The GOP in the NC legislature pulled a fast one and overrode the governor's veto on the state budget while the Dems were absent, after the GOP had promised there would not be any votes. Supposedly many of the Dems were at a 9-11 ceremony. Classic. https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article234962017.html
A couple of things: Her age is my concern, too. But I don't think it is right to compare her to Individual One. I think the better comparison would be to Reagan. That is because Warren understands and believes in government and believes in meritocracy. So Warren will have good people by her side to support her and her Presidency in the same way Reagan had. Individual One has no such care for the institution of government, or leadership in general, and believes in "yes" people (men, largely). Individual One has surrounded himself with people with little or no qualifications and so his lack stability is accentuated, and his belief of appearance over substance is magnified. No such situation was for Reagan (mostly) and no such case would be for Warren (mostly). I disagree with this. You also are glossing over a few things, namely Obama's lack of governing experience which hindered his early days at President. His comment to Ryan was naive and caused a lot of problems on top of who he already is. On top of that, what do you think he could really have done? He spent his political capital on a huge bill, but that was all he could do. In hindsight, there he should not have tried to work across the aisle, but what history was there that the Reps were going to be disingenuous as much as they were? Sure, he didn't with draw from Iraq and Afghanistan how he wanted, but I believe if he did, there would have been a vacuum left for extremists to take over, much like ISIS or the Taliban. You think he could have gotten anything related to civil rights passed? In fact, why do you think there was a shutdown? You think he did that because he wanted establishment? Sure, there was establishment all over his Presidency, but he was pretty much handicapped by Congress. It's like looking at him as expecting him to be this magical man while not recognizing how others greatly handicapped him. Regarding Clinton, who would have been a better SoS at the time? Why is picking somebody who had a plethora of political contacts and experience gained over 25+ years a bad thing? Was it really obvious that she would corner the nomination? You think she would not have been able to do that if not SoS? Regarding the experience issue...well, politics is a job. It is like the way we viewed Athletics in the 1930s and beyond in that we wanted amateurs to allow as some kind of purity test that they are not corrupted by professionalism. The problem is that professionalism makes people better, it allows people to gain the knowledge and understanding of how that profession works. We saw how it failed Obama, but how he learned. And we are watching how it is destroying Individual One's administration, and making the country suffer as a whole. I find no reason why a Yang presidency, at this point, would struggle because he hasn't developed the knowledge and understanding. He has some ideas I really like, but there is nothing about him that says he would be able to be a decent let along good President.
Yep. The NYT had two guys spend forever to publish an irrefutable story that Fred Trump was a tax cheat and Donnie lied bigtime about how much money he had to start his real-estate business. That investigation cost the Times big $$$. And it brought the Times nothing. The story came and went. From a business viewpoint, the Times would have been better off saving its money and just reprinting Trump's tweets, accompanied by disapproving clucks. I keep saying it, the people got the President that they wanted. They wanted shit and they got it. OK the people outside of California, because when the Golden State is removed Trump won the popular vote too. I don't blame the NYT that the people are trash. Speaking of which, my wife yesterday had an old white dude pull up next to her today, scream at her, and give her his middle finger, because her bumper sticker says not to vote for Trump. Those Trump voters aren't the sweetest things around.
Bernie has, no doubt. Warren not so much. She's actually in the top half of the field as far as lobbyist contributions. The disparity between her and Bernie on this issue is pretty big. As for the media, I just don't see them as honest actors. They seem very invested in a meta narrative and they cherry pick things that promote their meta narrative, and ignore things that don't. In many cases the bias goes beyond subtle and becomes just straight up blatant. Almost like they can rub it into peoples' faces. They also don't do journalism any more. There's no boots on the ground trying to get "the story". What ever happened to investigative journalism? All news today is just people on screen talking. Which would be fine if the talk had substance. But all guests are limited to like 7 minutes. Just enough time to drop some buzzwords, but no real substance. What ever happened to the long form interview or the long form roundtable? And one of my biggest beefs with our media is the fact that they're buying politicians. It's not even hidden. Anybody can look and see how much Comcast is paying our politicians, and who they're paying. It's all out in the open, and people shrug this off as if this was normal. It might be normal for Fox News, but it shouldn't be normal with media and politicians who claim to be progressive. In fact I think that the media hijacked progressivism in this country in order to derail it. If you talk to the average conservative voter, they actually think that MSNBC and CNN represent the progressive argument in this country. Are we really that comfortable with Comcast and AT&T being the vanguards of progressivism in America?
