. They have the most credibility of all, because like Mitt Romney, they can't be dismissed as partisan Chicken Littles. They have burned many professional bridges because of their "disloyalty", and their predilections are shared with many of the educated suburban voters--who were for many years rock-ribbed "Main Street Republicans"--who swung the House so dramatically in 2018.

And they are not swayed by dreams of gaining this progressive advance or that one (you may consider that a bug, I call it a feature). Their contempt and white-hot hatred for Trump and singleminded determination to get him out of office, uh, "trump" all other considerations. I feel sure that if they thought Bernie was the one most likely to take him down, they would be all for it. But like James Carville and Jonathan Chait (and, supposedly, most Democratic primary voters), they just want to maximize the chances of defeating him, whatever it takes.

ETA:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Because kidnapping is a federal offense?

Not sure I get your point, aren’t the other candidates free to collect endorsements from other elected officials and have them stump for them? Bloomberg has Lucy McBath’s endorsement, after all.

I'm quite sure you don't get my point, because I (and the author in the OP) are advocating just that: a collection of powerful, well-timed endorsements. The person I was responding to saw these as illegitimate "back room deals and bigwig machinations".
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-24-2020 at 10:36 PM.
  #104  
Old 02-24-2020, 10:40 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,883
Oh, look, it's Sam!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Bernie will be a disaster in the general.


Quote:
For example, his promise to ban fracking. I guess Democrats didn't need Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or Indiana, or Michigan, or...
I live in a party of the country that gets fracking-induced earthquakes. Some people have serious water supply contamination from fracking. You don't know what you're talking about.

You know what the Plains have lots of, & have lots of even when the market shifts & the oil & gas cease to be profitable?

WIND.

Renewables are the future. Fracking was a desperate grab for continued relevance by a dying fossil fuel sector.
  #105  
Old 02-24-2020, 10:42 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Yes, it's a conservative website--a NeverTrump conservative site. Its raison d'etre is to oppose Trump, and to seek any way possible to remove him from office.
So you are suggesting "The Bulwark" is trying to get a democrat elected?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #106  
Old 02-24-2020, 10:49 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You're factually wrong about Gore and Clinton losing the general election. Both of them won the general election (which was part of my point). They lost the Electoral College election. (Kerry may have won the general election also but it's late in the day to be arguing that point.) This just demonstrates what I've already said; we have a system that favors Republicans. They can lose the general election and still win the Electoral College election because their base gets more votes.
Been a while since I looked at a new Pew Typology. But the GOP base has probably been significantly larger than the base of the Clinton Democrats for a generation. Maybe 9 or 10 points larger?

Someone has to expand that base. Maybe someone who did Spanish-language ads in Iowa, instead of assuming that the latino 6% of that state wasn't worth picking up? What do you want to bet Bernie does Spanish ads in Kansas (12% latino), Nebraska (11%), etc.?

I mean, the old boy'd better, I want to win. I don't just mean the nomination, I mean the general. You add that many new voters, you can flip the Senate with coattails.
  #107  
Old 02-24-2020, 11:01 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,225
Foolsguinea, where was this tsunami of new voters in 2018, when none of Bernie's candidates flipped seats? What about in the primaries so far?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So you are suggesting "The Bulwark" is trying to get a democrat elected?

Yes, absolutely! In 2020. Then I assume they are hoping to bring the GOP back to sanity eventually (or create some new center-right party that believes in respecting small-d democratic norms). They're not behind the Democrats for the long haul. But in this fall's election? You better believe it.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #108  
Old 02-24-2020, 11:10 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 300
Yes, the path to victory will rely on creating new lifelong young democrats, not by trying to court fickle Never Trump conservatives or moderate republican suburbanites. These people will immediately go back to voting for the GOP once Trump is gone, or they will split their tickets and vote R downballot this November. Obama brought new young folks into the party, and Sanders has the potential to do the same. Someone has to expand the eloctorate anyway- boomers are finally starting to die out and need to be replaced in the voting booth. Just bite the bullet and step aside- we are in a new era of partisan populism and the old way is dead.
  #109  
Old 02-24-2020, 11:13 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So you are suggesting "The Bulwark" is trying to get a democrat elected?

