Cuz Ojeda is...

Although I'm a bit concerned with having a militarization of the party happening I think he will compliment Sanders authentic populist message and force the narrow band of accepted conversation open. To have alternatives to the "third way" thinking that reigns over the party.
We saw how the party was opposed to a diversity of thought in the 2016 election, preferring instead to hold a coronation of the 'annointed one'. I truly hope that the primary is a deluge of candidates making the management of and control over the primary much more difficult for the mandarins.

Ok a possible candidate.

But, I have a couple of questions. If he retired with 24 years, why was he only a Major?

Well, the above questioned answered; He was prior enlisted before entering OCS.

Why do some of his words sound frighteningly similar to a recent Presidential candidate?

Does he have a prosthetic leg?

Not looking for answers from anybody here. The questions will be answered in time: before I make my decision as to who to support for the primaries and the race.

Both Sanders, Trump and now Ojeda are speaking to the reality that most Americans are experiencing whereas the centrist Democratic right wing refuses to acknowledge, must less deal with, that reality. : 'America is already great!'.

I guess we have to decide which is being a phoney populist and whose being sincere. As always, who's benefiting.

Leg?
Military rank?

Who? I've never heard of him.

Name recognition isn't everything but it's something. Beto O'Rourke became a household name during the midterms. Ojeda didn't exactly set the world on fire with his no nonsense militarized liberal message.

Didn't we have a ex military democrat running in 2016? One with much better name recognition nationwide? I can't recall his name right now because guys like him are so easily forgotten.

Your referring to that tall glass of room temperature centrist water that was reporting for duty?
Yeah I forgot what he was for, too.
All I can remember is he fell off a boat in a place called Veetnam.

"Kerry headed into that summer running an ad that highlighted his military service, showed him in fatigues, or posing with his arm around John McCain. The ad boasted about how he’d broken with his party to support a balanced budget. He was no down-the-line Democrat, not this guy. He was almost Republican!

Once Kerry became the nominee, though, Republicans easily blew up Kerry’s supposed strength with the lurid Swift Boat campaign — it’s amazing how that stuff works with weak candidates, but sleaze campaigns like the Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright business bounce off the likes of Barack Obama."


Well this is timely

Actually I was talking about Jim Webb.

Ojeda voted for Trump. Says he's never voted for a Democrat for president. He's a military minded authoritarian with a new leftish outlook. Fidel Castro was like that once.

Nope. This dog aint gonna fly.

I think the democratic leadership has done a wonderful job of blurring the lines between republicans and democrats in their traditional roles. They've had no problems running garbage barge candidates, conviently reflagged from republican to democrat as long as they had the money to buy in to the club. Many a good progressive got primaried by the DNC in this way.
Likewise they've also had a love affair with veterans for as long as what? Carter maybe.
Ojeda may not make it but what he does understand is the power of campaigning. Ditto with Sanders. Hence the insurgency of bold progressive issues that candidates felt empowered to run on in this mid-term.
Hopefully Ojeda will push the door open even more. I'll take bold inclusive populism over politely served neoliberal fascism any day.

So you'll choose the Trump voter over Beto?

Leopards seldom change their spots. Ojeda is a conservative. Better I guess than any Democrat when you hate Democrats.

Come to think of it...I've never heard you say a single thing bad about Republicans...You always deflect everything to make Democrats seem worse...

are you a troll of some sort?

I expect republicans to act as republicans. Their masked contempt for average Americans has always been about a millimeter below their surface congeniality.
But it's the Democratic Party that gets me riled. It's the phoney 'I feel your pain' disengeniousness and betrayel and undermining of progressives, labor, working poor, children, etc...
If it's true that leopards don't change their spots with regard to Ojeda, would it not also be true of a Goldwater Girl?
Rumor has it she's running. Running on her resume and hubris that her fans will be sure to overlook, ignore or be satisfied with. On the other hand, like Lieberman had, there's a D next to her name so that's gotta count for something right?

She's not running. But if she did she'd stand a far better chance of winning than this jingoistic hillbilly.
And she'd make a far better president.

Nice to know she's not a war like patriot. I'm sure folks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria would have appreciated knowing that during her time as a Senator of NY or Secretary of State.

Let's hope your right Gregor. Her followers are about as fanatical as any MAGA heads. Still, that publishing of her book 'How everyone else screwed up' or whatever it was called, looked like a typical publishing prelude for a politicians intent to run. Have to wait and see.

You didn't answer the question of Leopard spots.

Yes, let's see...leopard's spots.

HRC 1996

In our own way, we are all conservative to some degree. Even yourself Monsieur Firebrand.
Some time back I was telling you about the advantages of sous vide cooking, you scoffed at it and insisted the only way to cook was with a crock pot. Do you even Instapot, dude?

I don't hold that one vote against her(this woman should be our president!)

I believed they had nuclear weapons or were building them,
I believed that there was a peaceful solution, didn't you?

So did she.

Left to his own devices, Bush would not have gone to war. I'm convinced that Vice President Richard Cheney saw it as a chance to make $Billions$ and pushed Bush into war.

You told me once, long ago, that Madame Clinton was a pretty good senator for your state. You've changed your spots a bit since then.

But this yahoo from West Virginia is who he is and this is all a ploy to get himself a lobbying or media position. Otherwise he's back on the streets with a choice of digging coal, selling dope, or getting a job in government. He's f*cking pro-coal, Chunks! What else do you need to know?

I can joke about peculiarities of cooking styles Gregor. I also understand the idea of not throwing the baby out with the bath water, which is all I see conservative being. That might be oversimplifying it a bit.

I did not believe the nuclear weapons program then. I believe it was mostly Saudi's that flew the planes into the T. Towers and I was disgusted with that criminal act being used as a justification for imperial ambitions. Senator Clinton felt another way about it.

She saved a VA from getting shut down in our area. It was an anchor to the local employment in much the same way as bases and prisons are to local economies in upstate NY. It serves a large veterans community that would have to have traveled much further to get medical care. I give her credit for that.

Ojeda might be all you say he is and maybe he is not. He's been trained to think in a military fashion and that concerns me. On the other hand, he is speaking directly to people's real life situations without a bunch of word craft which sounds like something but doesn't commit to anything. I'm amused that you would condemn his campaign from the outset before he's done anything to confirm your suspicions but defend the Clintons that have proven, to many progressives, our worst fears about them. I could go into the horrendous list but she has an almost cult like status to her fans. Madness that way lies.

She would have been a terrible president.

Whoops! Your right Gregor. My fault, I got confused about Hillary's run

Slight discrepancy

She would have been 100 times better than what we have now. Just think of all the insane things Trump has done, and I doubt she would have done any of them. We would have fixed the ACA/Medicaid gap, and might even have government options on their way to becoming single-payer.

Or just do single payer like progressives have demanded for years now.

She was a war hawk neoliberal.
It's ironic that the ultra right has to create Clinton murder fantasies for their ultra right followers as her involvement in the death and destruction of brown skin people aren't offensive to them.
On the other hand, her fans are offended by the evil conspiracies that have been leveled at her but never confront her murderous foriegn policy decision. Apparently killing brown skin people is not that offensive for them either.
Interesting times.
Latest whispers are that she's preparing a full on progressive presidential agenda to run on in 2020. And why not if the rumors are true? She saw it work for Obama and blocked her run. She almost suffered the same feat by a genuine progressive socialist.
Third times a charm? Well see...

William Jennings Bryan ran 4 times. A Democrat but stood for everything Republicans consider holy these days. That was back when Republicans were the progressive party. Nothing ever really changes.

Really. Nothing.

I aint crazy about Biden running either. I love Uncle Joe as much as the next man but it's time for him(and Clinton and Bernie) to bow out and let the young guns fight it out.

So--thinking back I was about eight years old. My father was a pragmatist, my mother an artistic type dreamer, and a very good musician I might add. It was Christmas. And I wanted a spaceship. That actually worked! That I could really fly and “go to the moon”.

So looking back, I suppose they both conspired to buy me that cardboard “spaceship” that would take me to the stars. On Christmas I was presented with it. Aside from being spurned during the first time I was attempting to be laid it was my worst disappointment of all time.

What? A phuggin' cardboard box that was supposed to take me into the glorious future and fly me to places unknown that I absolutely wanted to see? And that I absolutely demanded to see! Yet that goddam cardboard box never even had an engine. Or any other sort of power levitation.

Life is full of disappointments Chunky. I suppose sometime your perfect world where everything works in harmony will appear.....and the rest of the fools will fall in line

But I am not holding my breath.

I think you took a long way around the block to let me know that life isn't perfect Ken.
Uhhh yeah.
I've lived long enough to see that in action and perfection is not what I'm talking about.
I have talked about neoliberal fascism, Clintonian triangulation, environmental destruction, and the boomers congenital nihilism that must be overcome and quickly.

Perfection? I don't believe I've asked for that.

But you've also consistently promoted voting third party when the so called "purity" of the Democratic Party does not meet standards.

Now mind you, I am not labeling you a "purity pony", but I suspect you might be able to see quite a few of them in the pasture you're standing in.
In the end, simple mathematics won't be kind. Someday that same math might be, and I would want to look forward to that day by supporting whatever it is that can tip the scales away from the two main parties and toward a third party.

Most of that, however, is generational work. It is tedious, expensive and slow moving. You're talking about changing a couple of centuries of ideas that people take for granted. You're talking about changing the thinking of millions of people all at the same time.

In the end, what Republicans do is capitalize on this and use it to their advantage. This time, that gambit didn't work as well as they hoped. This time, a lot of very liberal committed soldiers found their way into Democratic Party seats.

You may want to tip your hat grudgingly to acknowledge that.
But I could be wrong

PS: Ken, the first time I got laid, I was hoping for someone who resembled a Playboy centerfold, voluptuous, worldly wise and madly in lust with me.
What I wound up with was a skinny blonde teenybopper with 70's aviator glasses who was as inexperienced as I was, and who had a mom who showed up unexpectedly when she should have been at work.

Still, I persisted...bite the pillow, I was going in dry, and I'm sure she spent that one minute or less staring at the cottage cheese ceiling wondering if this was really what it was all about.

Go ahead and vote for the banana sticker of your preference Jeff. If I have a lousy candidate I'll vote green or leave it blank. That's also voting. That's not purity, that's you hectoring people. I'm not voting against my interests any longer.

Two points you brought up Jeff that i thought are worth responding too.

"Most of that, however, is generational work. It is tedious, expensive and slow moving. You're talking about changing a couple of centuries of ideas that people take for granted. You're talking about changing the thinking of millions of people all at the same time."

Not so. It was the boomers who, as a generation, reversed gears and elected Reagan and all that it represented. Reagan was a turning point, in my book, that ushered in a trove of right wing grift and faux freedom language. Even his own age demographic didn't support him. So how does your generational theory square a rejection of Keynesian economic theory and labor movement struggle being rejected in one generations time? Why is it incrementalism for liberal progressives and death of a thousand cut but 'revolution' for conservatives Jeff?....

"In the end, what Republicans do is capitalize on this and use it to their advantage. This time, that gambit didn't work as well as they hoped. This time, a lot of very liberal committed soldiers found their way into Democratic Party seats.

You may want to tip your hat grudgingly to acknowledge that.
But I could be wrong wink"

An embryonic number of committed progressives were elected to congress Jeff but it was not due to the institutional structure of the Democratic party. Instead it was mainly do to the long hard work of street level organizing, canvassing and get out the vote efforts on behalf of committed volunteers backed by separate funding sources than the customary traditional 'dialing for dollars' DNC. One could also request you tip YOUR hat to these progressive grass root efforts that got this small group of progressives elected to congress as well as many more down ballot victories. Victories that were won in regions that the upper class DNC had walked away from and written off as hopeless.
That should be telling you something in and of itself about the DNC makeup and direction. Don't equate progressive victories to the upper corporate party leadership.

I'm satisfied with my voting record. But I'm not satisfied with the direction politics has trended these last few decades. We've landed ourselves into quite the pickle. Remains to be seen how, or whether, we will get out of it.

Taken individually, our votes mean nothing. Vote how you will or don't vote at all, it makes no difference. We're really just observers anyway.

2020 will be an interesting year. I think it will trend blue again. The senate map isn't as easy for Republicans next time around and I feel like Trump can be defeated by a populist candidate like Beto O'Rourke or even Bernie, should he decide to run again.

I was referring to third party votes, and fantasies about third parties overturning the two main parties in a lightning stroke.

You're referring to what is essentially party reboots, which I almost ALWAYS argue in favor of. Don't like the way the Democratic Party shapes policy? Take it over and remake it. It's been done several times in my own lifetime. I watched it happen and so did you.
Same with the GOP.

Party reboots and retools work, and as you pointed out, they can work in a terrifically rapid time interval.

Can't argue with you there Jeff. Retool, takeover, insurgency, you name it but it needs to be done.
The power of the primaries

We're doing it.

We're working on it anyway.

I don't think this administration is going to become more popular over the next two years and Trump likely won't be re-elected. Policy designed for no other reason than to own the libs isn't gonna fly in the long game. Even Our Corporate Overlords know that.

Raking the forests will not stop fires and owning the libs will not bring growth and prosperity.

Yet that will be the perfect job for ol Donny when he finally and mercifully vacates the office he has so sullied. That should keep him busy for a while since he would have all the forests from California way up to Washington then over to Montana and Idaho to keep “clean"....

He will be in good shape though.

Jeff,
If Sanders is simply new deal democrat and all that that implies, what then would the current democrats in charge be? Just curious. I would like to get to the nub of that one.

