GOP2020: What Becomes Of The Collaborators Post-Trump?
drummerboy said:
GL2 said:The whole premise is silly. He thinks that Trumpism is somehow anathema to Republicanism - ignoring that Trump's support among R's is like 90%.
How so?
He's talking past the next year or so. Granted, the GOP supports him at present. And granted, the GOP's values largely align with his disgusting values.
He acknowledges that " Trumpism has become Republicanism" but also that "that spells electoral doom for the party."
In the same vein he agrees that "what’s left of the party is a rigid adherence to tax cuts, a social agenda that repels most younger Americans and rampant xenophobia and race-based politics that regularly interfere with the basic functioning of the federal government."
So the guy's thinking is that "Republicans today are the party of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson — a coalition that, in the face of every demographic trend in America, will mean the long-term realignment of the federal government behind the Democrats."
To me (and apparently the essayist), the GOP is in the final (and predictable) last phase of its evil trajectory (since Reagan, at least), in which they have become so radical and so desperate that they cannot sustain themselves without a fresh infusion of white senior citizens who hate demographic change. Obviously, that ain't gonna happen.
GL2 said:
To me (and apparently the essayist), the GOP is in the final (and predictable) last phase of its evil trajectory...
I see no evidence of this.
The premise of the article is that we should not pursue impeachment but just let them run their course and burn out soon. This would take an engaged, informed, conscientious electorate which obviously is nowhere on the horizon.
Their ever-increasing extreme positions, from border issues to their irrational fear of AOC et. al., seem to me to augur the end.
Look, I'd like to see the guy no less than imprisoned, but in the near term, why re-energize the crazies and the easily-influenced when we could have 2 years of investigations which might be as damaging. We're at a crisis point right now with the refusal of DJT to allow folks to testify.
To me, impeachment, given the Senate, is the equivalent of the House repealing the ACA 80 times: satisfying to some but going nowhere.
GL2 said:
Their ever-increasing extreme positions, from border issues to their irrational fear of AOC et. al., seem to me to augur the end.
Look, I'd like to see the guy no less than imprisoned, but in the near term, why re-energize the crazies and the easily-influenced when we could have 2 years of investigations which might be as damaging. We're at a crisis point right now with the refusal of DJT to allow folks to testify.
To me, impeachment, given the Senate, is the equivalent of the House repealing the ACA 80 times: satisfying to some but going nowhere.
It is hard to predict that GOP will collapse (or is even close to the end), however them becoming the party of Trump is definitely going to hurt them. Also remember, everything that Trump touches goes to sh-t sooner or later. And people that align with him and hope he advances their cause always end up with a bad taste in their mouth afterwards (with the exception of his family). It is only a matter of time for the GOP too, and the longer this lasts, the more damage will be done to them. Could not happen to nicer people!
Hey, the guy's out on the ledge. He just needs a final push. I'm thinking Nancy might apply the coup de grace. 
basil said:
It is hard to predict that GOP will collapse (or is even close to the end), however them becoming the party of Trump is definitely going to hurt them. Also remember, everything that Trump touches goes to sh-t sooner or later. And people that align with him and hope he advances their cause always end up with a bad taste in their mouth afterwards (with the exception of his family). It is only a matter of time for the GOP too, and the longer this lasts, the more damage will be done to them. Could not happen to nicer people!
They know this and that is why they are continuing to assault democracy. They have engaged in voter suppression of minorities through voter ID laws, closing polling places and other tactics. They will try to frighten Latinos away from the Polls. The inclusion of the Citizenship question on the Census is designed to decrease representation of urban and minority populations. Trump's response to Congressional subpoenas is designed to weaken the House of Representatives.
Red_Barchetta said:
GL2 said:I see no evidence of this.
To me (and apparently the essayist), the GOP is in the final (and predictable) last phase of its evil trajectory...
The premise of the article is that we should not pursue impeachment but just let them run their course and burn out soon. This would take an engaged, informed, conscientious electorate which obviously is nowhere on the horizon.
me neither. The R's are consolidating their power in the judiciary - the most powerful branch of government - and they are still controlling the congressional apportionment in the states. And they have the Supreme Court.
They're sittin' pretty. Trump or no Trump.
drummerboy said:
Red_Barchetta said:me neither. The R's are consolidating their power in the judiciary - the most powerful branch of government - and they are still controlling the congressional apportionment in the states. And they have the Supreme Court.
GL2 said:I see no evidence of this.
To me (and apparently the essayist), the GOP is in the final (and predictable) last phase of its evil trajectory...
The premise of the article is that we should not pursue impeachment but just let them run their course and burn out soon. This would take an engaged, informed, conscientious electorate which obviously is nowhere on the horizon.
They're sittin' pretty. Trump or no Trump.