From the second-oldest piece on the site, in early January 2019 (the oldest was still nursing a dream of getting Trump out via GOP primary challenge):

https://thebulwark.com/the-road-ahead/
Quote:
The grifters will tell you that if Trump loses in 2020 it will be an enormous loss for conservatism. This is false. Gerald Ford’s defeat rejuvenated conservatism. (John Kerry’s defeat did the same for liberalism.)
ETA:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
Yes, the path to victory will rely on creating new lifelong young democrats, not by trying to court fickle Never Trump conservatives or moderate republican suburbanites. These people will immediately go back to voting for the GOP once Trump is gone, or they will split their tickets and vote R downballot this November.

I'm not disputing that they may well do that. But the first order of business is getting rid of Trump ASAP, while we still have a democracy. Then you can run AOC or whomever in 2028 and good luck to you. Maybe with eight more years of replacement of the oldest voters with the youngest, that might actually work. It's too soon now though, and the danger is too great to take a flyer on it this time. Again: those young progressive voters went 0-41 in targeted House races in 2018. They aren't ready yet.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-24-2020 at 11:17 PM.
  #110  
Old 02-24-2020, 11:18 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Foolsguinea, where was this tsunami of new voters in 2018, when none of Bernie's candidates flipped seats? What about in the primaries so far?
Bernie has always been an independent, & he's not a great party leader.
The other Democratic candidates are, right now, doing worse at bringing in previously unreached minority demographics.
Both things can be true.

Btw, I don't actually expect Bernie's campaign to flip the Senate, because I think he's actually kind of bad at party politics. I do think his popularity offers a chance to do it with coattails that no one else has right now.
  #111  
Old 02-24-2020, 11:19 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,137
A problem with a Stop Bernie Movement is: WHO should the Ds coalesce around? Each of the other candidates still on the stage is also deeply flawed.

The Bulwark makes another suggestion: Romney-Bloomberg running together as an independent "unity" ticket. It would be interesting to predict the results. Would anyone get an electoral college majority? How would the House of Reps vote, given that many Congresspeople would have been asked to endorse this "third way"? (Instead of Romney-Bloomberg can a pairing be found more palatable to liberals? Nah ó the whole premise is that liberals won't get off their train to Fantasyland.)

I have mixed feelings about this idea ó it seems like the way to suddenly re-invigorate the Republican Party. OTOH, if it's true that, as seems very likely, Sanders has no chance in November ó times are very desperate.
  #112  
Old 02-24-2020, 11:29 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Yes, absolutely! In 2020. Then I assume they are hoping to bring the GOP back to sanity eventually (or create some new center-right party that believes in respecting small-d democratic norms). They're not behind the Democrats for the long haul. But in this fall's election? You better believe it.
Lol. Nobody wants these Never Trump losers, thanks. These people are a vanishingly small part of the electorate. Why do you think they were never able to stop Trump, who remains wildly popular among his party? Because despite being overrepresented in the pundit class and among urbane millionaires, Never Trump republicans are so few in number that they have way less influence then they'd like to admit. They failed to stop their own party's descent into madness (and in fact used and cultivated the madness for their own plutocratic, Christian supremecist desires for decades before it got out of their control) and now they want to fuck with another political party? Hard pass. These people are not allies. They are enemies looking to hijack the opposition and use them to remove the lunatic in charge of their old party, and then they will simply turn around and remold the GOP back into the cheerful, polite pack of authoritarian scumbags it used to be, instead of the more vulgar, overtly evil cabal of weirdos that we have now. What a victory. I'll take finally activating the youth & Hispanic vote over making a pact with these losers any day, thanks.

Last edited by pjacks; 02-24-2020 at 11:31 PM.
  #113  
Old 02-24-2020, 11:40 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Yes, absolutely! In 2020. Then I assume they are hoping to bring the GOP back to sanity eventually (or create some new center-right party that believes in respecting small-d democratic norms). They're not behind the Democrats for the long haul. But in this fall's election? You better believe it.
Then it is reasonable to assume they want to elect the most conservative leaning "democrat" possible.

Also, Jerry is spinning in his grave with you using that avatar.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #114  
Old 02-24-2020, 11:49 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,225
He's really not. I've listened to his candid conversation so many times on the Pizza Tapes that I almost feel like I know the guy, and I feel confident that he and I would get along splendidly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
A problem with a Stop Bernie Movement is: WHO should the Ds coalesce around? Each of the other candidates still on the stage is also deeply flawed.