I think Jeffrey is trying once again to hide the S word from the moderates. New Deal Democrats were Social Democrats. Socialism and even communism were pretty popular notions back then.
Capitalists had, after all, just caused a worldwide depression that led to WW2. Luckily the cold war came along and their propaganda machine was able to turn it all around and make it the fault of (you guessed it) Democrats, who are always communist sympathizers.

Yes yes, hiding the dreaded and radioactive "S word" from the moderates, you nailed it.
And rightly so. Why not confuse the moderates and confound the RWNJ's?
I think it's an excellent tactic. Do you not understand the value that Frank Luntz and Lee Atwater brought to the Right over these last few decades?

I am eagerly supporting the New Green Deal Democrats!

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez seems to be emerging as their future leader. Or at least she's taking the heat from the right for the rest of them. She's young, she's smart, and I think she's having a good time.

She's not all that smart, not just yet.
She's rolled out a few whoppers that revealed her lack of education on some core matters. I think she is indeed smart enough to get caught up but it better be quick.

But then again, in the last 10 years or so I have yet to find a single Trump or Tea Party Republican who knows anything about economics. Whether it's communism, capitalism, socialism, it doesn't matter because they NEVER get it right.
Instead they spew nonsense and namecall.
But they don't have the first clue about the true meaning of any economic system. They have alternative facts and weapons grade revisionism.

Ocasio-Cortez's lack of education can be fixed.
I'm doubtful one can correct demagogue true believers on today's Right.

Bernie/Ocasio 2020!....

Hey, I like her, great kid, great future, but not exactly VP material. She's 29 and inexperienced. Let's let her get her feet wet before we push her into the deep end.

And Bernie...I have the same doubts now about his executive abilities as I've always had and he's getting closer and closer to his expiration date.

She is too young, he is to old...Beto is just right!

Still have to be 35 to be President. Goes for VP, too. O'Rourke got 4 million votes, in Texas. Ocasio-Cortez got 100,000 in New York.

Well that settles that then.
Yeah, I recall the press being flat footed in not even know who Cortez was when she unseated Crowley.
At the same time they seemed to be creating this battle for the soul of America narrative with Beto.
One wonders what else the press is missing in the crafting of narratives for public entertainment.

Speaking of the obtuseness of the media to catch whats going on out there, I try and follow those that have been calling it with more accuracy and bother to get out of the press briefing rooms and get in the street. We had a long history of those types of reporters and still have a remnant of that school. What I think seperates them from the rest of the infotainment types is their refusal to underestimate Trump and his canniness in reporting on him. Ralph Nader and Chris Hedges have been deadly serious reporting on Trumps political abilities.
Matt Taibbi has a timely article on the 2020 race just out today:
Trumps 2020 chances

The mainstream press hasn't been obtuse. The execs at the top liked the money coming in from the ratings. That plays a much larger role in determining what gets reported and what doesn't.
That's the folly of "cable news".

Since Hedges, Nader and Taibbi aren't tied to that mast, they don't have to point their sails in that direction.

Innumerable sums have been spent in educating and conditioning the American public to accept profit-driven political entertainment as "news" in the last thirty years. If you were to turn on any cable news channel and you could see a cash register total spinning while they are on the air, you'd see it spinning faster when Trump is on TV.

An awareness of that would probably undo a certain significant amount of that conditioning, I daresay.

I'm not disagreeing with what your saying about the profit driven market world that passes for news journalism Jeff.
What I was driving at is the ability of the media and their target markets to get high on their own supply.
The first, which is the basis of Taibbi's article, was the complete suprise of the prevailing narrative that Trump was a buffoon and that Clinton had the ultimate campaign machine that would, in the end, prevail.
The second was the Cortez primary victory that, much like Trumps, they didn't see coming and didn't understand what happenned.
Beto reminds me of that same obtuseness, willingly or not,for the realities on the ground. I see the same story telling going on with Beto's narrative. What really separates him from the centrist positioning that so many Americans are fed up with?

My guess is they will craft him as having some kind of Kennedyesque mystique since politics has now become entertainment branding for them to shape. Much like the 'Man from Hope' or 'Morning in America' commercializing. So long as he doesn't challenge the existing power structures and it's pipeline.

I don't think that head fake will cut it anymore. Time will tell.

In praise of Donald Trump this Thanksgiving.

Well, the neoliberal concensus is starting to weigh in and it looks like it's leaning Beto:
It's all bout the feelings y'all

I think Beto O'Rourke was a terrific Senate candidate and is a very talented, inspiring politician. I don't think he's ready to be President, but, then, I wasn't sure Obama was, either. Turns out I was wrong then, and could be wrong now.

Ironically NWP, I thought Obama was ready when he ran based on what he was running on and, I'll admit it, I didn't mind that he had minority status either.
Unfortunately, I was wrong in the sense that he wasn't what he projected but was very good at projecting.
His biggest failure was the housing crises. Instead of taking lessons from the past and using the crises to change the neoliberal trajectory, he showed many he was of that cut of cloth. By all measures he did very little for working class Americans. He talked the talk but the walk? Not so much... No hope, no change.
That would be my biggest fear with Beto. Is he an empty suit that conservatives will play off of as they did Obama?

Well yeah there's that...he's definitely a tabula rasa. But the other candidates don't look any more promising to me so I'll ride this horse until I see a better one. He's got charisma and is a natural leader. He's got a pretty face and the press loves him, donors love him too. As president he would do pretty much what any Democrat will do. He'll sign the bills I want him to sign, choose cabinet members for their abilities, appoint judges who think like I think, and try to get along with our allies and stand up to our adversaries.

Obama started out okay but he lost the senate in his first midterm election so whatever agenda he might have had went straight out the window after that. He could have been a truly great president if Republicans were interested in having a truly great president.
There was never a jobs bill brought to the floor. There was never an immigration bill, nor an infrastructure bill. Republicans were absolute assh*les the entire eight years. Then they elected the assh*le in chief and continue to do nothing for working Americans.

We'll have to disagree about Obama's start Gregor. I think he stumbled out of the gate with his refusal to go Keynesian and instead stuck with neoliberal policies. He stocked his administration with Goldman and Harvard. The results were catastrophic for the middle class.
I like Ojeda still. He's got some indignation going that's refreshing to hear and has an american populist tone. Some of that 'Raise less corn and more Hell' vibe.
Sounds like a fighter...

I can agree to disagree. Say what you will about Goldman and Harvard, their alumni have a pretty good idea how things work in the rarefied stratosphere of macroeconomics.
Remember the "shovel ready" infrastructure plans that Obama spoke of early on? He wanted to "go Keynesian" as you say, but the opposition pushed for austerity when government should have been bailing out homeowners trapped by predatory lenders and putting people to work. I think that stuff got pushed aside or bartered away as congress worked on the Affordable Care Act.
Then we lost the House and Republicans gained 6 Senate seats in 2010 and it was all over for Obama.

Ojeda's going nowhere. You can take that to the bank.
Beto might be. It just is what it is. The voters are going to swing towards whichever candidate strikes their fancy when the primaries start. All we can do is speculate which one it will be at this point.
Beto gained national attention in his Texas race against Cruz. Ojeda not so much, though he did splash into the headlines a few times.

Whoever says what most of the voters want to hear will get the nom.

Shoot, that aint hard to understand Gregor. High finance is simply a way to funnel money from the middle class and poor to the rich while shielding it from taxation, then loaning money back to the guvmint to fund vital services (or just cut em or privatize them) The poor and middle class get to pay for this upward funneling and offshoring of money. Goldman facilitates with Harvard business degrees. There's was a thing down state from where I live that was protesting this scam back in 2011:
Occusumthin...

Or are you diggin that neoliberal consensus?


Gawd, that bit never gets old...



You may be right about Ojeda but the point is, his campaign will be important whether he wins or not.
If Bernie hadn't run I doubt very much we would be talking about a lot of the ideas popular today (medicare for all, Green New Deal, legalizing weed, etc...). Ideas that the centrists will have a hard time getting rid of or villifying if it gets emphasized by enough campaigns.

First of all Greger ain’t no former Pope. As a matter of fact he is some sort of howling at the moon and dancing in the night pagan--or something of that persuasion anyway.

But I thought you folks might be interested in this recent article from The Atlantic:

Will the Left go too far?

It's hard to say what's too far. Anything short of revolution is fair in my book. But it's really a matter of how far Our Corporate Overlords will let them go.

'Never Trump' Republicans went Democrat in 2018. Are they gone for good? (NBC). The article doesn't answer the question posed, but it is an important question to understand, especially as important progressive agenda proposals are debated in Congress.

The perennial question for centrism: Should the democratic party act more like the democratic party or should it act more like the republican party so as not to offend the suburban vote. the reason I hate this article, NWP, is that it's a bunch of hot takes of the moment by quoting a raft of pollsters and PR firms for what it all means.
It had always come down to mobilizing the working and middle class by offering bold proposals that have popular support. These pollsters always look to their polling and try to divine the wind. I'd rather look to history and there was a time when the democratic party held a majority of congresional seats for decades. The obvious question, for me anyhow, has been 'so what's changed?'.
Pollsters and PR firms are only willing to go so far with that question.

Boy, whenever I see a link to the Atlantic my defenses go up Ken.
Pretty interesting walk thru the history of the progressive party and political groups mounting pressures on FDR, etc...
I take issue with the authors framing of 'leftism' as eventual chaos. Also could take issue with the 'backlash' of bold progressive legislation. I never saw these counterforces coming from popular opinion but rather from a top down assault by the entrenched economic interests from 1676 to the present day.
I do think Beinart is correct about the ideas mainly coming from the left that have any broad popular support. I don't think his 'INCOMING!' anxieties about republican reaction is fully accurate. I subscribe to the 'convergence theory'- that by and by more people will find agreement on the system being jacked up and working against their interests than what the reasons are. But you godda have ideas to meet the problems.

To that end, Sanders has released a 10 point plan that he believes the democratic party should adopt and run on. It very much reminds me of a similar plan taken by Labor in the run up to the snap elections in the U.K. It ran in the washington post as an Op Ed peice on thanksgiving.
Sanders go big or go home challenge

They are conservatives and will return to the Republican Party as soon as Trump is gone.Just because you can't stomach Donald Trump doesn't make you ready to jump the fence. They see Trump as a danger to the party

At this point I am convinced that you are born conservative or liberal.
Like "boys" and "girls" it is divided evenly at about 50% and as with sex, gender is on a sliding scale. I offer, as an example some, issues that fall dead center...
Trayvon Martin. Liberals will always side with the colored kid. Conservatives will side with Zimmergoon.

Abortion, same deal.

The 2nd amendment. Same.

The climate.

Taxes.

It goes on and on and on. Two tribes at war since time out of memory.
Some of the conservatives see Trump as an "outsider".

Bernie's still got a bully pulpit and he's using it well.

We are currently witnessing an episode where the right is going too far. The obvious prediction is that eventually public opinion will swing leftish a bit, liberals will seize control, progressives will will pull them further left. Public opinion will swing right. conservatives will seize control...

And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time
We can't return we can only look....
behind from where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game

Is that SSDD Ken?

An interesting op-ed peice from Hedges discussing the path towards neoliberal fascism. He quotes a lot from his recent video conversations with David Harvey on the history of neoliberalism.

The neoliberal road to fascism

As the Democratic Party becomes the party of the human hog farms of the wealthy suburbs, my fear is that it will find itself more wedded to the characteristics that define this large swath of Murica. An atomized society from which no culture grows or solidarity flourishes. It's organizing principle is consumption and convenience.
It's hard to see the Democratic Party escaping this cultural and political black hole. The irony will be when cannibal capitalism comes for them. What then?

Revolution.

Wouldn't be the first time in history that the proles were overrun by the bourgeoisie and forced into revolution.
The US is currently undergoing a civil war of sorts. A simmering hatred of one side for the other. It's hard to get a proper revolution going when the proles are already at war with themselves.

The bourgeoisie control the propaganda and keep the proles at each others throats so they can't organize a revolution.

So, in conclusion...no revolution is possible when revolution is the only possible solution. Our corporate overlords have got us by the short hairs.

Uh Oh. there's gunna be some anger from the neolibs when they hear the jungle drums start beating again:
Sanders 2020

If he goes I wonder who he'll run with?

He is 77. Maybe it's time to find a protege to promote. Maybe several proteges.

If Bernie can rekindle the excitement he's a shoo in.

But...any Democrat might be a shoo in if the Trump train goes off the rails between now and then.

Sherrod Brown might be a name to watch too.

Yeah, Sherrod Brown looks to be the last democrat and will probably have to turn the lights off in Ohio for the Democratic Party. It's a shame he didn't back Sanders in the primary. Insiders said it felt like a real Betrayel for Sanders but that's politics. I like Brown. It. Can only help to have his voice in the mix.

UMASS just finished a study that found the saveings would be larger with medicare expansion for all than the previous Koch study found. By a LOT.
At this point, with 70% of Americans in favor of a medicare for all plan and a huge cost savings to the country with better outcomes one wonders why any so called Democrat would not back this as a major campaign issue for 2020. Aside from the objection coming from market world of ideas...
UMass study
THere's another effort here in New York called 'Healthy New York' that has been gaining traction. It would essentially divert monies that the state sends to the federal agency and funds a state level 'Medicare for all' system administered by a state board of trustees. It passed in the state house but was stymied in the senate due to the actions of the IDC (independant democratic coalition similar to Congressional 'Problem solver' caucus). Those so called Dems got voted out in the 2018 mid terms and there is really no reason it shouldn't pass but we'll see. Then there's the Cuomo guy in the governors mansion. He's a problem.
I like this topic, made mainstream by Sanders, in particular because it exposes the lie that the markets are the best way to distribute resources in the most efficient way. This subject is visceral to most Americans and shows what a con the Neoliberal consensus has been.
I very much hope we will see 'Medicare for All' gain momentum for 2020. One wonders if Trump will hop on board as he did with the rest of Sanders populist message in 2016.