Having watched Yang, Gabbard, and Sanders on Joe Rogan's podcast, it sure looks that way. All three candidates come across quite a bit differently over a two hour discussion than they do in stories filed by pool reporters on the campaign trail. Here is a long article from last month by Matt Taibbi on the media and Trump. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/taibbi-trump-2020-be-very-afraid-872299/ This part is interesting. Trump’s political strategy {note: I think "media strategy" is more accurate} is primitive but effective. He picks something that polls badly, and kicks it in the crotch. Then he backs off and lets three eternal truths do the rest of the work. One: A news media that pretends moral outrage will greedily cover his every move (cable-news profits have soared 36 percent since Trump began his run four years ago). Two: In a fractured political landscape, the so-called “legitimate” politicians who are his main competition will spend more time fighting one another than him. This is because intellectuals can’t bring themselves to take Trump’s dumbed-down version of politics seriously. Third: America’s upper classes and their proxies in government and media have no capacity for self-reflection, and will make asses of themselves in a fight. This is where Trump makes his living, getting people who should know better to rise to his bait. It’s a simple formula: Incite brawls that seem like clear political losers, only to eventually maneuver controversies to his advantage. That's pretty much how the corporate media lets Trump control the narrative. And this part is funny as well as scary. It’s indulgent, absurd, narcissistic, and appalling, unless you’re a Trump fan, in which case it’s hilarious, a continuation of the belly laughs that began in many parts of America with Hillary Clinton’s concession speech. Trump crowds have changed. At the beginning of 2016, trying to pull quotes out of Trump rallies was like stopping a bunch of straight men who’d just whacked each other off behind a trailer. They didn’t want to talk about it. As time progressed, the crowd’s profile widened. You met union members, veterans, and where it got weird was the stream of people who appeared to be neither traditional Republicans nor, seemingly, interested in politics at all. Among both young and old, people turned out who had no conception of Trump as anything but a TV star. This second group’s numbers seemed to have swelled. “I watched the Celebrity Apprentice, and I loved that,” says Jackie Hoffman, a 60-year-old grandmother who gushes “we never had” someone like Trump run for president before. “Ronald Reagan was a celebrity, but he wasn’t, like, a big celebrity,” she says. “I just want to get a feel for the spectacle,” says Walls. As we talk, he’s gazing at a stand full of Trump merch. He likes the Punisher motif, but also the Terminator tee. “If I had money,” he says, “I’d probably buy that.” Walls and his friend James Monroe drove in from Kentucky. Walls is an enthusiastic Trump supporter, Monroe not — he’s here for the show. Though they disagree about Trump’s politics, they express surprise he won the last time. This is a common theme, when you ask people what impresses them most about Trump, i.e., that he won despite the press. The news media rate somewhere between herpes and ISIS in much of the country. “A lot of the media are very liberal,” says Monroe. “I don’t know how he won."
This is why I want the Dem party to be better and aim for a 60% majority. This is why I disagree strongly with those who want Dems to run a base only election. Might work for you in the short term, but you're just inviting a backlash in the long term and perpetuating the 50/50 polarization in the country and ensuring that nothing gets done. To get that 60% majority Dems need to become less reactive and more proactive. Also less condescending, less ideological and more open minded to fact based solutions. The payoff is that you might be able to get a lot done legislatively in a relatively short period of time. And with the last several years of legislative paralysis, the backlog of shit that needs to get done is pretty long.
In a field of 25 or so candidates, "top half of the field" doesn't do a whole lot for me, honestly. If Warren passed, say, John Delaney for 10th in lobbyist donations because she got $50 and Delaney got $25, I don't see it as compromising. Do you have an article or something I can peruse? I know that Warren parted ways with her finance director because said director wanted to go further in terms of courting big donors, but I'm open to being wrong. As far as the mainstream media goes, sure, it's problematic, especially TV, but I certainly consider it much more credible, especially print, than partisan outlets or candidates. There's still good work going on, one just has to dig to find it. Thanks for sharing though.