The Bulwark makes another suggestion: Romney-Bloomberg running together as an independent "unity" ticket. It would be interesting to predict the results. Would anyone get an electoral college majority? How would the House of Reps vote, given that many Congresspeople would have been asked to endorse this "third way"? (Instead of Romney-Bloomberg can a pairing be found more palatable to liberals? Nah — the whole premise is that liberals won't get off their train to Fantasyland.)

I have mixed feelings about this idea — it seems like the way to suddenly re-invigorate the Republican Party. OTOH, if it's true that, as seems very likely, Sanders has no chance in November — times are very desperate.

I wish something like that could work, but the most likely outcome is an immediate overwhelming Electoral College victory for Trump. The second-most likely outcome is that the House votes to reelect Trump. Any other outcome strikes me as vanishingly unlikely.

Right now, we need to try to stop Bernie, even if the chances are slim. If that doesn't work, downballot Dems need to run against Bernie and try to hold on. An analysis at RCP the other day gave me hope that even if suburban moderates vote against Bernie, they may still vote for moderate House Democrats--especially if they see Trump as highly likely to win, in order to provide a check against his having too much power. That's probably our best case scenario. It sucks if we don't have the Senate and he can keep getting judges confirmed, and obviously the House investigative power is increasingly toothless; but as long as Trump depends on the House for the power of the purse, he can still be kept somewhat at bay. (Still, I'll be glad to be in a blue state where the entire executive branch is run by DFLers, and I'd recommend others take refuge in such places to the degree possible.)
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #115  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:01 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,883
You're giving the opposite of good advice, SlackerInc.

I wrote the following just to say the opposite of what you're saying:


You want the coattails of the man with the votes. The Dems should be nominating Berners everywhere. Not "everywhere they can." EVERYWHERE.

The big knock against Bernie is not that his ideas are bad. They're mostly good ideas, actually. The big knock against him is that he can't get them past the present Congress. So he needs like-minded candidates running up and down the ballot (everywhere) so he has a chance to succeed. This makes him more credible because he has support; it makes the Democratic nominees more credible because they are with the leader of their party. And nothing succeeds like success.

Is that the ideal advice? I'm not sure. But I bet my way would work better, if only because of that word EVERYWHERE.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 02-25-2020 at 12:04 AM.
  #116  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:07 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,225
Dude. Bernie's Our Revolution PAC tried that in 2018. They utterly failed. Not a single GOP incumbent was defeated by one of the candidates they backed.

They can win in deep blue districts like AOC's, but without the moderates that's a ticket only to being a permanent minority in the House. And in the House, if you're in the minority you ain't got shit.

ETA: So let's say they managed to win in every deep blue seat (they wouldn't, particularly not in many CBC seats, but just for the sake of argument). The moderates in swing seats would never go along with anything those progressives wanted to do. And without the moderates, the progressives wouldn't be able to do anything. So what's the point?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-25-2020 at 12:10 AM.
  #117  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:27 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
The biggest knock against Bernie is that his core supporters are really want to tear down the traditional power centers. Maybe not the best allies for a voting block that wants to govern.

I laugh when I see people thinking Bloomberg is the Dem version of Trump. That's obviously Sanders. The not really party guy who gets the fringe people out voting for him. Yeah, he's better than Trump but catering to the demanding "enthusiasm" of Bernie supporters is going to bite the Dems in the ass.
  #118  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:30 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Dude. Bernie's Our Revolution PAC tried that in 2018. They utterly failed. Not a single GOP incumbent was defeated by one of the candidates they backed.

They can win in deep blue districts like AOC's, but without the moderates that's a ticket only to being a permanent minority in the House. And in the House, if you're in the minority you ain't got shit.

ETA: So let's say they managed to win in every deep blue seat (they wouldn't, particularly not in many CBC seats, but just for the sake of argument). The moderates in swing seats would never go along with anything those progressives wanted to do. And without the moderates, the progressives wouldn't be able to do anything. So what's the point?
Okay, and democrats like Donnelly & Mccaskill lost while cosplaying as Republicans. There is no magic formula- but ultimately Sanders has a wildly enthusiastic base of support, something the other candidates lack. His Hispanic outreach will pay dividends in the general election, and the youth vote turnout be will be at it's highest level in years. I voted for him in 2016 but he was not my favorite or even 2nd favorite candidate this time... and yet I see that has run a good campaign and his base just seems to grow & grow. The writing is on the wall and he will be the nominee.