Sherrod Brown just got re-elected to the Senate. He can run for President and still serve in the Senate if not elected. I doubt it will hurt, and may buttress, his standing in Ohio. A Kasich-Brown contest would be fascinating. I like them both, but Kasich has too many Republican ideas.

Which parts of Sanders' populist message did Trump hop on board with?

The corruption of Washington politicians.
Healthcare
Nafta, trade, jobs
De-industrialization
Solidarity with working class, etc etc

I wouldn't exactly call making a lot of false promises "hopping on board".

It goes back to the notion that "fascism is a populist movement without a left option".
Fascism has historically coopted language from the left and is doing it today. Here as well as Europe. The latest is the yellow vest protests in Paris where you see both socialists and fascist competing for the messaging and neither ceding the public space to the other.
Trumps no dummy in certain arenas, though it helps some people to think he is. His record is cunning self preservation and he'll steal any credit for something that's popular. He used the language of populism on his campaign trail. Mixed in with racism and xenophobia but a good deal was populist. My guess is he saw how well Sanders was doing started talking about the issues that he saw Sanders succeeding with. Issues that the Democratic establishment failed to take seriously at the time.
That may be changing now. The public is there on this issue but, unfortunately, the parties donors aren't. See Joe Manchin for an example.

I'm hesitant to link all of those directly with Sanders because I am somewhat convinced that Trump wanted to address NAFTA, trade, jobs and healthcare all along. Here is what he was talking about long before Sanders even announced his candidacy.

"The America We Deserve" - Donald Trump, 2000

Yeah, I get what your saying Jeff.
Populism can come in different shades but the american form, to my understanding of it, has generally been inclusive and economically progressive.
Trump's been blending that tradition with the other, darker variant.
He did, in fact, spend much time on the campaign trail going after the same subjects as Sanders was. Healthcare, jobs, wages etc...
You may recall his reaching out to disaffected sanders supporters after he lost the primary and the SH!t storm was brewing over the fixing of the primary confirmed by the leaked emails.
To me, it's a sign of Trumps shrewdness and Clinton's obtuseness. That's not an endorsement of what Trump was selling. Just my simple interpretation of the campaign.

As it was, I was on a crap-ton of Bernie Facebook groups during that period and it's awfully difficult to interpret it as Trump reaching out to Bernie Bros for me, because I was seeing Bernie Bros talking about Trump before the Democratic Convention.
Scads of them had already made up their minds that the nomination was corrupt and tilted against Bernie and that they were in a mood to put Trump in just to teach America a lesson.

Never mind that, by refusing to be a Democrat, Bernie was up against Rule Numero Uno in the DNC:

1. Choose a Democrat as candidate, no choosing OUTSIDE the party.

Rule Numero Dos:

2. Protect the chosen DNC candidate at all costs.

I've expounded on this innumerable times, you cannot be outside the party and expect that party to help you in a POTUS race. It just doesn't work that way, it never has and it likely never will.

But anyway, a month or even two months before the convention, a lot of hardcore Bernie or Bust Bros were announcing their intention to vote Trump if Bernie lost the primary, again...just to teach us all a lesson.

That's the point where I lost a lot of respect for the Bernie Bros: Not for Bernie, because he was honest and would have worked to fulfill his campaign promises. But anybody who really thought Trump would or could fulfill any of those ideas he usurped from Bernie was an idiot. And the Bros who voted for Trump in a fit of pique over the primary were self-destructive idiots as well.

Ok a coupla points.


1st. There has been a good look at the historical rate of party switching and the evidence of this 'Bernie Bro' (T.M. Hillary 2016) defection happenned in any significant number above that historical average can't be found. But yeah, you were on a posting page so i guess what? Evidence? Ok. Nailed it Jeff. 538 has done some good number crunching on this vote shift for 2016 but don't let em fool ya. Fake News!
2nd: you should look into the origen of 'Bernie Bro'.

3rd: the ridiculousness of your argument that it's ok for the party to rig the primary Jeff. Seriously? I'm as cynical as the next guy but for all the faults of the republicans (a long list to be sure) one thing that's interesting is that they don't mess with their primaries to the level of the Democratic Party. They leave the fraud and grift for the general election.
You wanna know why they don't? Because it angers a certain percentage of their base. Democratic Party leadership, on the other hand, has been carving off chunks of it's left flank for decades now.

4th: Bernie ran on the democratic ticket. If you want a protect at all cost rule to be a rule then enforce it Jeff? If that's the case ( in Jeff world but I'll play along) then why let him into the race from the start?

One possibility was that he could be used as a foil for Hillaries anointing. My guess is they let him in believing they could present a farce as a real competition but, suprise suprise, what they got was, in fact, a real competitor who's ideas and positions were very popular. At that point they could have fought a real primary battle or choose to rig the primary. They chose to rig the primary. They leaks only confirmed what Sanders supporters knew. Indeed, as many down ballot progressive primary candidate knows. It's all about the money and the DNC is there to protect that. That is the North Star of the party leadership Jeff. It guides their every decision and will be our neoliberal tombstone if we don't wrest control from these classist greed heads. Your 'they godda be party members' rule is nonsense. They have primaried good progressives with republican candidates that reflagged themselves democrats for DCCC support. Your rules are just that. Yours.

It's like climate denial. Hillary supporters just can't admit what a lousy candidate she was. Your simply enabling a party that needs serious reforming.

I'm a Hillary supporter and I'll be the first to admit that she's a lousy candidate. It's her biggest weakness. Campaigning.
But I still think she would have been the perfect follow-up for Obama.
Instead we got a fellow whose strongest suit is campaigning. Once elected he had nothing to back up the sales pitch. No understanding of how the game is played and no respect for the rules. But a great candidate!

Both parties need serious reforming. Neither is liable to get it.

Because money.

Ya' think?!? Campaigning M-F and taking weekends off.

You'd think that Hillary acted like the gig was hers.

Her policy positions (foreign, health care, minimum wage, race) made her a lousy candidate as well as her tone deafness and the campaigns hubris. For me anyway. The crucial battle ground states thought the same as well.
I'm still of a mind she's running again but time will tell.

Are we having some sort of contest to see how many Senate seats Republicans can lose in 2020? (The answer is 22.) This latest court ruling that ACA is unconstitutional should be ripe just around that time. Do you think maybe millions of people facing losing their health insurance will be inspired to actually vote in their best interests? Talk about a great campaign issue! Republicans just keep on shooting themselves in the foot. Complaining about ACA is a great campaign issue for them to get their (shrinking) fan base worked up, but God Forbid they actually succeeded. The backlash would be huge.

It's like abortion in that sense. A wonderful issue to differentiate themselves from Democrats, but if they actually got it banned, the voters would turn them out en masse.

The headline: Trump says he would work with Democrats on 'great' replacement if Obamacare is scrapped (Politico). The reality: same thing he said two years ago, he didn't mean it then, either. He'll take what is already there and "rebrand" it, just like he did with all those Trump properties, steaks, wine, and NAFTA. What Dems need to understand is, even talking to the man is anti- democratic.

Democrats might just be able to pass a bill to change it to RomneyCare. They are almost identical, except RomneyCare had larger op-out fines. It would be pretty funny to watch Republican's attack one of their own presidential candidate's plans.

John McCain pretty much became persona non grata when he diasagreed with Trump. Mitt Romney is the butt of Republican jokes already. There is no loyalty among thieves.

True, the Party of Mitt Romney is not the Trump Party of today, but it would still be funny watching them jump through hoops trying to explain to all the Romney voters why Romney was a traitor. GOP is the Party of the Elephant, remember. Those old white guys are going to remember Mitt was the greatest thing since sliced bread, back in the day.

I never got the impression that Mitt was ever really well loved by Republicans, he was just a candidate who lost and dropped off the map. McCain had more going for him because he was a war hero and a Senator. Until Trump declared that no one who got captured could be a hero.

Always known as a "maverick" McCain stepped out of line and was kicked to the curb even on his deathbed. It's too bad about John McCain...he would have made a better Democrat than Republican.

But as far as health care goes I think we're on track to see younger people being able to buy into Medicare. One of Chuck Schumer's pet projects is allowing people 50 years old to buy in. We may see that pop up in the next two years along with improvements to Obamacare and more states buying into Medicaid. I really don't expect much to happen until after 2020 when Democrats take control again. History predicts that there will be a flurry of health care plans discussed, gains will be made, then Republicans will take control and chip them all away.

The most important issue in all this will be to insure that every detail passes muster with the strict constitutionalists. If that isn't possible then the law can't stand. Maybe our constitution simply rules out federally administered healthcare...

I really doubt that. It has no language anywhere saying health care must be private and it does have language about the general welfare of the people. So I think it comes down to money. If Medicare-for-all is cheaper than other alternatives, then I think it wins.

And that leads to the buy-in cost question. Obviously it is not fair to just sign everybody over 50 for free. People over 65 paid all their working lives for Medicare. That's why you need to move gradually or else charge people near as much as they pay for insurance now until they reach 65. There are a myriad of options for this, but the key is to get people over 65 to believe the new system is going to make Medicare stronger.

South Carolina GOP open to canceling state's 2020 primary to protect Trump from challenge


As insane as you think it might get, it's bound to get even more so.

You cannot have a football game between the Cowboys and the Redskins and then suddenly, a San Francisco 49-er runs onto the line of scrimmage and says that he's playing on the Redskins team.
Bernie refused to join the Democratic Party, and that means that he is not a Democrat, even if he says he is running "as a Democrat".
Because according to the rules of both parties, "running as a Democrat" (or as a Republican) might more accurately be:
"Running as if I was a Democrat".

There simply are no party provisions for people running "as if" they were a member, you have to BE a member of the party.
And so, because Bernie was NOT a member of the party, the party chose someone else. I'm fairly certain that, if it had been anyone else instead of Hillary, they would have done much the same thing, namely: PROTECT THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

Because in the end, whether you and I agree what they did was immoral or even sometimes illegal, they did what a party is required to do, select a candidate and then protect them.

Right now as you read this, the South Carolina GOP is pondering the idea of canceling their 2020 GOP SC state primary ALTOGETHER, in order to protect Trump.

That means, if enough states cancel their GOP primaries altogether in 2020, NO ONE "running as if they are Republican" has a chance because no other REPUBLICAN PARTY MEMBER even has a chance.

When seen through that kind of lens, all of a sudden the DNC closing ranks around Hillary in 2016 seems rather tame by comparison.
Bernie, as much as I love the guy, should have tossed his silly and sentimental "Democratic Socialist" tag in the trash the day he set foot on Capitol Hill for the first time, because in reality, according to the work he has done, he's a liberal New Deal Democrat in the style (and largely platform) of FDR.

Had he done that all those years ago, I suspect that the DNC would have been transformed by him* a long time ago, and they would have had no choice but to run him in 2016.

(*Witness his considerable grass roots 2016 crowdfunding mojo - now extrapolate that out ten years prior all the way up till 2016)

OK Jeff. Breaking my posting hiatus after reading this gem.
If you don't see the contradictions here then I'm afraid you have been clinically traumatized with what is being commonly called Hillary Clinton Defeat Syndrome
What it is, basically, is deep trauma to the brain for Clinton supporters that occured after she flamed out in the 2016 election. Their brains need to protect themselves of the reality that she lost by having a horrible political record for many on both the far right and left as well as the fact that she was nakedly incompetent to win against one of the most unlikable candidates in modern history.
For the brain to do this it must make up an alternate universe of cockamamie rationale that explains that loss, often extending the logic to the democratic primary itself, as you have done.
Unable to find a tidy narrative to paper over the obvious fact that she was unexpectantly challenged by real politics of addressing people's material concerns and anger and a resultant exposure of the DNC coordinating with her campaign over her challengers, youve concocted a set of rules that, apparent to yourself, allow for the coronation of a nominee.
Coupla things with that:

There was a widely publicized contest where the VOTERS got to both, listen to the arguments, and then cast their votes in whatever state primary system they reside in.

What is the rule or governing authority over candidate qualifications that you are referring to that allows a candidate such as Sanders to run in the primary but not allowed to win it over party preference? Really. A link or citation would come in handy here.

I understand the MSM (looking at you NYT, WP) serving as basically an outpost extension of the Clinton 2016 campaign and running sanders down when er they could. That's fair and the press has sided with the neoliberal consensus for decades now and Hillary was their pick but the DNC?
Out of respect to your fondness for analogies, how much confidence would you have in a stock car race if one of the race teams had just loaned NASCAR a pile of money just before the race?

As mentioned before, there's a perverse comfort in knowing there's an equal amount of that there cognitive dissonance coming from the center right as there has been from the far right. It's just that the center right has more news channels to choose from.

You seem to have me confused with a Hillary fan.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is at least partly responsible for my son being alive, given all the hard work she did to make sure that the S-CHIP program survived.
But that doesn't mean that I wanted her to run for President...again.
2008 was enough for me, I knew she was a terrible candidate back then.
I also knew she was a terrible candidate after watching her dip her toe into the water in the first part of the 2016 campaign, and by that time I was already aboard the Bernie Sanders train.