Yes. Russia is the worst, so we must defeat them. GOP is nr 2.
Are Old White Guy Candidates Unacceptable, Saviors, Or Neither To 2020 Dems?
It is not merely grizzled men in the Democratic Party who think they need a white guy to win. Democratic women, nearly all of whom voted for Hillary Clinton, will say without prompting that they cannot “risk” this election on another woman (as if Republicans would ever say after 2008, “We’d better not nominate any of those white old men again!”). My colleague Dave Weigel has heard it. I’ve heard it. Pollsters I have spoken to have heard it. Democratic operatives, veterans of the Clinton campaign, have heard it — and said it.
Frankly, who will be “electable” in 18 months is rarely apparent to so-called experts, let alone voters. Based on the false sense of security of a white candidate, Democrats in the 2008 cycle would have told you that Barack Obama was less “electable” than Clinton.
The search for a white man stems in large part from the fear of not winning back the white male vote in the Rust Belt, something that Democrats have agonized over since November 2016. But anyone paying attention in 2018 saw that throughout the Upper Midwest and in suburban districts across the country, moderate women racked up victories. The congressional freshman class of 2019 is the most diverse ever.
That’s not to say racism and sexism aren’t huge factors, but the same voters who are not going to vote for an African American were probably not going to vote for a Democrat under any circumstances. Voters who think we are being inundated by a horde of violent immigrants and feel that white men are victims are not persuadable voters.
Surely there are lots of ways to win states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio. Rallying African American voters, turning out young voters and pulling white women away from the GOP would work. It did work in 2018.
In short, the notion that Democrats must have a white man to dislodge Trump is based on not much other than fear. Democrats need a competent candidate who can turn out the base, not scare off moderate independents and disenchanted Democrats, and stand up to Trump. Right now, voters are saying that person is former vice president Joe Biden, who both is extremely well-liked and fits the unproved-but-ingrained hunch that only a white man can beat the white incumbent president.
This week, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) reminded voters that there is more than one way to slice and dice a dishonest, arrogant white Republican man. She filleted Attorney General William P. Barr, showing she can plan out and carry off a rhetorical knockout. Hey, maybe she can stand up to Trump on that debate stage. Maybe she is the one to rally the African American vote and keep those women who crossed over to vote Democraticin 2018 in the Democrats’ corner in 2020.
Her performance reminded us that politics is as much, if not more, about performance than it is about finding a Goldilocks candidate (not too far left, not too mushy; not too aggressive, not too passive). Harris demonstrated that she has the ability to capture the moment, rise above the competition.
That, plus her fundraising network, her ability to turn out enthusiastic crowds and her selection of a few key policy initiatives (e.g. a $500-per-month tax credit for working families, a big federal subsidy for teachers) may be the right formula. Or not. (Maybe the white male search leads the party to Pete Buttigieg, whose performances of late have been stellar.)
The argument here is not “Harris is the star, she’ll win!” but rather, “Lots of candidates can catch fire at the right time.” So, sure, Biden could be the safe candidate everyone thinks will take down the Republicans, but that’s what they said (twice) about Clinton. Maybe the answer is more basic: Whoever can connect in an emotional way with voters, make a solid case for how he/she will take down Trump and run an adept campaign may be the best bet, the person to fire up Democrats and oust Trump. That could be Biden or Harris or Buttigieg or …
WaPo/Jennifer Rubin
·
Any candidate running as the Anti-Trump is going to lose, IMO. Having a well-researched platform of solutions to the problems contributing to the shrinking middle class standard of living has to be central to the campaign of anyone running against the GOP. It's not only Trump that's the problem.
Seems Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate with a seriously-planned platform.
wharfrat said:
Any candidate running as the Anti-Trump is going to lose, IMO. Having a well-researched platform of solutions to the problems contributing to the shrinking middle class standard of living has to be central to the campaign of anyone running against the GOP. It's not only Trump that's the problem.
When an incumbent is running for re-election the election is a referendum on the incumbent.
Ronald Reagan did not defeat Jimmy Carter because the country became converted to Supply Side Economics.
Bill Clinton did not defeat Bush 1 because of Clinton's platform. Frankly, I do not remember what it was.
OTOH having a platform and policies helps project the image of a serious person.
GL2 said:
Seems Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate with a seriously-planned platform.
To me that puts her above Harris, Klobouchar, and all the second tier candidates.
GL2 said:
This ain't gonna play well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bernie-sanderss-1988-10-day-honeymoon-in-the-soviet-union/2019/05/02/db543e18-6a9c-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.9d0a60f3d0ac
Why do people post articles that I cannot access without subscribing to the publication? Is there a way to get around that?
STANV said:
Why do people post articles that I cannot access without subscribing to the publication? Is there a way to get around that?
