DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
DaveSchmidt said:
General pronouncements are flawed. Polling, especially at this stage, is flawed. Both should be taken with a grain of salt. Neither is better evidence against the other than vice versa.
Swearing with 100% certainty about the race is discouraged. To the many of you here who are doing so: It’s as irritating to all the rest of us on social media as hyperbole.
Seems like we're in agreement.
nohero said:
Are there polls that explore what the Senate and House could look like, depending on the nominee?
It seems logical to assume that Sanders at the top of the ticket, vs. someone like Warren or Klobuchar or Buttigieg, etc., could result in more ticket-splitting, with the "centrists" thinking of that as a check on what they might consider "extremes" from Bernie.
this seems even more of a reach than trying to suss out electability.
I think we should listen to this guy's advice.
nohero said:
The only way to vote this year:
1. In the primaries, vote for the Democrat whom you think would be best at being President, from among the choices.
2. Whoever is nominated by the Democrats, vote for that person in November.
A long, year-old essay that was passed along to me today:
The Radicalism of Moderation (Niskanen Center)
Early on, the author notes these weak spots:
Another opinion is that moderation can never be truly radical or democratic enough because it lacks a clear moral or political compass. According to this claim, moderation amounts in practice to endorsing the status quo or condoning, willingly or unwillingly, various forms of injustice in the name of a deceptive modus vivendi. Those who embrace such an objectionable form of moderation do not really care about addressing injustice and reducing inequalities. This was “the moderation of the white man” criticized by Martin Luther King Jr. in his famous Letter from the Birmingham Jail (1963). An additional paradox might be mentioned here. When the public acknowledges the value of moderation, its support for the general concept is often greater than support for moderation on any particular issue, be it government size and spending, health care, immigration, taxation, or abortion. If and when people endorse moderation, they do it on the issues about which they care the least. On those topics which are central to their beliefs, their support for moderation is much weaker.
The author’s answer, much later:
Yet, it is important to point out that moderation is not a virtue for all seasons and it should not be seen as a universal cure for all our problems. As Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from the Birmingham Jail made clear, there are “true” and “false” forms of moderation that must not be confounded. Moreover, moderation does not appear to be very useful in organizing protests, demonstrations, or social movements. It is a liability in primary elections when party candidates often (need to) use hyperbole and immoderation in order to gain the upper hand over their rivals. Moderates have a hard time fighting against candidates who believe that we are at that point where one side or the other has to decisively win this argument and dominate. But moderation becomes indispensable when it comes to passing laws and improving the framework that makes our coexistence possible in a diverse and free society.
That’s a critique that’s worth more than a couple of paragraphs, and the essay over all is less warts-aware than it argues radical moderates typically are. (Not surprising, since the author is trying to make a case.) That aside, a lot of it will resonate with readers who think of themselves as moderates, and maybe clarify some things for those who don’t.
ml1 said:
nohero said:
Are there polls that explore what the Senate and House could look like, depending on the nominee?
It seems logical to assume that Sanders at the top of the ticket, vs. someone like Warren or Klobuchar or Buttigieg, etc., could result in more ticket-splitting, with the "centrists" thinking of that as a check on what they might consider "extremes" from Bernie.
this seems even more of a reach than trying to suss out electability.
I think we should listen to this guy's advice.
nohero said:
The only way to vote this year:
1. In the primaries, vote for the Democrat whom you think would be best at being President, from among the choices.
2. Whoever is nominated by the Democrats, vote for that person in November.
Mr. ml1 -
When I want to make a statement about something, I make a statement (as in the second post of mine you quoted).
When I want to ask a question and/or speculate (and not make a statement per se ), then I ask a question and/or speculate.
I don't pull that siht where I'm pretending to ask a question, etc.
I wasn't trying to "suss out electability". There was something I didn't know about, and was wondering if there was anything to know or discuss about it. A "discussion board" seemed like a good place to explore further.
nohero said:
Mr. ml1 -
When I want to make a statement about something, I make a statement (as in the second post of mine you quoted).