I was maybe the very first "citizen-journalist" to cover his announcement, because he stopped by Canter's Deli right before his appearance on Bill Maher. There wasn't even enough time for most of his fans, which were already legion, to get to Canter's, so the room was sparsely populated. It was June 20, 2015.



But, putting aside your slightly condescending outlook toward what is basically a common sense look at how parties conduct their business, let's analyze what it is you think I'm trying to prove.


Yes, there was. Yes, people did.
And the Democratic Party had indeed already "crowned" Hillary before the first primary was even planned, and even released funds to her campaign ahead of time.
But that's beside the point, and the point, which you steadfastly appear to be ignoring, is this:

The Democratic Party would, under any other circumstances, open the field to any challenger, much the same as the Republicans did to seventeen of them, had it been a different stable of candidates.
Only one requirement was needed - they had to actually BE Democrats.

Can I point to a specific party rule in either party that flatly states that a party candidate has to be a member of that party?
Wow, where do I even go to look for such a rule in order to copy and paste the link?
Maybe Democrats.org...

Sure enough, in Article 9, Section 9 there is a clause which says that you might be right!


Except, what IS a "bona fide" candidate?
Let's look further...

Well, Section 4 of Article One says:


So it appears it might be a bit of a quandry, because while Article One/Section 4 talks about the DNC's responsibility to all MEMBERS, Article Nine/Section 9 talks about "all candidates campaigning as Democrats" but makes the vague stipulation that they must be bona fide, and apparently there is no further definition of what exactly constitutes "bona fide".

You know, it could be that this sort of thing has happened so rarely that the issue has never even come up.
Teddy Roosevelt tried setting up his own unique party called the Bull Moose Party but he was basically running on a Republican Party platform, just not AS a Republican. It didn't go anywhere.

I cannot think of a single other instance in our entire history where a candidate for POTUS ran "as if they were" a party member.
Plenty of people have run as third party members, but Bernie might be unique.

As for the media ignoring Sanders (AND giving Trump almost two billion in free air time) there has never been a dispute between you and me about that ever. I've said in earlier discussions that I grant you everything in that regard.
Maybe you forgot, because you appear to have forgotten that I was a Sanders supporter.

I think where I must have failed in your eyes is the moment where I decided, all alone in my voting booth, not to throw my vote down a blank hole marked "write in candidate" in the futile hope that the laws of the universe would suddenly change and thousands of electors would suddenly "go faithless" and choose Bernie after he had already bowed out of the process. (thus in effect giving my vote TO Trump)

And now you appear to have decided that, in reality, it must just be a temporary form of madness and that I am suffering from some kind of Hillary syndrome.
Talk about a perverse form of cognitive dissonance.

No major political party will EVER lend support to candidates who are OUTSIDE of their own party. That's because in all our 242 years, no party ever HAS.
Pretending that they suddenly would is a fool's errand.
It's like trying to look for anti-matter in a jar of Crisco shortening.

PS: Why are you on a posting hiatus? I sure hope it's not because no one is willing to accept your pronouncements on my mental health.
My mental health is as good as it can be under Trump.
I wanted Bernie to be President, it didn't happen, and I happen to believe that Bernie could have made the DNC his bitch.

You seem to think that a political party would be willing to lay down a brand new rule for a unique and otherwise unheard of situation, and I must be suffering from a syndrome to excuse a candidate I didn't even want to run.

Hmmmm...

I think Bernie just misunderstood what it meant to "caucus with" the Democrats...

Hillary might have been a poor candidate, but obviously Bernie was a worse candidate. Because Hillary actually won more votes than he did.

An actual 'discussion' over non members of the Democratic party claiming the right to run as a Democrat. This is a VERY strange discussion. Apparently, according to those arguing for non Democrats running as Democrats means that the Democrats must allow anybody at all to run under their banner, ie. Nazis, Communists, Socialists, Aliens from Outer Space, Canadians, Mexicans, whatever........... (I know, that's crazy. On the other hand this is where some of the logic is headed)

If Bernie really wanted to run as a Democrat then he should have joined the Democratic party! It was that simple. On the other hand I also think that the Democratic party has a right to not allow just anybody to even join. It used to be that a political party also had a number of 'planks' under which any candidate, or member, subscribed to as it was the basis of the party. Now, however, nobody even seems to know, exactly, what the planks of either party actually are and candidates are, apparently, not necessarily supportive of said party planks. If this is true then I am not even sure what it means to be a member of either party.

Now, for the last - The anti-Hillary stuff is also kinda strange. She was a terrible candidate who won 3 MILLION more votes than the opposition. She wasn't all that bad a candidate but did have so-called strategists that REALLY screwed the pooch on this one. The Republicans simply out thought and out fought the Democrats. These are the same people who seem to be in charge these days too. Let me change that to "These are the same OLD people who seem to be in charge". These are also the same ones who watched as the Republicans took over something in excess of 80% of all State Legislatures and seems to have woke up one day and said; "Gosh, how in the world did the Republicans do that?"

My fond hope, in all of this, is that the Dems are, right now, having a LOT of discussions on just what the hell happened, how they are going to fix it (the Democratic party), how they are going to setup groups, across the entire country willing to sit down and think it through. After they are done they should come up with some party planks that actually describe how they want to be understood and seen, and also make sure that their candidates agree with said planks, or explain their reasons for not doing that. They could start, for instance, with having certain institutions socialized like; fire departments, police departments, public schools and healthcare. These are the things all citizens should support (I think) I also believe that, eventually, the Republicans are going to have to do the same thing after their dear leader is out of the way.

One last. Jackass is 72, Sanders is 77, Biden is 76. How about somebody that's a bit younger?

Just saying.............

Beto?

He's a centrist, I get that. A white Obama so to speak. And the press is already ragging on his voting record and accepting donations from the petroleum industry. Not a real progressive, no true Scotsman...

I don't mind centrists if I think they might be swayed further left than their previous records might show. I don't need a socialist agenda. Just a president who will sign progressive legislation into law. And of course a congress who can pass progressive legislation.

That's really all there is to it. The press is pushing Dems hard to pick a progressive candidate. The more progressive the better. Because that's the horse race the press is trying to set up.
A Bernie vs Trump redux of the 2016 fiasco is what I think the press wants. It's a moneymaker. The glow was all on Beto after November but he's too mainstream for the mainstream press.

They're doing market research right now. Bernie can beat Biden if that's what it comes down to. Bernie still has the fire in his belly. Uncle Joe's day has passed, I'm afraid, it's time he drove his Vette into the sunset. He was never really presidential material anyway.

There's still a good chance that Beto catches fire even with the press trying to tamp it down. In age and attitude he's exactly what the country needs.

And just for the record, my personal choice out of all the contenders would be Sherrod Brown. Of them all he would probably make the best president. But I just don't see it happening.

Maybe Sherrod and Beto oughta sit down and have a nice chat.

I am not all that enthusiastic over Beto. He is, obviously, a GREAT fund raiser. All that being said he also lost his battle with the most hated member of the senate and, I think I saw a poll where Cruz actually won the title of most hated politician in America.

So, I am not against Beto but, I continue to wonder. I am also not against Pelosi but she, as one of the party leaders, watched whilst the Republicans took, I think, over 80% of the state legislatures. Seems to me a bit strange. There is, apparently, a group within the Democratic party which is bravely supporting people who are, basically, losers. I don't even think they are the same group but, rather, two groups, within the Democratic party, who are loudly voicing their support for, basically, losers.

I had serious questions whether the Dems would win big in 2018 and they did. I am simply pointing out that I seem to be really expert in worrying over nothing. That being the case my concerns above might also fit into that category too. I just hope that the Dems take a deep breath, and figuratively hold each other's hands whilst pounding out strategy and planks that make sense and appeal to the vast majority of those tending towards the Dems and away from the Party of Jackass.

Beto's a pretty face. Sometimes that's all it takes. There was never a chance in Hell that Beto could have beaten Cruz. The polls said it from the very start. Beto didn't win the election, but he beat the odds. He turned a race that NO Democrat could win into a photo finish barnburner. That's what raised all the eyebrows.

He could do the same thing in 2020, and maybe even win. But progressives will run massive negative campaigns against him because he isn't politically pure enough and drag out Jill Stein again. Republicans will label him a socialist and Russia will fan the flames on social media...

Jeff,

Well you have me up a stump. If you are siding with 'the Party', and perhaps that's what has me confused, Then I wish it was about being a Hillary defeat syndrome' problem. That is, if you mean 'Democratic Party' by the DNC and it's multiple fund raising and campaign committees?
If your talking decisions taken by the party then I would give that a second thought. Your saying that the party gets to decide who we get to vote for and are happy with the structures/barriers they have in place? Part of that would be double dealing during the primary campaign.

If so, then whats it all about?

Is it about winning? Then I would have to bring up the slow motion wipeout over the last few cycles. Or the ceding of major regions of the country that have assured us a republican senate for years to come.

Is it about giving up a battle today to win a long term decisive victory? That slow and steady arc of progress?.... We don't have that long. By most measures the needles are moving in the wrong direction on all the dials.
Is there some success with the leadership that I've overlooked that balances some of these negative gains over the decades?

Smart? Is it smart to allow a candidate into the race but have only done so after it was decided by party leadership who the winner should be and worked to accomplish that? It's not democracy and possibly not legal but it is something. Criminally stupid comes to mind. Why would you put on that performance? It's insulting to a large swath of your base and alienates who knows how many. Is that hyperbole? I dunno, I think it was a big pile of arrogance,incompetence, and corruption. They sure as heck heven't made it rain for a LOT of people. Donors maybe... The wrong kind for third worlders and underextracted but that's a differant kind of rain (death).
If they thought of it as a farce that would help to burnish Clinton's resume, who the hell are they to decide?

Progress? Name it cause most progress is going in the wrong direction. Against popular opinio, in many cases. Might be that primary thing. Manchin is on the senate energy committee and a ranking member is he not. Cortez's 'New Green Deal' committee will be recommendation only, with no subpoena power. A big majority of voters want to see something happen. Next stop: environmmental ecocide? What will the party decide?! Stay tuned because you can't always get what you want-for most people anyways.

Sanders was not a democrat?.... Then why was he allowed to run as such? His vote in the Senate maybe? He's his own man and if you've seen him over the years then you know he's not for sale. Might account for his popularity over Clinton's resume application. Not saying you weren't watching sanders Jeff, just trying to make a point.

Again, I don't know who you think the Democratic Party is and maybe I've misunderstood what you wanted to frame in your argument. I'll always be happy to argue against a neoliberal democratic candidate or a corrupted funding apparatus with you. You did get me off the bench after all. Might be some groaning about that but we are talking politics after all so....


Another perspective on Sanders running. By the guy from the front: Matt Taibbi's op-ed

Yes, I've BEEN talking about "The Democratic Party as administered by the DNC", because in the end, like it or not, we're stuck with them as the arbiters of who gets the Dem money.

I didn't say that I like it, or that you have to like it.
I'm just filing my observations.

And believe me when I say that I wanted Sanders to win.
In the end it was as if he ran a valiant race, "with the parking brake on", because if you have to play ball with the DNC to get DNC money, he handicapped himself.

I'm not disputing your perceptions of the Democratic Party as a desirable party vehicle, I'm calling balls and strikes.
If you want to term the DNC as a bunch of immoral bums, you won't hear much protest from me. I have to stand in line at the DMV like everyone else, so I curse them roundly...but I need that driver's license.

Bernie running again? Not unless it includes a plan to make the DNC his bitch and hew them over to his side and his way of seeing things. I love the guy but this isn't Dungeons and Dragons, it's POTUS politics.

Are you saying that no one can fight the forces of Doctor Evil and His Flaming Propagandists and that Jill Stein is invincible?
I guess there's no point in ANYONE running then.

No...seriously. We should have bitch-slapped that stupid Putin-cow right from the get go and frankly, the Republican "SOCIALIST" tag is worn out. They overused it last time.

If that's the hill they choose to die on, we should make them die on it instead of circling wide and giving them snacks.

What are the balls and what are the strikes Jeff?
Actually, it doesn't matter. There are independant and growing alternative funding sources that are helping to run progressives up and down ballots.
Your arguing for the status quo. Fine. Or your observing and reporting I guess. My 35 years of observing the slow rightward drift of the Democratic Party has left me convinced of the statement that it no longer represents it's traditions but simply a sink hole for progressive energy or socialist ideas to disappear down for its donor class.
If this past week is any indication, by sidelining progressive causes, the party will continue its tradition of punching left while pleasing its donor class.
It's to be expected. I can't recall any progressive cause being accomplish from the party without pressure coming from outside. Someone else may be able to provide an example but I'm stumped. This current Democratic Party is so wedded to donor money I dont know if it's reachable anymore.
In the end, and listening to the climate scientists that's happenning now and no longer an abstract thing, we observed party norms and rules as they crafted them.

The Democratic Party is wedded to donor money - just as the Republicans are wedded to donor money. If you don't have the big bucks you win NOTHING! Beto, the apparent champion of the progressives got a lot of money but he was also a tireless worker and proudly went into every village and hamlet in the district he was running in and shook every hand he could find.

The trick, obviously, is to take care of the money thing. When the Dems take over the house they should pass a bill stating; "Money is not speech and speech is not money". I think everybody but donors and craven politicians would argue this one which is another plus for this one. I also suspect that if both houses pass such a thing that big money and craven politicians will take it to the Supremes. Again, them that actually believes that money is speech, etc. if the anti-donor class prepares a war chest to disallow the donor folk the ability to demonize I think everything might get interesting?