And the point is to invest in the future. Again, Sanders creates millions of newly-minted young Democrats. These are people who will continue to vote D once Sanders is long gone. Maybe he won't get much done, but no Democratic president would under Mcconnell's reign anyway. People just want an advocate for normal people in the White House until the boomers finally die out and we can start fixing the mess they've left us.

A Sanders nomination is a high risk / high reward strategy sure, but at this point there's not much left to lose. The planet is one fire, the fake economy will collapse soon, and white Christian supremacists & their oligarch allies will continue to destroy our norms & institutions even if one of the other democrats manage to win. It's time for something radically different, and if it doesn't work oh well at least we tried.
  #119  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:42 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 17,216
Well, Mondale was a safe choice. Like Dole, Kerry, McCain or Romney. In this election, the safe choice is the losing choice.
  #120  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:56 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Well, Mondale was a safe choice. Like Dole, Kerry, McCain or Romney. In this election, the safe choice is the losing choice.
Mondale was running against Reagan. The nominee this year will be running against Donald Trump.
  #121  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:58 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 300
Trump is basically Reagan's 2nd coming, even down to the stupid slogan.
  #122  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:59 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that a distinctly conservative website is being used by the OP as the central argument on what Democrats need to do to save their party?

Good points may or may not have been made in the article but anyone should find it deeply suspicious that a self described conservative publication seems so intent on making Democrats a better party.

All of your bullshit meters should be twitching pretty strongly and the prescriptions offered should be eyed with deep suspicion.
I agree. It is suspicious and we should be skeptical about their motives.

But the method they're recommending to "save" the Democratic Party is for the nominees to attack each other more.
  #123  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:10 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,225
On Pod Save America, one of the panelists was gassing on about how Bernie does so well in the trial heats and has universal name recognition. But the other said that most Americans do not know Bernie is a democratic socialist and that even 40% of Democrats donít know this!

I guess that would be fine if it were still the case seven months from now, but somehow I donít think that will hold true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
Trump is basically Reagan's 2nd coming, even down to the stupid slogan.

Wowww... This take is so spectacularly wrong I donít even know where to begin. But maybe a good start is just to point out that there has never been a president remotely similar to Trump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
Okay, and democrats like Donnelly & Mccaskill lost while cosplaying as Republicans.

Lefties love to throw out this riposte, but it just doesnít scan. Those were both in deep red states and both candidates came much closer to winning than Democrats normally do. It was just too steep a climb.

There is basically one Democrat in the whole country who is pretty left economically but does well in a tough state and thatís Sherrod Brown. Actually Tammy Baldwin might count as well. But they both have a pretty different approach from Bernie or AOC.
  #124  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:08 AM
postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
I did. And he proved to be. He even killed a high school friend of mine, just to be an asshole.
Wow, Reagan killed your friend, how. I don't remember seeing anything like Reagan personally killing anyone.
  #125  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:19 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 300
Quote:
Wowww... This take is so spectacularly wrong I don’t even know where to begin. But maybe a good start is just to point out that there has never been a president remotely similar to Trump.
2 presidents that came from the entertainment industry, both of whom found massive success by siphoning the white working class from Democrats. Both were considered radical, fringe and unelectable... until they won and remade the GOP in their images. Sounds pretty similar to me.
Trump is not special. He is just another in a long line of progressively more awful Republican presidents. The next president with an R next to his name will be worse than Trump, and so on and so forth.
Of course, W is still worse than Trump, because Trump hasn't yet killed a million soldiers and Middle Easterners in trillion dollar wars of choice, or tanked the economy. There is still time for him to that top that ghoul I guess..

Quote:
Lefties love to throw out this riposte, but it just doesn’t scan. Those were both in deep red states and both candidates came much closer to winning than Democrats normally do. It was just too steep a climb.
They didn't came as close to winning as when they, you know, won their seats initially.