When I want to ask a question and/or speculate (and not make a statement per se ), then I ask a question and/or speculate.
I don't pull that siht where I'm pretending to ask a question, etc.
I wasn't trying to "suss out electability". There was something I didn't know about, and was wondering if there was anything to know or discuss about it. A "discussion board" seemed like a good place to explore further.
you seemed to be answering your own question in the section after it. To my knowledge there is no polling or other information to answer that question.
I think I'm going to bookmark this discussion to refer back to when someone refers to the people posting here as the "left wing cabal" as if we're all in agreement on all things all the time. 
nohero said:
I wasn't trying to "suss out electability".
Mr. nohero -
No one said you were. Mr. ml1 made a comparison, suggesting that your seemingly logical assumption may be “even more of a reach than” trying to suss out electability.
Mr. ml1 -
For his or her convenience, you might want note in your reference that this is Page 386.
DaveSchmidt said:
Ross Douthat, in The Times, also raising warnings:
To choose Bloomberg as the alternative to Trump, then, is to bet that a chaotic, corrupt populist is a graver danger to what remains of the Republic than a grimly-competent plutocrat with a history of executive overreach and strong natural support in all our major power centers.
wow, I never expected such a clear-eyed analysis from that particular source. But IMHO he is 100% spot on regarding Bloomberg. And he's not speculating or making assumptions, he's basing it on Bloomberg's past behavior.
DaveSchmidt said:
Mr. nohero -
No one said you were. Mr. ml1 made a comparison, suggesting that your seemingly logical assumption may be “even more of a reach than” trying to suss out electability.
Mr. ml1 -
For his or her convenience, you might want note in your reference that this is Page 386.
I should be bookmarking a lot of my discussions. The notion that all my "left wing friends" do nothing but agree with me all the time is absurd. I probably have more different people on the left, right and center disagreeing with me than anyone. Which is all good, because why would I come to a discussion group to have everyone just tell me "ditto"?
GL2 said:
Again, the average Joe or Jane (not the Trump base) want to know what's in it for them. They'll look at their 401K. They'll look at Medicare for All, free college, Wall Street's fervent opposition to Comrade Bernie, and other policies...and then they'll protect their nest egg and vote Trump.
Does the average Joe or Jane have a 401K?
If yes, why do they associate its' success with Trump?
I suspect this may be considered a radical thought, but it's not likely that all older voters are looking only at their own investments when choosing a candidate. Some people are probably thinking of the country their kids and grandkids are going to live in, and thinking about climate change, affordable health care and college, income inequality, and voting accordingly. There is a generation of young people struggling to get good paying jobs with benefits that allow them to pay off their student loans, afford a home, and ultimately plan for retirement. Some older people are probably concerned about that as much as their own 401K, or their own Medicare.
Red: OK, how about "the average Joe or Jane with any retirement savings linked to the market."
And the market has performed rather well these past few years.
I just read that Bernie wants to break up Comcast. That's a big plus for me.
In fact, I think all the candidates should state a position about breaking up our huge mega-corps and on anti-trust in general. I'm sure there's a big list of those that we should take an axe to.
drummerboy said:
I just read that Bernie wants to break up Comcast. That's a big plus for me.
In fact, I think all the candidates should state a position about breaking up our huge mega-corps and on anti-trust in general. I'm sure there's a big list of those that we should take an axe to.
+10
I see that Sanders's thuggish supporters are still active:
It was an unwelcome criticism, made worse by the reaction among some of Mr. Sanders’s supporters. Geoconda Argüello-Kline, the union’s secretary-treasurer, said she received hundreds of emails, phone calls and texts calling her names and threatening her. Her home address was posted online, she said, and her adult children were worried about her safety.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/us/politics/sanders-nevada-medicare-for-all.html
Its despicable that there are violent threats on those who disagree with Sanders. I don't see the other campaigns having supporters that throw vile threats.