My thought, basically, is that the demonizers are very good at what they do and its REALLY time to fight back!

If the speech thing gets done then the other leg needs to be severed, ie. "corporations and organizations are NOT individuals and should not be treated as such."

Couldn't agree more, JGW, couldn't agree more.

Having worked recently on this very issue and had to collect signatures I can personally assure that you don't have to think about it anymore. Just know that for every day I spent collecting signatures, on any given day on the street, after asking people if they would enjoy talking about religion or politics (with a smile!) and letten em know what it's about. Chiefly passing an amendment to get money out of politics. You can do about 25 a day and out of those asked, 23 were in strong support while 2-3 would abstain from getting involved. Cut across demographics like a dozer! Income, political affiliation, you name it.

Here's the rub for me.

It ain't gunna happen. Or not from the top any ways.
It will have to come from the bottom. Neighbor to neighbor. I mentioned the history of any achievement for freedom having always come from pressure being applied from the bottom up. Some after much devastation, such as the civil war.
But this is Pelosi were talking about and my earlier fears of her doing a challenge head fake to get re-elected as leader have been well founded by her actions this week.
Coming up a bit short of campaign finance reform is the 'Green New Deal' plan as championed by Cortez and, by many on the left figuring, lead as well.
After all, this has been a signature progressive idea that had been championed by Sanders. It's currently polling at 81-82% approval. As far as I know, it still is a major rallying cause for progressives, environmentalists, engineers, biologists, economist and any other credentialed 'ists' you care to list.
Really, what can be more important than a livable earth with the ability to have organized society?
Pelosi? I'm guessing it's safe to say she's got other things on her mind. Cortez didn't get any position on the committee as far as I know and the left is pissed. Why the hell not?!
A lesser committee rank with no supbeona power, just the ability to make recommendations. Pelosi chose to appoint a congresswoman named Kathy Castor (I kid you knot) of FL. Know idea who she is but maybe Gregor knows.
One of the BIG goals of any committee member, by the progressives, was that they recieve NO fossil fuel campaign money. A position the party embraced for a minute in 2017, until Perez reversed it.
Castor's public comment on fossil fuel donations can be read here: Pelosi gal Castor

The left is pissed and the progressive caucus is fuming. It's my hope they make Pelosi pay with a pound of flesh down the line. Scuttle a tax give away she has in mind to bring some corporate interest 'on board' some neoliberal clap trap grand bargain etc...

Castor seems to be legit. She's in the Tampa Bay area and has the backing of the Tampa Bay Times.

Link

She's not even sworn in yet. AOC has a bright future in Washington but committee seats aren't usually given to newcomers.

This is just the beginning of the Green New Deal, with a little luck and enough votes to stay in power Democrats can make it happen.

Nobody gets on Intelligence or similar powerful committee first time at bat. I think everybody gets a committee assignment or two. Newcomers may get on some crap committee that doesn't meet much or introduce many bills. There are plenty of things a new Rep can do that doesn't require a committee assignment, like network and help build a caucus. Talent will out. If she is House material, people will notice what she's doing.

They can also do things in their own district and get in the press for good stuff.

Checking out Castors voting record and she's pretty good on the environment. Has voted the right way on most all bills presented to her. Most don't effect her district though so you have to go to her donor base.
Her biggest appears to be real estate developers. I can't think of any reason why I should be alarmed about a real estate developer from Florida having negative environmental consequences, can you? It's not like theirs a history of environment being sacrificed at the altar of development and jobs.
But the pattern is clear and appears to be repeating. Neoliberals triangulating progressive energy into donor money by dissapating that energy. This is shaping up to be an all to famil iar repeat of that grift with the attendant defensive rationale of seniority, experience to lead, institutional norms being maintained, etc...
None of which has shown the competency nor velocity to deal with the pace of this unfolding environmental crises.
No mention of the amazingly fast rise rise of public awareness made of this issue and a 'New Green Deal' made popular by Cortez, Sanderd and the progressive left. No, time to give it to the mid management class of politicians. The ones who gave us that exciting 'Better Deal' that no ones talked about since it was recieved by the public like a still born pig.
I'm hoping to be surprised, but history provides no foundation for that hope with these corporate schills. I'm very much hoping the progressive caucus makes this choice cost Pelosi and Hoyer.

I would hope that the Progressive caucus will try to lead more moderate colleagues into sensible legislation rather than to weaken the party with impossible demands the way the Freedom caucus has done for Republicans.

Ah yes. Impossible demands.
One would have thought an overwhelming public approval for a 'Green New Deal' would be impossible, given the current climate and what gets packaged as 'conventional wisdom' by corporate Dems and Corporate media. And then it's proved otherwise by the 'inexperienced'.
Nothing from past decades of political history shows the New Democratic Party can be persuaded to do anything sensible. Their record speaks for itself.
I hope the progressive caucus does push the party to the left again in the same way the Tea Party was able to move Republicans to the right. O.K. New Democrats helped but you get the point.

In any case, I am whipping up support in the New Mexico congressional delegation for our own version of a New Green Deal works program that has our forest restoration, biochar+energy, and agricultural regeneration at its core as actual models - not just some ideological wish.

Maybe showcasing success will have some influence.

And I think we're poised to see exactly that. I don't think it can even be avoided.The Green New Deal is brand new, give it some time to mature, Monsieur Firebrand, before calling for a pound of flesh from the wiley old politicians who know how to get things done.
Exciting times are coming after the dark Trump years are done.

History Gregor....
History.

Allow me just a moment of optimism during this happiest season of the year.

I've felt for a long time that if we just give Republicans everything they want for a little while they will screw the pooch so thoroughly that they will never be trusted again.

They've gotten everything they want, they've screwed the pooch thoroughly.

Democrats will soon come back into power in a pretty big way and they've got a progressive mandate pushing the party left. It won't go as far left as you want it to, because money.
They won't even go as far left as I want them too, which is a ways off from the precipice which will tip power back to Republicans. That's the precipice where you hang out pointing down the cliff and saying "look how great things are down there..."

Nuts!
You yourself, as plenty of others on this board, grew up in a time that was politically much different than it is today. U.S. politics has shifted to the right. Both political parties.
I've advocated nothing further than what has already been proposed and in some cases, accomplished, by previous political consensus.
But neoliberalism has been the flavor of the last 4 decades and is the one the centrist have staked their claim to and will chose to die for (as many have already). It's a pathology more than a sustainable political consensus.

You are, I think, absolutely right. I fully expect that, by 2020 our economy will be in the dumper big time. Then, of course, the Dems will get re-elected and also, yet again, charged with the task of saving the nation. They have a LOT of experience at this so they will get that job done. If history tells us anything it also tells us that the Dems will 'fix' the economy whilst being completely silent as to why the economy is in the dumper (Republicans, basically) and so, whilst they are 'fixing' the Republicans will have their demonization resources will be pinning the entire economic mess on the Dems and the Dems will just take it.

This is another one I am praying I am wrong about and that they will actually toot their horn as loudly as the other side toot their lies. I know, another exercise in wishful thinking......

US politics has always leaned right, racist, anti immigrant, anti woman and anti gay. Historically speaking it was practically yesterday when we had a civil war over slavery. It wasn't until 1965 or so that we actually granted full civil rights to black people. And even that only as a legality. People of color are still treated like second class citizens. Gays have only recently been allowed to enter the mainstream and that with considerable trepidation. Women continue to struggle beneath a burgeoning patriarchy.

And yer tryin' to tell me they've moved further right?

Maybe you don't realize just how downtrodden the downtrodden were not too many years ago so you can't see how far we've come.

No, it wasn't. It was Democrats vs Republicans. Labor vs business.
Rich people controlled the parties. A working guy couldn't get a break...

I was politically aware from about 1960 on. I lived through all those years and things are certainly much better now, especially if you were a person of color or non-majority sexual orientation. For most of those years people were often killed (by lynch mobs, racists, gay-bashers, or government) just for being non-white or non-straight.

Sure, union-member working-class people were a little better off when the union actually meant something. But union workers were not the bottom rung of society: Far from it. And all those lower rungs were much worse off than now.

U.S. politics has always been dominated by powerful interest to be sure.
Whats changed is the Democratic party embracing a market oriented philosophy and becoming openly hostile to it's left flank for the last 40 years. Labor unions, the remnants of the socialist labor struggles, are hanging on by their teeth.
Suffragettes, Anti-Imperialists, Socialists, Grange revolts,European Anarchists and Communists, etc... were the left. Driven to ground by the purge of the 50's, the left ain't what it used to be giving license for anyone to define it in it's absence from real politics or the economy. I'm not sure why, but white boomers went hard right dragging both parties with them.
We have some pretty good poverty going again and real wages have stalled out since the 70's with the profits now going almost entirely to the rich. Union membership is at an all time low as organizing is harder and harder. Minorities household is on track to Zero while fascists are openly running and, in some cases, winning political seats.
Nah, we haven't moved right. We got gay marriages (for now, wel'll have to wait and see on them revanchist judges Schumer help get appointed to federal benches).
PIA, what are you saying? I cant tell as your first sentence about unions is contradicted by your second.
Yes, union s were organized at the working class level. That's why they organized! So they would get pay raises and benefits so they could escape being working poor. What am I missing here? Union workers are still better paid than their non-union peers. This has ben getting understood again lately and there has been a upswing labor activity. In case you didn't know it, striking gets the goods!
Workers are better off today because money made concessions to labor to end hostilities. Overtime rules, time off etc... You think JP Morgan came up with that?

I could be wrong about this but I think non-union workers became jealous of union workers getting paid more for the same work and started voting against unions...and thus we got "Right To Work" laws.
Politics hasn't necessarily moved right, it has moved to stupid.

Also I think everyone here realizes we have entered into another "Gilded Age" and something is going to have to stop it. This is typically the job of the "left" and things being what they are, it's going to fall on the Democratic Party to actually become the left after a long comfortable run in the middle.

Wage resentments may have played a role Gregor. It is a very real thing that management class types have used to denigrate unions.
Weakening unions has been an avocation of the rich since organized labor reemergence in the 1930's. It's been a multigenerational project for some families, such as the koch's.
Shifting production from areas of high union organization and leftist politics to low unionization, if any at all, and relatively little left wing political thought began in the 50's.
Meat packing moved out of the Midwest and furniture making moved out of New England.
Similar legal efforts were made to curtail and restrict the ability of organizing work places in the south and, as the Koch project is still unfolding, the upper Midwest as well.
The south has made sense for using as a cheap labor pool. After all, it fought a horrendous war using poor laborers that were defending an economic system to keep them poor. Except for the farm revolts and cigar worker strikes I can't think of much labor solidarity in the south. I do recall a more negative attitude towards unions while living there so you may be right on resentments helping pass 'right to work' anti labor organizing laws.
The Democratic Party is incapable of reforming itsrlf and making a left turn. It's only going to happen with pressure from below. You don't get left policies by electing republicans in a Democat wrapper such as Beto. His voting record is what's wrong with the party and voters that can't differentiate between public relations and voting/donation history.

C'mon...Beto's no Republican in sheep's clothes. He's not racist, fascist, or fundamental Christian. Bear in mind that Joe Biden is more or less the front-runner in early polling. Pretty much as centrist as they come and as old as dirt. Bernie, the closest thing we have to a Comrade in the U.S. government, was running a close second.

Beto came in a distant third. But I think you're writing him off a bit too soon. His congressional voting record isn't impressive, I'll agree, but there is more to a man than that. Let's just say that if Trump gets his wall built...President Beto will tear it down. He likes brown people, he grew up with brown people, he speaks fluent Spanish and he represents a majority Latino district on the southern border. That alone puts a wee smile on my face. He'd be a great champion for immigration reform, something that's going to be a major issue in 2020.

Deal is...Beto could win this. You can set yourself against him for no good reason, or you could keep an open mind and see how things play out. He's not a leftist firebrand but he doesn't hate on leftist firebrands and he can see which way the political winds are blowing.
(Which is currently in favor of leftist firebrands)

I blame Ronald Reagan: He was President of the Screen Actor's Guild union for many years, and then a union-buster when he was President of the US. That was the point that even non-corrupt unions really started declining. Now we are living in an age of stagnant wages but continuing inflation. No wonder working class people in the Midwest are willing to try anything: Compared to 30 years ago, all the wisdom about working at a job and steadily getting raises until you retire with a pension, is no longer true. Instead you work when you can, at steadily crappier jobs for less money. Then you retire when you can't work anymore, and try to get by on Social Security. Eventually, you have to decide if you want cat food or your prescriptions.

It's The Conservative Dream (as opposed to The American Dream). Only it isn't you that is dreaming: It's some rich folks whose ideas of success all depend on lots of other people failing.

Beto could win. It would be a disaster for the Democrats. Another Clinton 2.0 and he's getting backed by the same groups. Third Way and New Democrats. That is not a good sign.
He's voted for way to much GOP legislation. Beyond the norm for someone in a democratic district such as his.
You might have a point that Beto is no Trump republican but it sure looks like he's a never Trumper in a democratic wrapper
He's recieved more fossil fuel money than everyone in congress but Ted Cruz. Awkward...

Sirota's deep dive into Beto was met with the usual attacks from the Clinton crowd and the corporate Democrats. That's also not a good sign. We don't need another democrat that talks from the left but governs from the right. Full article here

I would like to see a leftist elected for once and see if the corporatists can get him/her to move towards the center.

Get them into the party and pull the trigger. Chances are they will win.

If that is not the game then the thread needs to morph into a realistic discussion about how to make a third party candidate win the White House for the first time in history.