Quote:
There is basically one Democrat in the whole country who is pretty left economically but does well in a tough state and that’s Sherrod Brown. Actually Tammy Baldwin might count as well. But they both have a pretty different approach from Bernie or AOC.
Sounds like we missed 2 solid candidates running for president then.
The Democrats are staring down the barrel of a Sanders nomination because the elites spent half a year propping up untested candidates who offered nothing but appeals to identity politics, and then spent the other half of the year propping up an old senile man who shouldn't even be allowed to drive much less be president. Now they want to pivot to propping up a deeply unlikable billionaire who was a republican until 2015. They could not have found a better foil for Sanders. This is how tactically stupid the Democratic party is.
I wish Sanders, Biden & even Warren never ran. They are too old and the party & country needs a new direction and younger leaders. They took up all the oxygen based on name recognition alone, sucked up the bulk of enthusiasm, donations & support, and left solid candidates like Hickenlooper, Inslee, Booker & Yang with scraps.
But it happened and now Sanders will be the nominee. For whatever reason, he uniquely activates young voters, and seemingly Hispanic voters. That's his path to winning, and it may be risky but it's his one shot. It's a completely visble path of it works. It's time to complete the stages of grief and accept what is happening, and make the best of it.

Last edited by pjacks; 02-25-2020 at 10:22 AM.
  #126  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:30 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
You should be embarrassed trying to equate Trump and Reagan that way. Reagan didn't just come from showbiz. He was head of the Screen Actors Guild and then governor of California. "Both considered fringe"? Laaame.
  #127  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:39 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You should be embarrassed trying to equate Trump and Reagan that way. Reagan didn't just come from showbiz. He was head of the Screen Actors Guild and then governor of California. "Both considered fringe"? Laaame.
I'm not embarrassed, thanks. This habit of treating evil former republican presidents as more normal than they were, something Democrats always do when they hate the current evil Republican president so they can pretend there is some sort of striking sharp contrast to be found, is what's embarrassing.
  #128  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:40 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 300
While House Democrats freak out, Bernie's Democratic colleagues in the Senate believe he can win against Trump

So much of this primary cycle reminds me of Trump in 2016. There was the initial freakout from the establishment, and now some elites are slowly starting to trickle in with tepid support. We will be seeing more vocal support soon as Sanders continues to hoover up delegates. It's far more likely that we will see Obama give his seal of approval at a Bernie rally after Super Tuesday, and not "showing some guts to save the Republic."

Last edited by pjacks; 02-25-2020 at 10:43 AM.
  #129  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:43 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
I'm not embarrassed, thanks. This habit of treating evil former republican presidents as more normal than they were, something Democrats always do when they hate the current evil Republican president so they can pretend there is some sort of striking sharp contrast to be found, is what's embarrassing.
You need a new embarrassment meter.
  #130  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:47 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
Trump is basically Reagan's 2nd coming, even down to the stupid slogan.
I don't see it. I feel Trump comes from the paranoid wing of conservatism like Nixon, Wallace, McCarthy, and Cheney; their basic message is "There are enemies who want to destroy you. Be afraid. Your only hope is to give us power so we can protect you."

Reagan belonged to a different school of conservatism; the nostalgic wing. Their message is "Remember how good the past was? Not the real past; we're talking about an idealized version of the past where you ignore all the bad things that were actually happening, mostly to other people. Give us power so we can restore that imaginary past that never existed."
  #131  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:54 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Seven days left. Has Obama saved the Republic yet?
  #132  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:59 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,569
What it might be? Might be that Barry O. recognizes that he still retains enormous power to affect the outcome and is not that sure he knows what's best. I share my opinion all the time, knowing that hardly anyone gives a rat's pa-toot.

Might that not be different if I thought that voicing my opinion might affect hundreds of other people? Thousands, even?
  #133  
Old 02-25-2020, 10:59 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
I'm not embarrassed, thanks. This habit of treating evil former republican presidents as more normal than they were, something Democrats always do when they hate the current evil Republican president so they can pretend there is some sort of striking sharp contrast to be found, is what's embarrassing.
I certainly agree Reagan was a bad President. I hold him primarily responsible for removing reality from Republican politics. Before Reagan, politicians used to feel that their political statements and actions had to have some connection to reality; you might fudge the facts but you were still working with the facts. Reagan threw that out. He just made stuff up and used that instead of facts. It was no longer a matter about what was true; it was about what was believable.

Trump's moved beyond that. The things Trump says aren't true. But they're also not believable. Trump lies and everyone knows he's lying; even his own followers know he's lying.
  #134  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:19 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,137
I've decided Sanders will surely lose, and it's taken a load off my mind. I can live my life and read the news in relative peace. The anxiety, and gripping worry should be gone. Four more years of Trump? Bad, but the Black Death in the Middle Ages was bad; World War II was bad. Maybe humanity will fight its way back from Trump and Putin a few centuries from now. Maybe I'll open a Betfair account and make a few bucks.