Open a private (incognito) browser window and paste the link ino that.
ridski said:
Open a private (incognito) browser window and paste the link ino that.
Thank you. I found the article interesting. It was not all negative about Sanders. My experience in the Soviet Union around the same time was very different, but I was just an ordinary tourist.
STANV said:
To me that puts her above Harris, Klobouchar, and all the second tier candidates.
I've been vacillating between Harris and Warren since they announced. Right now I'm impressed again by the quality that attracted me to Harris in the first place, she projects a toughness.
I'm sure that Warren and Klobuchar are as tough, but Harris wears it well. I thought she did a much better job questioning Barr, than Klobuchar.
ETA I just watched Harris on Rachel Maddow and now Warren on Lawrence
O'Donnell and decided why chose, so
Harris/Warren or Warren/Harris. with Cory Booker Secretary of State
Morganna said:
I've been vacillating between Harris and Warren since they announced. Right now I'm impressed again by the quality that attracted me to Harris in the first place, she projects a toughness.
I'm sure that Warren and Klobuchar are as tough, but Harris wears it well. I thought she did a much better job questioning Barr, than Klobuchar.
ETA I just watched Harris on Rachel Maddow and now Warren on Lawrence
O'Donnell and decided why chose, so
Harris/Warren or Warren/Harris. with Cory Booker Secretary of State
The interesting thing about this is that even though the senate loses three dems, all three states have dem governors to appoint replacements.
DaveSchmidt said:
STANV said:If you find WaPo articles interesting often enough, digital access is $10 a month.
ridski said:Thank you. I found the article interesting.
Open a private (incognito) browser window and paste the link ino that.
Or, if you know a subscriber, he/she can toss you a 30-day free trial repeatedly. That's how this cheapskate does it.
GL2 said:
This ain't gonna play well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bernie-sanderss-1988-10-day-honeymoon-in-the-soviet-union/2019/05/02/db543e18-6a9c-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.9d0a60f3d0ac
Should attract Republican voters though
GL2 said:
This ain't gonna play well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bernie-sanderss-1988-10-day-honeymoon-in-the-soviet-union/2019/05/02/db543e18-6a9c-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.9d0a60f3d0ac
Is a communist honeymoon like one of those "all inclusive" deals?
Morganna said:
I've been vacillating between Harris and Warren since they announced. Right now I'm impressed again by the quality that attracted me to Harris in the first place, she projects a toughness.
I'm sure that Warren and Klobuchar are as tough, but Harris wears it well. I thought she did a much better job questioning Barr, than Klobuchar.
ETA I just watched Harris on Rachel Maddow and now Warren on Lawrence
O'Donnell and decided why chose, so
Harris/Warren or Warren/Harris. with Cory Booker Secretary of State
Too bi-coastal.
And what qualifies Booker for State?
nohero said:
GL2 said:Is a communist honeymoon like one of those "all inclusive" deals?
This ain't gonna play well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bernie-sanderss-1988-10-day-honeymoon-in-the-soviet-union/2019/05/02/db543e18-6a9c-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.9d0a60f3d0ac
Communism, by definition, is all inclusive. Russian Federation is not communist anymore, they are more a kleptocracy. Like the US.
and then there is this...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/04/opinion/sunday/trump-2016-investigation.html
STANV said:
Too bi-coastal.
And what qualifies Booker for State?
I place a very high value on diplomacy, I guess I would call it small d, diplomacy. Having watched him for years on the Senate floor, even in an argument he works hard to show his Republican colleagues respect. In a judiciary hearing when Grassley was head, he ruffled feathers but was quick to give credit to Grassley for some prior assistance. Recently, he worked with Mike Lee, one of the most extreme conservatives, on the crime bill I believe. While Mike Lee's stance on almost everything is in opposition to most Dem views, I follow a group that exposes abuses in animal experimentation and Mike Lee supports one of the bills looking into what is commonly called "waste, fraud and abuse." As that is one of Cory's issues, maybe it gave him the in to find common ground on another issue, prison reform.
He maintained a friendship with Flake, saw their snowball fight on video, participates in a bible study in congress with members from both sides of the aisle, Bob Thune and Kristen Gillibrand among them. (I'm not pushing religious fervor, just a bi partisan involvement.)
I'm sure we can find votes on foreign policy, where many of us will disagree, but his lifestyle exhibits his compassion for all sentient beings, (he's vegan) and although it may seem naïve, I can't help but think this temperament and warmth would make him a negotiator who could deliver a message to other leaders which would make them feel the deal was a win win.
He's smart, Yale, Oxford, Stamford, Rhodes Scholar, courteous, compassionate and willing to take a strong stand.
All of this said, I would be even happier to see him President.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
The whole premise is silly. He thinks that Trumpism is somehow anathema to Republicanism - ignoring that Trump's support among R's is like 90%.