Yeah, that's going to happen...if Jesus comes back and runs Third Party for President.

With the DNC, DCCC, DLC, DSCC, etc, working against left wing candidates it might be easier to run a third party. This wouldn't be ideal but it is the reality. The party has been run by corporations and Ivy League for so long that it views leftist politicians as a threat. At some point, more and more people are realizing they don't have a home in club democrat.
I don't think were there yet. A few more cycles of self interested policies and waffling on populist promises perhaps.
The demographics are favoring a left turn. I see no sign that the corporate smart set is willing to embrace this shift, preferring marginalizing that potential base instead.

Duuuuuhhhhhhh............ okay

I might have to take back some of my pessimism. I remain guarded because it's the DNC were talking about here but it looks like a step in the right direction for once.

Wait and see...

Easier...why is "easy" a criteria? It might be easy but is there any historical data that supports the possibility of a WIN?
NO, THERE ISN'T.

If there had been at least three or four third party presidential administrations in the last eighty to 100 years I could be convinced it was possible. There's zero.

We will not survive another two, three or four Republican trifectas. We won't even survive one more. We will wind up living in the Holy American Empire, ruled by a "pastor" who is actually a former jack-leg preacher turned common crook, and Dominionism will be the official state religion, liberalism will be outlawed and you will get to vote for the fascist of your choice...if you are a white Christian property owning hetero male with sufficient wealth to qualify as a voter.

Internal passports between our various polluted "sovereign states" will be permitted only if a "constitutional sheriff" clears you for passage, and your kids will be educated by theocratic revisionists.

This is precisely the kind of crowdfunding Bernie shocked the world with. The only remaining factor is whether or not he finally decides to join the party instead of remaining an outsider.
They've left the door open and the light on.

Why is declaring himself a democrat critical Jeff? There was plenty of Data that supported the notion that Sanders would have won in 2016.
No one would have predicted a busted out game show host having multiple trophy wives, a record of draft dodging, adultery and scams would be elected by evangelicals, vets and middle class boomer white guys and their wives but here we are.
You know what? The Democratic party blew it by throwing it for the establishment.
Anyhow, the Bernie vs. Clinton debate is an unwinnable war. What's amazing to me is the admission of the DNC that popular candidates might just win elections over well funded ones as Trump proved.

Chunks, I'm pretty sure that you and I went over this ground more than a few times already. The two major political parties will NEVER lend support to someone who is "running as", they will only ever lend support to an actual party member, and "running as" is the equivalent of a third party, because the two major parties will always protect and defend candidates who ARE party members, and third party candidates have never won a POTUS election.

I didn't design it this way, but that is how it works.
I didn't say it was a great system, but that is the system.

Surely you remember us going over this before.

Yeah, I remember it. I didn't agree with that line of your reasoning then and I don't now. If it was designed that way then what kind of stupidity was it that the party didn't tell that to the Sanders camp and allowed him to run. You remember that there was also other Democratic candidates running as well, don't you?
Your argument of the Clinton grift with the party is reasonable and justifiable but doesn't square with the that overlooked fact. It does provide some kind of rational for the back room dealing between the DNC and the Clinton Campaign after it was revealed to the public.
What does the rules say about the other democratic candidates getting rooked in the 2016 race?....
I personally want to see Sanders run without bending the knee to club Dem. Make em' kick him out of the race.

Trump for the win 2020.

Let's get to the end of neoliberalisms facist inevitability. Hillary Trump. Cancer, heart attack. In the end, the results the same.

It's not like they could stop him from running...from "running as if".


You're saying that you remember our past conversations but I wonder if you do, because you surely would remember that I took special care to emphasize my awareness of the fact that some of what they did might be illegal, and most of what they did was immoral.
So, remembering my position, you would agree that I saw it as neither reasonable nor justifiable. I only said that I understood why they reacted as they did, I wasn't surprised, only at the level to which they took it.


Well yeah, it kinda does.


Pretty much the same thing. Both parties are going to select party members as potential candidates but in the end, once they have made their top picks, it becomes a beauty contest. With the Dems, that was a very distorted beauty contest. There is no dispute there.
But with Bernie, he hadn't even entered the beauty contest, not the DNC one.


Wow, I just don't know what to say to respond to "Trump for the win, 2020."
I'm glad that you're able to insulate yourself from the consequences of that possibility.

O.K. jeff,
You win. Primaries don't matter in either a presidential election nor down ballot races. It's the party apparatus that gets to pick the winner. That would include the media arm of the party as well, no?
If that is the case, and i understand your simply observing and reporting, then what does that say?
Well one thing is the Republican party would appear to be the more democratic party. They did not want Trump to be the winner but got him all the same. Nor do they interfere in down ballot races to the extent that the Democratic party has. Witness the tea party's rise.
But again, it's all stupid and nothing matters. The Democratic party has got a rule somewhere that allows that rigging to take place should there be a challenge from an "as a"? They just didn't have a rule that barred Sanders entry into the presidential primary to begin with?
I'm glad the party apparatus gets to pick the winners for us. Now I know that my vote as well as yours doesn't count after all. The 2016 primary has taught a great many people a lesson in how ineffectual your voting will be should it not correspond to the parties pre-selected winner of the no-contest primary. Primaries are simply televised and reported publicity campaigns with the outcome predetermined by the party apparatus.

You think you've insulated yourself from Neoliberalism?
Trump has sped up the progression is all. Clinton was another mile marker on our way to a Trump like figure. We have long ago abandoned a project of 'We' to a dystopian reality of 'Me' society. Trump is the perfect distillation of a 'Me' authoritarian. Where else was neoliberalism going to go but here?

Jim Webb, Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Lawrence Lessig were all in on the fix, too?

Let's ignore all the revisionist history going on here and get back to the topic, shall we? With 2019 coming fast, announcements are going to start being made. Julian Castro will be in, along with fellow Texan, Beto O'Rourke; probably Bernie and Biden; I expect Cuomo and Bloomberg, with Gillibrand filling out the New York contingent; then Corey Booker from across the river; maybe some Midwesterners, like Klobuchar and Hickenlooper; and from the West, Inslee. Who else to round out the score?

Not at all. And I have failed to be able to insulate myself from Trumpism, too.
My wife's illness is such now that, together with my vision problems, I am pretty much retired against my will. I mean, even if my eyes weren't going bad, it's damn hard to get much work because Karen needs a lot more supervision now than she did ten years ago. I can't leave town for more than a day, really.

So the little I pull in from DVD sales is all I am making now, together with Karen's VA money. I am three years away from collecting Social Security, and the only other income I am making is part of the monthly rent from one tenant. And that has been iffy for the last six months because of tenant problems. I've actually lost money a few months. And if the economy tanks, I'll lose even more if my current tenant gets screwed over.

So we are pretty vulnerable and have been for the last two or three years.

Sorry, we cannot afford another Trump term in the White House, there is no way in Hell we can survive it.
And we're nowhere near as vulnerable as a lot of others.

Here is a bit of wishful thinking. PBS decides to allot 2 hours of prime time to them running for public office, either side. To avail the candidate must agree to stand in front of a mike and camera and explain why he/she is the best candidate to vote for. Another situation might be for one candidate to challenge another candidate to a debate. In that case pre-defined judges would be assigned and the winner of the debate announced (unless it was a draw).

I also wouldn't mind a situation wherein the candidate is questioned by, say, a group of 4 persons (two to each side)

I see no sense in a debate between 20/30 candidates at a time.

TV is the right place, other than door belling. PBS is supported by gov and this would be payback. I remember when ALL tv stations did public announcements and services (one of which was the news). Too bad public services can't return to the good old days. I know, some stations do some public services. I would prefer that public services be pre-announced, and explained.

Once the PBS thing got into high gear the next thing would be to disallow any spending on elections and PBS would offer exposure to all viable candidates. ("viable" to be defined)

Whilst at it I might also suggest that the Dems start working on 'fixing' stuff. Is there any reason, for instance, that we have a federal flood insurance that is paying to rebuild seaside homes of the rich that get flooded every year. They have made runs at restricting insurance when that to be insured is also sure to get flooded year after year.

How about the Dems actually passing a law that would force INDIVIDUALS to put their names on any and all political ads (print, tv, whatever) they pay or or sponsor. Last time they tried the unions fought them tooth and nail. Apparently the unions didn't want to be associated with some of their political ads. This is also true of the donor class in general.

The Dems should pick specific actual problems, that they plan on attacking and solving. No generalities (like: for folks of different color, for children, for food, against murder and mayhem, rape and pillaging, etc) but specific stuff that effects everybody.

Whats revisionist NWP?

Ojeda from W.V.

Well Jeff, your situation is not that different from a lot of others including myself. You and your wife's value in society is only as much as you are able to earn in the marketplace. When I can no longer produce I will no longer hold much value either. You are no longer a profitable position of the yield curve in neoliberal marketworld.
I don't like it and find neoliberal politics odious and sociopathic but here we are. It's the market above everything and 'there is no other way' so don't even bring up other ideas. Ideas such as Sanders raised.

My guess is another neoliberal Dollar Bill Clinton play with Beto. He's telegenic and has been a mostly empty vessel of positions and his 'Beto for Texas' campaign website ( Still up) literally drips of neoliberal jingoism.
His vote record is being examined and the push back (mainly aimed at Sanders supporters) by the neolibs and the media has been fierce. This indicates to me that he is the next 'anointed' one.
Bill Gates News coverage of Sanders supporters war on Beto

Note the article never talks about the actual critique any voter, never mind Sanders supporters, might have for Beto's vote. The framing is all about their being a 'war' with an aggressor and a victim....
You've been in the creative field Jeff. What does it mean when a fair critique is seen as an act of war?
Signs are pointing to Beto getting picked for us groundlings to vote for in 2020.
Hillary's still a stalking horse. The recent meltdown of Goldman's Malaysian scam and the possible embarrassment for who knows who in this country, as the scandal risks spreading here, has the possibility of damaging her more than her speaking fees to the Boardroom. Something to keep an eye on. I can see money sloshing around in the charity world to keep that story from blowing up.

JGW,
I agree with most of what you say. I liked the League of Women Voters conducting the debates back before we let the political corporations decide between themselves how the debates would be run. I say 'give it back to the ladies'.
I think the politicians should be decked out like NASCAR. The larger the donation the bigger and better placed the corporate logo patch on their suit.

Sanders has given a clear 10 point plan that he outlined in the Op-Ed of the Washington Post on Thanksgiving. You can read about it here

Oddly, I could not link the the actual op-ed piece from the Washington Post itself. Seems to have disappeared.

It means, if it bleeds, it leads, same old same old.
That's why the PBS idea is an idea whose time has come, because PBS still gets taxpayer money and is therefore the appropriate vehicle, along with at least ONE of the C-SPAN channels. Thereafter, campaigning material needs to eventually be restricted to those outlets. The regular news media can continue to cover issues raised by the candidates.

We have to move in the direction of taxpayer funded and regulated campaigning and away from organized money, and that's going to require a reversal of some recent rulings, so it will be very tough.

No one's bothered by the amount of 'charitable' contributions that are taken in by PBS? Koch's? Gates?
Just asking because their has been some whiff of scandal from that direction.

Understood. PBS has been beggared thanks to Republicans and their death by a thousand cuts campaign against public funding. Maybe we Americans can work to restore the network to full public funding again thus negating the need for them to go begging to oligarchs.

It only works if we have the stomach for it and the political will to make it happen.

It's not the party apparatus at all. It is Our Corporate Overlords™

They own both parties and the propaganda machine. In 2016 they chose Hillary Clinton and ran her against a racist assh*le. No way she could lose. She lost.

Hilly was s'posed to be president. Worldwide markets would have remained stable, The ACA would be getting shored up, we'd be seeing incremental change for the better. Capitalism would continue to lurch from crisis to crisis but would still reign supreme. The rich get richer and the poor stay poor.

2016 was a finger in their eye.

Except things have been getting incrementally worse for decades now on every front.
Aside from a growing cottage industry of 'no actually, it's really getting better' writers and pundits, by most measures it's getting worse.
On reflection, there was only two candidates that spoke to that situation. One is in the White House and the other is still working like a Roman to fix what he can.
I didn't agree with the formers empty promises and sh!t talk. He did, though, speak to much of the economic pain and destruction that global capitalism has brought. Again, much like Sanders.
One party let the process play out as they had no real way to but the brakes on him. The other party rigged the primary away from the populist candidate, having undemocratically preselected the winner and went on to lose. Theirs something tragically funny in all this and yet I fear it will play out all over in 2020.
Face it, it's the candidate that can deliver the most compelling vision for the future will have the best chance. The voters are not happy in neoliberal market land anymore. They want change that Corporate won't allow. I don't think incrementalism is going to cut it. Its a time for bold policy. Trumps bold. Sanders bold. The rest of the field... Meh.
I'm hoping there is a bold enough candidate to come forward and offer solutions for the problems facing America beyond colledge towns. Having some kind of grass roots qualifications is a suprising proposal coming from such a bankrupt and corrupted organization as the DNC.
What should have been an obvious lesson of Trumps election (bold ideas, if phoney, with small dollar donations, grass roots mobilization) has been lost by the usual scapegoating, redirecting, finger pointing and doubling down.
I don't believe the midterm blue wave was accomplished as much by party competency (remember the fortune poured in the Georgia special election with Ossof that lost large compared to the squeaker in Oklahoma the party chose to ignore?) as it was by counter forces generated by the POTUS and his majority.
My guess is the democrat party have to go bold and trust the voters to pick the winner. The corporate centrists have proven out if touch and incompetent in 2016. Let's hope they are restrained in some way and aren't allowed to pick the candidate in 2020.