I don't think a 60% majority is reasonable to shoot for. When I consider that 46% of voters were very willing to support Trump, a man who I think is diametrically opposed to basically everything I'd say is important or valuable in a President, I don't want to consider what it would take to broaden our coalition to the extent to which we could bite off a sizable chunk of that. Nevermind how we could bite off that chunk while also keeping all of our current voters.
Trump has two types of supporters - 1) The deplorables 2) Hero worshippers The first group was his early base. Hillary was absolutely correct about that. Then came the second group, because the more he was in the news, the more they liked him. It has always been like that for him. Twenty years back, he gave a speech in Chicago, the $1 million speech. That was the advertised reason to go. The sales pitch was that Trump was a bigger star than any other motivational speaker, because only Trump could get paid $1 million for 45 minutes. Content? Eh, whatever. That was never the point. From my recollection, it worked, he got 10,000 schleps to listen to him at $49 per. Those people are always out there. If it weren't Trump speeches, they would be attending bear baiting or public hangings.
I don't usually like trolling candidates, so I hope nobody gets offended ... but this made me lol and spill coffee all over myself this morning. 1172111510761590786 is not a valid tweet id
There are several polls in the last 24 hours that could be interpreted as good news to varying degrees for Biden, Sanders, and Warren. There are no polls that look at all good for anyone else, tonight's debate is close to the last stand for those candidates still being talked about as having potential support.
Some edgy Berniebro with way too much time on their hands. Funny though, unless you support one of those 4.
Exactly. Is the media to blame? You could be the greatest cook in the world, but if all your customers want to eat is greasy burgers, and you want to stay in business, you will be cooking greasy burgers. Who is then to blame when they inevitably have health issues?
Christ! Does it have to be those three? By all logic Trump should lose, but the Democrats sure are making an effort to give him a bit of a chance. If that’s the choice, I would very reluctantly pick Biden.
Jon Chait thinks Dems are making a big mistake in assuming most Democratic voters want Warren/Sanders style progressive policies: "More Democratic voters express concern the party will nominate a candidate who’s too liberal (49 percent) than one who’s not liberal enough (41 percent). By a similar 54–41 margin, more Democrats want their party to move toward the center than toward the left." Chait worries that so far the only viable moderate candidate is Biden, and that the 78 year old Biden may no longer be up to the challenge. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...ndidates-old-radical-biden-warren-bernie.html
I fear that Warren is too biased against business and the private sector to be a good president. From the group we saw, I would much rather see Harris, Castro or Booker, but that’s only based on what I know of them at this point, which is probably not enough. And, they don’t seem to be getting much traction so far.
I liked this example: He quote K. Gillibrand: I don’t believe that it’s the responsibility of Cory and Kamala to be the only voice that takes all of these issues of institutional racism, systemic racism in our country. I think as a white woman of privilege who is a U.S. senator running for president of the United States, it is also my responsibility to lift up those voices that aren’t being listened to. And I can talk to those white women in the suburbs that voted for Trump and explain to them what white privilege actually is, that when their son is walking down a street with a bag of M&Ms in his pocket wearing a hoodie, his whiteness is what protects him from not being shot. Not bad, except it ignores the electoral politics maxim that when you are explaining, you are losing. And Chait offers an analysis It was a perfect encapsulation of Gillibrand’s campaign, which seemed to be positioning the candidate to be elected President of Twitter. Her campaign posted the clip and got more than 1,000 likes, as well as favorable coverage of the remarks in outlets like Vox, Mother Jones, and the New York Times op-ed page. A certain number of activists thrilled at the sight of a presidential candidate using the concepts and terms of the social-justice left. As a messaging strategy for building an electoral majority, though, it could charitably be called risky. None of the 40 Democrats who flipped Republican House districts in 2018 ran on a message of calling out white women for their privilege. Not long after this apparently triumphal moment, Gillibrand had to drop out of the race.