I do appreciate that, and the money he is bringing in. And, he’s not a bad candidate. I just wish he’d thrown his hat in earlier and gotten blooded in the debates.
I clicked the link and read about Biden and SocSec. As part of budget-balancing efforts, he proposed forgoing (or deferring?) the automatic cost-of-living increase. It’s hard to quibble with calling that a “cut.” He proposed means-testing SocSec, or raising the age. That would certainly be a “cut” for those who lost to the test, or wanted to retire in their mid-60’s. But he explained at the time that he supported all this to AVOID cuts in more progressive programs like food stamps, Head Start, education grants. Moreover, he supported all this ONLY in the context of negotiating a deal with the GOP. When GOP refused to restore taxes on the rich, that was the end of Biden’s support for SocSec cuts.
Was it appropriate for Biden to aggressively try to balance the budget? This digression is a hijack, so I’ll summarize this in a Spoiler.[SPOILER]Clinton’s D’s in the 1990’s battled hard to balance the budget, succeeding but spending a HUGE amount of political capital to do so. This was erased and then some by Bush’s R when they took over.
Obama inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, yet still managed to fight the deficit back to a reasonable level by 2016. Again Trump and the R’s responded by ballooning the deficit as much as they could.
It’s worth remembering that, independent of funneling money to their rich cronies, the R’s like to increase the debt simply as an excuse to block any spending they disapprove of. After giving trillions to the super-rich, the D’s want to add vegetables to schoolchildren’s diet? “Oh no; they would cost MILLIONS! We can’t afford it.”
I’m afraid I have to agree with Paul Krugman. Until Republican malice is a thing of the past, there is no progressive purpose to budget balancing: The GOP will plunge the country back into deficit as soon as they get the power again.[/SPOILER]
Ike, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, Bush Sr. — these Presidents were admired, or at least respected, by people of both parties. Even Bush Jr. was respected until his lies and incompetence were on full view.
But many MANY millions of Americans absolutely detested Barack Obama. (Most of the haters knew nothing about him. Spoiler alert: they hated his wife too.) Many MANY millions of Americans hate Donald Trump. (Include me in this group; indeed I hate all Americans too stupid NOT to hate Trump.) But having most of the other party disrespect the President is NOT the path to restoring domestic tranquility, if such a path is still possible. Are there many millions of Republicans who would hate Sanders or Warren but give Biden some respect? Probably so, and I can’t blame Democratic primary voters for focusing on this idea. (I’m more pessimistic myself, worrying that Lies and Hatred are the new norm for the New America.)
If you are freezing the entire federal budget, no that’s not a cut. If my boss comes to me and says “Doc, no one, including CEO and myself, is getting a raise this year.” I wouldn’t consider that a pay cut.
But yeah, lies and hatred. Not so much by the Dems, but we arent immune by any means.
The NY Times has just endorsed Warren and Klobuchar.
What the actual fuck?
And does not change the meaning.
“to the extent that they want to keep it that way, they’re the enemy.”
“to the extent Jews control the banks and the media, they’re the enemy.”
“to the extent Blacks are violent thugs, they’re the enemy.”
“to the extent Mexican immigrants are rapists, they’re the enemy.”
Basic formulation “to the extent is [negative stereotype of X], they’re the enemy” is a means of reinforcing the negative stereotype and defining X as “the enemy.”
If, in response to “It’s garbage nonsense from The Left like “billionaires are the enemy” that helps motivate confused right-wing thinking” you want to communicate “there are billionaires who value a democratic and equitable society and there are coal miners who vote against their own interests and fall in love with kleptocrats. Judge the billionaire not by his wealth but by his positions and actions.” you say something, well, that communicates it. You did not.
Glad that you in fact just chose your words badly (we all do sometimes) and that you actually have no problem with the statement you were arguing against, and that you instead do NOT believe in painting with broad brushstrokes and instead believe that all should be judged by their positions and actions, not by their wealth.