We've got upwards of fifty people threatening to throw their hats in the ring. The press will publish stories about all of them, judge the reactions and favor those who get the most clicks/views/buys with more stories.

The action right now favors Bernie and Beto, Socialist vs Capitalist.

Berniebots(Socialists) are getting in some early blows to try and knock Beto out before the race starts. Beto may be progressive but he's a capitalist. All capitalists are the enemy, regardless of party.

No, they aren't. The ACA has led us to a place where Medicare For All might become a reality. Gay rights have made remarkable strides. An increased federal minimum wage hike is on the horizon and is becoming a reality in many cities and states. Free college tuition and student loan reform has entered mainstream political discussion and is becoming a reality in many nations as they realize that an educated populace is the key to the future.

I see a democratic sweep coming in 2020. And I think, despite sustained attacks by the socialists, his is the name most likely to catch fire among liberal and progressive(capitalist) voters.

We seldom hear much about Bernie's many and glaring weaknesses were he to become president. He has no interest in race and gender issues. He has no interest in foreign policy or diplomacy. He has a deep understanding of a handful of domestic economic issues and beyond that he's pretty much an empty suit. We owe a lot to Bernie but I don't think we owe him the Presidency. Any more than we owed it to Clinton.

My hope is that the field gets whittled quickly, and that the candidates spend as little effort as possible trying to destroy each other, rather than presenting positive ideas. Bernie-ites are already trying that with O'Rourke, and deceptively, too. That does not bode well for the actual party (which Senator Sanders is not a member of). It's ironic, yet unsurprising, that the most vociferous (and disingenuous) Bernie defenders aren't even Democrats, either. Why the Bernie Movement Must Crush Beto O’Rourke (Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine)

And, Chait notes, Beto's critics don't represent most Democrats; they don't even represent typical Bernie voters. They are the most left of the left-wing supporters. The threat that they see O'Rourke poses is that a) he is too "mainstream", and b) he does a better job speaking to minorities and women, and might engage the Obama coalition.

Personally, I think Booker and Harris are the greater threat to Sanders voters. They just can't see that yet. What most Beenie voters don't notice is that Bernie won whites, but not women and minorities. O'Rourke can do both, which is why he is a threat.

And they use the word "neoliberal" a lot. Because paleoliberals were somehow socialists like themselves....

Not that there's anything wrong with socialists. I want to live in a socialist world where everyone is housed, clothed, and fed. A world where the ambitious can grow rich and surround themselves with luxury, and where the artists and hippies can lay around and smoke weed and the regular people in between can get nice jobs to buy nice houses and cars.
A world where war isn't necessary or desirable and everyone just gets along famously with each other because who cares what god you pray to or what sex you want to be or who you want to f*ck. A world where it doesn't matter what color your skin is or what side of what border you were born on.

You know...a socialist utopia.

From each, according to his abilities, and to each, according to his needs.

It's coming, but not in 2020. I'm already calling the race for Beto.

Wages have stalled out for decades.
We've killed hundreds of thousands of people.
We imprison more people per capita than any other country.
We pay more than all other developed countries for health care.
Infant mortalility is high.
U.S. Lifespans are declining.
Gun deaths are increasing
Cost of housing as percentage of wages at historic high.
Household debt is increasing.

etc, etc,

But we got gay marriages and transgender bathrooms. so I guess s'all good.
The rest of the conversation getting injected with progressive ideas came primarily from Sanders campaign. Yes a socialist.

But your right Gregor. Your characterization of socialism has brought me back to reality. I was foolish to think things are getting bad. That neoliberalism has proven to be a fraud and yet another Ivy League grift for white collar criminals to explain their grift as 'the only way'.

Things are indeed better. Just hop in the car and drive in any direction and the evidence is all around for me to see.

Beto is the the favorite. He has the young 'executive model' look about him.
The phoney framing that keeps oozing into the mainstream corporate media of a war getting waged by Sanders supporters is absurd but not unexpected. I remember all the misogynistic 'Bernie Bro' Sh!t talk coming from various Clinton friendly media. Same play.
Jonathan Chait is one of those morons, like Bill Crystall, that continues to be wrong on most subjects that these corporate funded co called public intellectuals are famous for. His gulf war support, reasoning and defense of his reasoning is a constant theme writing and is worth anyone's time to read before taking his opinion or political characterization seriously. His other theme is pearl clutching over his understanding of Marx. Spoiler alert: It's bad.

When I rail about the stupidity of the freaks and morons involved in flying the plane into the mountain in 2016 and yet somehow crawl out of the smoking crater offering more stupid analysis and somehow keep their high salaried jobs, Jonathan Chait is the type I have in mind. His position on the Gulf War disqualifies him as a serious intellectual. That's not an attack of a Sanders supporter but a critique of Chiat. See the difference? No?

He's also a scab at the New Yorker but that might not matter much for most here.

But here we have it. Beto is unquestionably good. Don't ask to see his voting record and worse yet, express an opinion on it. To do so makes you a dupe of the Marxist Utopian peddling pretender Sanders, a fanatic or both.

The Dem neoliberal's have their man. It's looking like 2016 all over again. A neoliberal in a progressive wrapper against a New Deal democrat in a Democratic Socialist wrapper.

An interesting article of this relentless media trolling of Sanders supporters :

"There’s nothing that our party needs less than a relitigation of 2016. But it’s important to say that Sanders was a protest candidate: a septuagenarian left-winger from a small state, he was the kind of candidate who usually gets 5%. Instead, he got 42%.

It’s worth asking why he did so well, without getting into the personal terms that so often have animated this question. And if I could offer a single reason, it is that a huge part of the party, nearly half, did not like being told whom to vote for… ."

Full article

Ring, meet hat. Elizabeth Warren launches 2020 presidential exploratory committee (nbc) First announcement, and it's not even 2019 yet!

You could do worse than Warren. She won't be a darling of the big money boys on Wall St. Win or lose, I'd welcome having her voice in the debates and the issues she's sure to raise. Might even say the "P" word.

Sadly, she fails in charisma and oratorical skills. I just don't foresee her generating a lot of excitement among voters. She's a bean counter and a regulator, great at what she does but do I want her running the country...?
Better than Trump by far so there's that.

Hafta agree with you there Gregor. She's not a real live wire or has any Clash references but I'm glad she'll lend a voice to sanders and, more importantly, push ideas instead if product or treat the primary like a brand roll out.
She's no friend of Big Mo so that's a good thing and should make her arguments more genuine.
Holy moley, imagine! The democrats having big ideas for big problems. It would be a nice change from selling Republican with Zero Calories.

She'll introduce a few ideas that will catch the public interest and be picked up by the other candidates including the ultimate future president. So it'll be worth having her in the race even if she doesn't make it out of Iowa.

It should be open to either gender and any race, but I suspect the Democrats should run a White man to get all the misogynistic (men AND women) and secret racists on board. I think there are a lot of both and they may not even realize they are. But in 2016 a lot of White women voted against Hillary and I think it comes down to many women not trusting other women because subconsciously they see them as rivals. Now with Trump in charge, a lot of misogyny and racism has been "allowed", or even encouraged.

Too bad we are not as good as we should be, because having a woman as President would probably be a great improvement.

I think that's how it's gonna turn out this time around anyway, PIA, we had a black guy for two terms and ran a woman last time, the Democratic Party is not entirely made up of POC and women nor is it mandatory for them to run non-white and non-male candidates just to prove that they are more diverse than the Republicans.

Were gunna need a bigger car......

The left coast inna house!

Good-bye Bernie

(Originally published on Facebook)
JEFFERY HAAS·WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2019

I've probably exhausted every available Bernie thread on the internet lately to say the same thing...

When Bernie was a young man, doing carpentry and odd jobs, and giving the occasional impassioned speech or doing the occasional sit-in, social democracy or democratic socialism was a very romantic thing for an intellectual Jewish transplant from Brooklyn to do in the wilds of Vermont.

Imagine it for a moment...



Your young bespectacled sweaty face plastered across the front page of the local paper, taking the town of Burlington by storm, your impassioned rhetoric swelling the bosoms of erudite young coeds, winning the local election and trying to make good on a few erstwhile and yet earnest entreaties to fair wages and decently affordable tuition.

Yep, democratic socialism or social democracy, whichever it was, must have been a huge rush for the young Bernie Sanders, because for a guy like that, being a regular old Democrat in 1971 meant you were a lot more like the past candidates of the Democratic Party, which meant you were a lot more like Hubert Humphrey or George McGovern, which meant that you were like one of the guys who lost to Richard Milhous Nixon. It meant that you were like one of the establishment, and in early 1970's Vermont, where it was still very much The Sixties, that wasn't something you wanted to be.

The fact is, Bernie Sanders stopped being a social democrat or democratic socialist the day he first set foot on Capitol Hill.
It's not because he became a sellout or a hypocrite, it's because the Democratic Socialists of America have never allowed themselves to field candidates for the House, the Senate or the White House. It's just not in their DNA for some reason.

And as you might want to point out, Bernie has been an FDR style liberal New Deal Democrat his entire life in the House and Senate.
That is what he is. But Bernie clings to old romantic notions and sentimental trappings.

A lot of ex-hippies underwent much more radical transformations, and found themselves on Wall Street as financial consultants, or in Silicon Valley, or in the halls of neocon think tanks the way former campus radical Elliot Abrams did.

And yet despite their three piece suits, many of them left one tiny tuft of long hair tucked under their collar to remind them every so often that they can still "let their freak flag fly".
They still want to be nonconformist, just not in a threatening or scary way.

And for Bernie, refusing to join the Democratic Party and running around pronouncing himself a democratic socialist means that he can tell himself that he's still the brash iconoclastic non-conformist...and not a sentimental old fool, because only a sentimental old fool would pass up repeated opportunities to completely overturn and rebuild the Democratic Party in his own image, literally making the DNC "HIS BITCH".

And if anyone doubts that is possible, I might remind them that Mr. Sanders raised almost 300 million dollars with zero corporate funding, purely through grass roots techniques at a time when everyone else said it was impossible.

Flipping the DNC and making the party his own would have been a walk in the park, given his considerable mojo and charisma, and given the fact that he could have started the effort all the way back in 2008, after another young and brash nonconformist with the funny name of Barack Hussein Obama did much the same to Hillary Clinton.
And had he bothered to do so, Bernie Sanders would have BEEN the Democratic candidate for POTUS in 2016 and Hillary would have been munching on popcorn in upstate New York.

And Donald Trump would have been a minor footnote in history, because Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide.

So, as much as I love Bernie Sanders, I am forced to reckon with the fact that Bernie, despite some of his good ideas, is a sentimental old fool. And I voted for him and supported him right from the very first day he announced, so this is not a hate piece against him, it is more of a mournful revelation about what might have been and was not meant to be, all because of the need to cling to silly notions of the past, which is what we must stop doing if we intend to win in 2020.

Good-bye Bernie.

Obvious trolling.
Bernie understands politics. Populist politics.
Hillary did not.
Obama did but, as Trump learned from, it can be phoney and you can get away with it.
The Democratic Party is a party of the top 10%. The credentialed class. Lanyard People in today's economy. All they do is talk about 'access to' or 'opportunities for'. The language is easy to spot. Always indirect. Always some vague meriticratic language with inevitable means testing limitations.
Democrats have been the party of the credentialed professional class. The technocrats. They hate populism and have a disdain for the working class. They went to the right schools, made the right career choices, made the right life choices. They're exemplars of meritocracy.
They're also hawkish. Eternally trying to pick up votes from the right wing by running Vets and military officers as some kind of bona fides on their willingness to use state violence. To prove they have balls to the mythical moderate republicans and to signal to the world their foriegn policy approach.
Economically they are neoliberal. Pathologically preferring a 'market' oriented solution to social problems. A tax incentive as opposed to direct action thru the state with most of the benefits accruing to their 10% constituents, austerity and harsh disciplining for the rest. They brought about the largest incarceration system the world has seen and militarized the police force to enforce imposed order on the swollen working class and poor.
They treat politics as a brandind exercise and product rollout. Always trying to come up with the right and necessary ingredients of aspirational tone and a smattering of rhetoric borrowed from the left, with an appropriate dose of virtue signaling to the right and donor class. All left oriented talk is forgotten once elected.
It was not nor should it be Sanders job to reform the Democratic Party. That's not politics nor how it works, is not possible to do and is a red herring you've concocted Jeff. Instead Sanders gave voters alternative rather than embarking on some kind of mythical internal party identity loyalty and some kind of follow on reform criteria you insist must be met. Much easier and effective to offer a viable alternative to the self reinforcing party hierarchy. It sure wasn't the corporate takeover path Jeff, so where do you find evidence that it should be for the left?
In the end, Sanders addressed peoples material concerns with bold direct policy proposals. The establishment candidate, caught flat footed and unprepared for this political challenge and having nothing to counter with, reminiscent of her campaigns tactics with Obama, she fell back on dog whistles, scorn and back room dealing to clinch the nomination.
She went down to the Republican challenger who used a different and darker kind of populism. Phony populism to be sure but effective. What's ironic was the fact that the Republican Party, displaying far more democratic tendencies within it, allowed the democratic nominating process play out regardless of the outcome. Centrists Dems will never admit to this nor condemn the corruption within uthe very undemocratic Drmocratic party. Sadly ironic and one wonders how much pearl clutching and Muellar investigation hyperventilating would be going on right now if it was found out that POTUS had engaged in similar financial skulduggery with the RNC before the election.
What's telling is the willfull ability of the Democratic Party to not learn. They have committed themselves to neoliberalism and are not going back to the politics of their parents. They helped dismantle the New Deal and are not looking back nor questioning the wisdom of doing so. They represent the lanyards. The self described creative class, the 'innovators' and entrepreneurs. They have turned their backs on the losers of this Chicago economy. Labor, working class, minorities and the poor.
The hard right has been stripping them off for decades while the lanyards have been showing them the door.
It would not be possible to reform these greed heads Jeff. It not Sanders job. Your insistance that Sanders tilt at windmills by bending the knee to the lanyards is a fallacy and serve no useful purpose. He has unleashed an awareness of a different kind of politics. One the party has largely spurned and, to its horror, has been found appealing with broad popular support. It turns out laissez faire economics sucks and austerity for most has a political down side.
Instead of embracing Sanders positions the party, from its recent actions, is looking to maintain its ideological grip and is looking for some kind of Sanders killer in the race for 2020. A combination of virtue signaling to Sanders base but ideologically committed to the Lanyards as Bill, Hillary and Obama.