I hope Bloomberg spends a billion turning the Senate blue. It's much better to have a Trump WH with a blue Congress than a Democratic WH with a red Congress, I think.

Of course I'd be delighted if Sanders (or any Democrat) wins the WH, just as I'd be delighted if I win the Grand Prize when I buy lottery on a whim. But I'm not going to stew about it anymore.
  #135  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:23 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,569
Whatever you're smoking, send some over here. Most likely won't make a habit of it, but it would be nice to take a couple hours break ever once in a while.
  #136  
Old 02-25-2020, 11:34 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I don't see it. I feel Trump comes from the paranoid wing of conservatism like Nixon, Wallace, McCarthy, and Cheney; their basic message is "There are enemies who want to destroy you. Be afraid. Your only hope is to give us power so we can protect you."
Ronald Reagan coined the term "evil empire". Did you forget that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Reagan belonged to a different school of conservatism; the nostalgic wing. Their message is "Remember how good the past was? Not the real past; we're talking about an idealized version of the past where you ignore all the bad things that were actually happening, mostly to other people. Give us power so we can restore that imaginary past that never existed."
That's long and boring; let's shorten it to something catchy like, oh, I dunno, how about "Make America Great Again"?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 02-25-2020 at 11:37 AM.
  #137  
Old 02-25-2020, 02:28 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Wowww... This take is so spectacularly wrong I donít even know where to begin. But maybe a good start is just to point out that there has never been a president remotely similar to Trump.
Ronald Reagan was also a television personality allied to the hard right & corporations. That's a similarity. Andrew Jackson was also a brute who despised the Constitution. (Trump may be more law-abiding than he was.)

Quote:
Lefties love to throw out this riposte, but it just doesnít scan. Those were both in deep red states and both candidates came much closer to winning than Democrats normally do. It was just too steep a climb.
Claire was an incumbent; her opponent beat her by accusing her of corruption & hammering on that alone. Missouri is fighting back against right-to-work. Rethink your stereotypes.
  #138  
Old 02-25-2020, 03:34 PM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Nothing in Bernie Sanders supposed past will matter to anyone who isn't already dead-set against him.
And you know this how, exactly? Are you privy to aspects about Bernieís past that no one else is?
  #139  
Old 02-25-2020, 03:41 PM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 234
Btw, saying Reagan isn’t comparable to Trump isn’t suggesting that Reagan was a good president. It’s saying their approaches to politicking are too disparate to suggest a similarity. Yes, they both started out as entertainers before pivoting to politics. What else do they have in common? Reagan was a traditionalist with just shinier veneer that made him electable. Trump is anything but a traditionalist. They also became president in two completely different eras. You think Nixon would have been harmed by Watergate today? The man had to go into exile after resigning in disgrace. Today he would’ve been awarded a lucrative gig at FOX or CNN.
  #140  
Old 02-25-2020, 03:50 PM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The Liberals in Canada campaigned on shutting down fossil fuel production in favor of 'green' technologies. Guess how many seats the Liberals carried west of Manitoba, and east of Vancouver? ZERO.
Do you seriously believe this was the primary factor in the Liberalsí bloodletting in the West? Not the rise and dissemination of alt-right propaganda in provinces that traditionally lean conservative? Not a cooked up scandal that portrayed a prominent Vancouver MP as the victim of her evil and corrupt boss who happens to be the leader of the LPC? Not the aforementioned leader pushing for the Trans Mountain pipeline that is also deeply unpopular in BC? Okay, then.
  #141  
Old 02-25-2020, 04:13 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You should be embarrassed trying to equate Trump and Reagan that way. Reagan didn't just come from showbiz. He was head of the Screen Actors Guild and then governor of California. "Both considered fringe"? Laaame.

Agreed, and it's really frustrating and counterproductive to normalize Trump by describing him as just another bad Republican president. This does a lot of the heavy lifting for the Trump side, framing opposition to him as mere partisanship.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Claire was an incumbent; her opponent beat her by accusing her of corruption & hammering on that alone. Missouri is fighting back against right-to-work. Rethink your stereotypes.