Sanders's is correct. M4A will be better than union healthcare plans. One reason many unions push against M4A is that their private plan ties their members to their union. Also, if the union goes under, then where does that leave the members? What happens when they retire out of their union?
Even among culinary union members, there is a strain of quiet support for Mr. Sanders. In interviews with several union members over the weekend, several said they were backing Mr. Sanders regardless of what the union’s leadership said. Some said they felt stuck in their jobs because leaving would mean losing coverage, and they wanted family members to have access to care as well.
I wonder if this is how Republican voters felt at this time in the year 2016. If I recall, nobody felt like Trump was going to win the nomination at this point. Also, I don't think there was a lot of satisfaction with the crop of candidates that were running at the time.
I remember talk about the Republican Party being in disarray, and pretty much doomed. And now look where they are. Also, to a lot of Republican voters it was probably a moment of Crisis where they felt like they desperately needed to find a way to win back the White House.
mrincredible said:
I wonder if this is how Republican voters felt at this time in the year 2016. If I recall, nobody felt like Trump was going to win the nomination at this point. Also, I don't think there was a lot of satisfaction with the crop of candidates that were running at the time.
I remember talk about the Republican Party being in disarray, and pretty much doomed. And now look where they are. Also, to a lot of Republican voters it was probably a moment of Crisis where they felt like they desperately needed to find a way to win back the White House.
I think that's true. And I think those Republicans weren't wrong -- they did end up winning the election, but the cost has been a complete and unconditional surrender of their ethics and principles. I don't see any candidate in the Democratic field today whose victory would likewise entail such an enormous moral defeat (and to repeat a point I've made before, I think that's due to structural differences in the Democratic vs Republican party, not because of any greater moral character inherent in individual members of either party).
PVW said:
mrincredible said:
I wonder if this is how Republican voters felt at this time in the year 2016. If I recall, nobody felt like Trump was going to win the nomination at this point. Also, I don't think there was a lot of satisfaction with the crop of candidates that were running at the time.
I remember talk about the Republican Party being in disarray, and pretty much doomed. And now look where they are. Also, to a lot of Republican voters it was probably a moment of Crisis where they felt like they desperately needed to find a way to win back the White House.
I think that's true. And I think those Republicans weren't wrong -- they did end up winning the election, but the cost has been a complete and unconditional surrender of their ethics and principles. I don't see any candidate in the Democratic field today whose victory would likewise entail such an enormous moral defeat (and to repeat a point I've made before, I think that's due to structural differences in the Democratic vs Republican party, not because of any greater moral character inherent in individual members of either party).
The effect won't be the same, but electing Bloomberg will be terrible for the Democratic party.
drummerboy said:
PVW said:
mrincredible said:
I wonder if this is how Republican voters felt at this time in the year 2016. If I recall, nobody felt like Trump was going to win the nomination at this point. Also, I don't think there was a lot of satisfaction with the crop of candidates that were running at the time.
I remember talk about the Republican Party being in disarray, and pretty much doomed. And now look where they are. Also, to a lot of Republican voters it was probably a moment of Crisis where they felt like they desperately needed to find a way to win back the White House.
I think that's true. And I think those Republicans weren't wrong -- they did end up winning the election, but the cost has been a complete and unconditional surrender of their ethics and principles. I don't see any candidate in the Democratic field today whose victory would likewise entail such an enormous moral defeat (and to repeat a point I've made before, I think that's due to structural differences in the Democratic vs Republican party, not because of any greater moral character inherent in individual members of either party).
The effect won't be the same, but electing Bloomberg will be terrible for the Democratic party.
Money has too much influence in our politics, and Bloomberg is making that worse, not better. On other measures of democratic health, though, I don't see him being worse than the median politician, and in other areas I think he'd be better. Whether he'd be good for the Democratic party I don't know -- I suppose that depends on what you think the Democratic party should be, and judge from there.