Idiotic move by the NYTimes. The whole idea of an election is that you have to choose one. You can choose not to vote at all but if you do vote you have to choose only one. So what sense does it make to endorse two candidates for an election. At the least they should have announced a winner and a runner-up.
The NYTimes write-up isn’t bad but I noticed this:
“The four front-runners are bunched together both in national polls and surveys in states holding the first votes, so small shifts in voter sentiment can have an outsize influence this early in the campaign.”
The top four are indeed polling quite closely in IA and NH but nationally, as per the NYTimes, they are 26,19,16, and 9 which is not close at all. This is an embarrassing mistake to make in an important editorial and reinforces my impression that many people who write about US politics for a living don’t much understand their subject.
If Biden does not win IA or NH he likely will start going down in national polls and other state polls and the race will be much closer. When you are the frontrunner any loss is bad.
Yeah, conflate a pernicous myth about Jews surreptitiously controlling everything, with a reality of an overclass of billionaires having way outsized power in our society.
And to think I once had respect for your opinions.
The agreement is on the outsized power of the class and that such is a problem.
Bijou maybe if he doesn’t place in the top three but it is about expectations and he hasn’t been expected to win those states. Him winning NH in particular would be exceeding expectations.
Noticed as of now Nate Silver says nobody gets enough delegates on first ballot, not even Biden. Of course things could change quickly once voting starts.
Here’s their rationale:
The endorsement essay itself is behind a paywall.
LGBTQ bar ‘very disappointed’ at Pete Buttigieg’s campaign for canceling fund-raiser over dancing pole
The managers of an LGBTQ club in Providence, R.I. are “very disappointed” with the last-minute cancellation of a fund-raiser for the openly gay presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg.
The event, which was scheduled for Friday evening at the Dark Lady, had been widely promoted on social media. It was supposed to feature Buttigieg’s husband, Chasten, as its headliner.
But after representatives for the Buttigieg campaign arrived at the bar “20 minutes before our staff was scheduled to arrive, they came in and asked us to remove the dancer pole,” Buck Asprinio, the bar’s general manager, told local news station WPRI 12.
The Dark Lady refused to do so. The poll has been part of the bar since it opened its doors, and “it’s not going anywhere,” he said.
The Buttigieg campaign felt they didn’t want to be connected to it, and decided to move the event over to the Hotel Providence, a non-LGBTQ bar across the street.
Unless/until he starts accepting donations (I believe he is currently entirely self-funded?), he won’t qualify for a debate, which all have donor count and dollar amount bars.
Oh, come on. It’s not like anyone would insist that Chasten do a routine with it.
538 polling average currently has him in second, only 0.7% behind Sanders. Warren and Buttigieg are about 5 points behind. So a third place finish or worse would definitely be a failure to meet expectations. And as of today he’s actually four points ahead in Iowa, though it’s generally been much closer.
Zach Montellaro agrees that it’s unlikely that Bloomberg makes this next debate, but the DNC created the rules for the next debate taking place on Feb. 7, so it’s possible that Bloomberg could make it to a debate without donors. The DNC added another option to make it to a debate by getting 1 delegate in Iowa. Bloomberg isn’t campaigning in Iowa, so it not likely, but it’s possible.
ETA: Is it possible to buy a delegate in Iowa without campaigning there? I guess we’re about to find out.
Bloomberg is not accepting donations but Steyer is.
I’m starting to question whether Sanders is actually aware of what his staff are up to online. Those people like David Sirota, Brie Joy and Nina Turner are running a very mean-spirited campaign as the first vote gets near. Jeff Weaver who was the 2016 campaign manager has a more informal role now too and he was front and center at smearing Hillary in 2016. They’re editing clips out of context about Biden and Warren, one retweeted a post a week ago from a Jacobin writer mocking Buttigieg’s military service as a prop for a political career, and now a newsletter by the campaign is using Trumpian language by saying Biden has a corruption problem. Yet whenever Sanders himself is asked by a reporter he is actually quite complimentary and calls Biden a good friend and never demonstrates such bitterness himself.