I was very active in Missouri politics for twenty years. I met Claire four times, including hosting her on my property on the same day (possibly the exact moment, depending on what time the interview was recorded) Todd Aiken made his infamous "legitimate rape" comments. And 538 documented that she outperformed her state's partisan lean by double digits. Missouri has just become too red outside of St. Louis, Kansas City, and Columbia. You are telling a narrative of Democratic corruption, but it is the Missouri GOP that has been as nakedly corrupt as any state party I know of, yet they keep on winning. Missouri has gotten whiter and whiter relative to the rest of the country, in part because of a lot of old conservative white people retiring to the Ozarks and the Branson area.

ETA: I agree BTW that Inslee, Hickenlooper, and Booker would have been much better choices (not Yang though, WTF). Bullock would have been the best of all. But my top 12 choices (literally) were all out of the race before the end of 2019, or asterisks in the polls, so I have to make do with what's left.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-25-2020 at 04:18 PM.
  #142  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:28 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,225
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...moderates-data

Quote:
Democrats should not be very reassured by early polls that find Sanders faring as well against Trump as the more moderate candidates: These numbers may only look decent for Sanders because they assume he will inspire a youth turnout miracle. Our survey data reveals voters of all parties moving to Trump if Sanders is nominated, a liability papered over by young voters who claim they would be inspired to vote by Sanders alone.

Quote:
There are reasons to doubt a Sanders-driven youth turnout surge of this size would materialize. First, people who promise in surveys they will vote often donít, meaning the turnout estimates that Sandersís electability case rests upon are probably extremely inaccurate. Second, such a turnout surge is large in comparison to other effects on turnout. For example, Sanders would need to stimulate a youth turnout boost much larger than the turnout boost Barack Obamaís presence on the ballot stimulated among black voters in 2008.[Ö]

There is no way to be sure whether Sandersís nomination would produce this historic youth turnout surge ó but it seems doubtful. Turnout in the 2020 primaries so far has not exceeded 2008 levels, including among young voters. If anything, research suggests the opposite is more likely to occur: In response to an extreme Democratic nominee, Republicans could be inspired to turn out at higher rates to oppose him.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #143  
Old 02-25-2020, 05:58 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 300
I can show you ten articles from 2016 about how Trump is unelectable, dude. Dunno what the point of this is. If Sanders doesn't get a single Never Trump republican vote, good riddance.
Bernie will be the nominee because the Democrat party is a mess. It's too late to stop him. This is what happens when you let dinosaurs run your party and cultivate leadership that completely ignores voters under 60- they rebel and reject the establishment. Gen Z, Millennials & Gen X are getting the candidate they want, and boomers need to kindly get over it and "vote blue no mattter who" like they've been shrieking for 4 years.
  #144  
Old 02-25-2020, 06:33 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,225
We're the ones who do vote blue no matter who. It's the Bernie crowd that has more trouble with that.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #145  
Old 02-25-2020, 06:38 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
We're the ones who do vote blue no matter who. It's the Bernie crowd that has more trouble with that.
I'm thoroughly unconvinced that's true--but let's say it is.

Let's say you've got 1000 voters. 450 will vote for Trump. 400 will vote for any Democratic candidate. 150 will only vote for the Democratic candidate if it's Sanders.

How the fuck do you use this scenario to recommend against nominating Sanders?
  #146  
Old 02-25-2020, 07:19 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
We're the ones who do vote blue no matter who. It's the Bernie crowd that has more trouble with that.
So now it's your turn to vote for a candidate you can't stand just like you tell us to every election. It's only fair.
  #147  
Old 02-25-2020, 07:48 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
So now it's your turn to vote for a candidate you can't stand just like you tell us to every election. It's only fair.
The problem is you didn't fulfill your end. Millennials are have been unenthusiastic election participants. So you're right, maybe it's the older generations' turn -- to say fuck it and stay home.
  #148  
Old 02-25-2020, 07:54 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,779
OP, Obama's not coming around until the nominee is selected. If then.
  #149  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:03 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Oh, he's going to help the nominee. That's not in doubt. He would lose a lot of cred as an elder statesman if he sat this one out.
  #150  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:19 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The problem is you didn't fulfill your end. Millennials are have been unenthusiastic election participants. So you're right, maybe it's the older generations' turn -- to say fuck it and stay home.
No. Not.

If it Sanders we need to help him win and try to do what we can for Congress despite the difficulty his being at the top presents.

Pretty sure you actually agree but it needs to be said out loud.

Btw. Millennials have I believe voted more than Boomers did at their ages.
__________________
Oy.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017