As far as the health of our democracy broadly, well during the 2016 race I believe I said something to the effect that if the choice were between Cheney and Trump, I'd support Cheney, so there's my baseline. There are certainly people who would be worse than Trump -- Stephen Miller, for instance -- but it's pretty small list. Nearly anyone in place of Trump would be a net benefit for the the country.
(I've disclosed before, but it's been a while so worth disclosing again -- when I lived in NYC, Bloomberg was mayor, and I voted for him. I had my issues with him, and by the end he'd overstayed his time, but on balance I thought he was a net positive for the city and was a better choice than others in the race. I still think that. And I think Quinn, not DeBlasio, should have been the next mayor).
PVW said:
On other measures of democratic health, though, I don't see him being worse than the median politician, and in other areas I think he'd be better.
If you get a chance to read the Douthat and Blow columns about Bloomberg, I’d be interested in what you thought about them.
"To choose Bloomberg as the alternative to Trump, then, is to bet that a
chaotic, corrupt populist is a graver danger to what remains of the
Republic than a grimly-competent plutocrat with a history of executive
overreach and strong natural support in all our major power centers."
I think that's fair. And I'd say that I am, in fact, saying that a chaotic, corrupt populist [Trump] is a graver danger than a grimly-competent plutocrat.
Maybe putting it this way will explain my thinking better -- in Scouts, I learned an injury from a dull knife is nearly always worse than one from a sharp one. Trump is a dull knife that never had much of an edge to begin with. He is smashing through our norms and institutions with blunt force. Bloomberg is a sharp one, and without minimizing the deepness and dangers of the cuts he'd inflict, I have more confidence in the body politics's ability to heal from those.
(and continuing disclosure -- I like Douthat. I've been reading him since he was a blogger at The Atlantic -- reading him, Sullivan, and Coates while living in upper Manhattan formed a lot of my post-college political thinking. I seldom agree with him, but I respect him)
On Blow's piece -- similar thoughts to those on Douthat. I don't think he's wrong, and all the issues he lists are ones why I'd hope Bloomberg is not the nominee. But Trump vs Bloomberg? Not even a contest in my mind. For all the Bloomberg has been wrong on issues like Stop and Frisk, I can't see a Bloomberg ICE being anywhere as ambitiously cruel as it has been under Trump, nor can I see who would be his William Barr at DOJ.
I don't want Bloomberg to be the nominee. I don't think he should be. But in comparison to Trump? Again, the list of people who would be worse is very small, and Bloomberg's not on it.
Thanks, PVW. If they continued the metaphor, I suppose Douthat and Blow might see Bloomberg not as a sharp knife but as the pathogen that enters the dull knife’s wound (and Sanders/Warren supporters would argue that we were already dying by a thousand cuts).
I've just read the last two pages. Thank you for an interesting and intelligent discussion.
I've seen the Bloomberg ads. They attack Trump, not the Democratic contenders.
Yet, Bernie has been busy attacking Bloomberg. Finally, Bloomberg's campaign is responding.
“It’s a shameful turn of events to see Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump deploy the very same attacks and tactics against Mike, but the reason is clear,” Sheekey wrote. “At this point, the primary is Bernie’s to lose and ours to win. Bernie knows this. Trump knows this. That’s why they are united in the campaign against Mike.
”Sheekey’s anti-Sanders missive came after days of Bloomberg-bashing statements from the left-wing Vermont senator.
It would have been smart if Bernie, like Bloomberg, concentrated on the real issue. The issue is Trump. Bash Trump on what he has done and on what he has left unpromised.
But with Bernie its always about Bernie. Doesn't matter if you're independent, a Democrat or a Republican., If he feels you're not serving his needs he will tear you down. As he tore down Clinton.
If you want to attack other candidates then do it by comparing programs. During the debates tell us why your healthcare is better than the other guys. Don't resort to silly and stupid personal attacks such as "don't vote for him because he's a billionaire."
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
wow, Douthat is actually making sense.