In the interest of fair and balanced posting, let me also throw in an image of your champion as the left and right see it:

So you're saying that it is not a candidate's job to RE-FORM a party, and yet what did Trump do? It's exactly what he did, it's exactly what the Tea Party did, and it's exactly what Roosevelt did in his time or do you actually believe that the Democrats of the Wilsonian era were similar to Roosevelt?

It is not possible to do? Talk about mythical, let's explore the mythical and the viable. What's mythical about third party POTUS electability, aside from damn near everything?
What's viable about an alternative that has not and cannot seem to win elections?

And please, just because you vehemently disagree with my prior essay, that doesn't mean it is trolling. I would never dream of labeling you a troll. Keep it classy.

I'll tell you what trolling is. It's plastering a picture of Hillary and labeling it "my champion" when I've clearly stated she was not.

It just dawned on me that a LOT of the stuff being argued about has to do with privatization. Healthcare for all, for instance, is antithetical to privatization so is not deemed right for polite society. This is also true when discussing money in politics. What we have, right now, is a voting system completely in the grips of 'privatization'. As far as I can tell, the error seems to be in those things that should never be privatized. Some of those things are politics, war, healthcare, education, police, and firemen. When that stuff gets privatized then the only people who win are the very, very rich. They are the only ones who have the bucks to pay for the 'best'. Their schools are very good but grossly over priced. Same with their private police, doctors and even their political candidates.

I think what I am suggesting is that privatization has gone MUCH further than it should have a number of years ago and its continuing to this day as the very rich continue their onslaught on what should be free to citizens and provided by all citizens as part of the public good. The interesting thing is that the supposed members of the 'democratic socialists' are not supporting the socialization of this stuff so much as making the privatized stuff available to them that can't pay the bills for it. I find it all very strange. The fact that socializing stuff that everybody needs also means that everybody gets to pay for this stuff. For some unknown reason the 'democratic socialists' seem to believe that all this stuff falls from the skies which seems to me to be at least as bad as the privatization itself.

If you want healthcare for all then the 'all' has to be part of the solution - just not a bunch of 1 percenters. If, again for instance, healthcare will be provided for all then this means that, unless we are to be bankrupt in about 2 years, we need to take control of a bunch of greed businesses. Drugs and Healthcare machine producers come to mind. Basically, to provide healthcare for all the entire healthcare industry, lock stock and barrel, needs to be seriously either taken over and regulated. No more healthcare insurance, that's just an expense that we don't need anymore and the revolving door of the FDA goes away. Gov also continues to gather data and will have to also control just what healthcare does and is. In that regard they should regulate medical procedures based on outcomes. We currently have a system where there are a number of procedures that just don't work. (google "healthcare procedures that don't work" for a list of some of them)

What I am saying is that I think that most of the arguments are over stuff that makes no sense and are more distraction than anything else. Healthcare is consumed by the problems of having a system of healthcare for profit. THAT is the problem! All the rest is, basically, a distraction. Same with schools. In Washington state there is a school district that is out of money. They can't build, they they can't hire more teachers, they have no money. In the last election the PARENTS of the children, in the school system, didn't vote (something like 18% actually voted). People blame the school districts even though the voters (those actually in charge) could actually fix the problem if they actually voted. This is my reason that I think that voting should be mandatory. Seems that the voter in the U.S.A. just can't take time out, from their incredibly important lives, to do the basics and actually vote! This is, I think, a pretty basic problem and if we can't fix that one then all the rest is just a given, ie. we give up and depend on 'the lord' to make it all right (them who take care of themselves now only have myth value)

So, basically, we are a lazy people, unwilling to actually embrace any thought of being responsible for our own actions or lack thereof. If this doesn't get fixed I fear its all gonna come down around our heads.

Well Jeff I'm not sure what to make of it but a bespeckled sweaty faced transplant intellectual jew that is now a sentimental old fool kinda feels like trolling to a Sanders supporter but if that wasen't your intention then I apologize. Dog whistling?

It's amazing how relentless you are in condemning Sanders for his refusal to bend the knee or failing to remake the Democratic party in his own image.
No, it's not his responsibility. I don't even know what that means or what that would look like. Would he have to buy it with his 3oo million? Does he go Oprah with a 'you have a new car and YOU have a new car!'. Tell me what making the Democratic party a bitch looks like or mean.
It does divert coversation away from Sanders political position that's challenged the governing power for decades though. I don't know if that's your intention or not. Should any outside challenger remake a political party before running "as a"?

Franklin was a class traitor. A rare thing in politics from the top. He understood his people well and, I believe, knew how to manage them better than any democrat since. Opportunities were unique to his time but you could easily compare his administration to Obama's and draw your own comparison. Franklin didn't have a Gietner in his cabinet and hated Harvard men. It's remarkable how much he didn't allow bankers to craft economic policy. Not so with Obama.

Again, this centrist vs. socialist posting war is futile and can't be won. I really don't understand where your coming from with all the qualifiers you insist on from Sanders. You seldom talk of his record or ideas preferring credentialing and qualifying.

Fer chrissakes, as long as you continue to portray me as a centrist or a Hillary guy, there is no way you'll understand what I am getting at. Clearly if you insist that I am a centrist, or a neoliberal, or a Hillary supporter, everything I'm talking about won't make sense to you. It's as if you're somehow reading a heavily redacted version of my posts and responses, thus every time I talk about how I admire Bernie's ideas, you see giant black Sharpie squares covering my words.

Let me know if you can log on to the REAL Capitol Hill Blue page, because that censorship doohickey is making it impossible for me to communicate my ideas to you.

Or...is it just that you're averse to the notion that I simply am convinced that Bernie took the worst possible route? I can't tell if it's that or you're reading a Chinese version of the site with heavy censorship going on.

Ok Jeff, your a Sanders supporter and it's mainly styles of campaigning were disagreeing about.
If I understand you correctly, Sanders needed to make the party his Bitch for him to be the winner of 2016. Is that a correct assessment?
You've also, if not condoned the Clinton/DNC grift,dismissed it as a more or less 'hey, wadja expect? Bernie's not a democrat so alls fair... Correct?
Now there's a final analysis by you of Sanders political career starting from his mild man mannered youth in the rusticated hills of Vermont to his eventual nonconformist golden years resulting in his sentimental old fool status. Maybe I'm dense (and it wouldn't be the first time) but is this irony?
I'm not sure what it's for but my take away was Sanders made the critical flaw of not declaring himself a Democrat, remaking the party in his own image, then capping that accomplishment by running for President? Is that a fair summary or was the intention irony?

We could engage in that type of conversation or we could instead discuss and debate what he's actually doing. Now. As opposed to a mythical 'shoulda done'.
Like getting concessions out of multinationals to pay their U.S. Workers a living wage.
Hosting live video conferences on climate change, health care.
Creating a political campaign funding apparatus out of his own presidential campaign. 'Our Revolution'.
Hosting an international left wing convention to begin organizing on an international scale leftist ideas and opportunities. Recognizing the far right is way ahead here.
Introducing legislation for the passage of Medicare for all and making it a central feature in the mid terms.

Frankly, if you've been discussing these activities as well as others I've omitted and I didn't notice you have the, again, my apologies.
If your 'bye Bernie' was in the style of Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal, I didn't catch it. All I keep reading is what Sanders should have done.

I'm all for having the kind of conversation that illuminates what he HAS been doing since 2016 because (A) the man is not stupid, and (B) he has indeed been VERY busy.
And I've been watching, and applauding.

Our Revolution opened its doors and turned on the lights immediately after the 2016 debacle. And so far it has helped something like 100 or more candidates if you include all the down-line people in state and local politics. There may be even more that I wasn't aware of, but the point is, Our Revolution has been very busy.
More applause.

Yes Chunk, my ONLY issue is that the decision to stay outside the party was a poor judgment call, nothing else. I too thought the odds might be in his favor at the beginning but I too saw what the DNC did, and it's not a case of "what'd ya expect" as much as it is a case of (for me anyway) "Sigh, the more things change, the more they stay the same...or get worse".
I really had hoped that his candidacy would spark some tidal forces in the DNC and forced a deeper look at their rules. But as you pointed out, they'd already crowned Hillz as the Golden One before Bernie even announced and they'd already made up their minds.

Look at that bitch Debbie Wasserman Schultz. For me, just looking at who and what she is made me realize that Bernie was screwed, and there wasn't a damn thing anyone could do about it.

Believe me, both Karen and I were rooting for him all the way to the bitter end. I am only making that "sentimental old fool" comment because I'm still in shock that his own electoral apparatus wasn't out ahead of all this.
You have to have one of those close friends who is willing to tell you what you do not want to hear, and those close individuals should have told Bernie that running as an outsider would never force the DNC internal apparatus to move once Hillz had been crowned.

So, I am forced to come to that conclusion because it appears that Bernie took a very dangerous gamble. And for what? A label??

I don't know, Chunk...I just don't know and I don't understand.
But believe me, I am not a Hillary supporter, not for POTUS anyway.
I would have viewed her election (had she won) as "a survivable event" and as a "mediocre presidency" at best...better than Trump but not by much.

To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke:
"Hillary is the second worst thing that could happen to this country."

Interesting article about Elizabeth Warren's DNA test kerfluffle:

Mainstream Media Is Blowing Its Coverage Of Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test

It looks like maybe one Warren critic raised a stink about it, and every mainstream press article quotes him and a lot of Republicans who are piling on. But funny thing: Nobody bothered to ask any Native People chiefs or political leaders! They all pretty much support Warren because she has been so supportive of tribal interests in her career. Most of them are proud of their heritage and honor anyone who discovers their own Native ancestry.

I bet the only real objection anybody has to DNA comes from tribes that are kicking people out so the can boost their casino checks! They are afraid that DNA tests could admit more people to their tribe, but of course Warren is NOT claiming that at all. And now, because her test backs up her stories about her family history, it just makes all of Trump's mocking horribly racist!

Personally, I think her face does show some Native ancestry, but I'm quite familiar with mixed-race people's appearances. (Because I am one, and I'm married to one. )

Ok Jeff,
Just to show I'm not a Bernie fanatic, here's a very good article that has some excellent points to argue about his run in 2016 and likely 2020.
Still, all in all, hey may be the best of the barrel which may see the party go the way if the Whigs (as has been perpetually predicted for the Republican Party).
I can easily see a repeat if 2016 and all the hijinks leading to an alienated left not bothering to show up to vote.
Time will tell if we make it that far.

"As the MPP’s Nick Brana noted right after the 2018 mid-term elections, the contests ought to have been “a serious wake-up call for progressives” who dream of gaining power by taking over the Democratic Party. By Brana’s account, “The blue wave [was] a corporate wave that…swept in the same kind of Democratic politicians that drove working people into Donald Trump’s arms after eight years of Obama. When Democrats busy themselves serving the wealthy again, the result will be an even sharper lurch to the authoritarian right."

If Bernie runs.

No, you're a socialist, even Bernie is not really far enough left for you. I sympathize, I just don't see big social changes coming anytime soon or major rule or strategy changes within the Democratic Party to become more inclusive of the socialist agenda.

It's what I like to think of as reality.

Uhhhh O.K.,
Who's saying the Democrats are going to be embracing anything left of their current corporate positioning? I think I've already predicted a scenario where it's highly likely the Democratic Party will further alienate it's left and may lead to a split. My hope is that it does and is necessary for there to ba a space to open up and we have a real debate as the elections are getting scheduled into the time slots. Kinda already begun. Buckle up!
Over the last three years I'd be hard put to say anyone here has had a firm grip on what the emerging realities were going to be, including myself and your cracked crystal ball Gregor.

Certainly no one predicted a Trump win in 2016.
Except maybe rporter314.

We'll see how me and my cracked crystal ball do on this Beto prediction.

Duly noted. You support the guy who supports the idea of supporting something.

I don't necessarily support Beto. I just think he has an excellent chance of winning if he chooses to run.

There is no candidate, right, left, or center who I believe can accomplish anything of note. I will support and vote for whomever gets the Democratic nomination.

Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown, and Elizabeth Warren are all okay by me.
Biden and Sanders not so much. Julian Castro and that black mayor from New Jersey who used to play ball or something need not apply.

It's all about charisma. Beto has it.

That's not so much a prediction as a hope for an eventual split so you can jump on the third party bandwagon.

The way things are actually looking is that lefties are getting elected by voters all over the place because demographics are trending leftward. The Democratic Party has not really begun to adjust yet but they will. Not enough to satisfy you, but enough to prevent an actual split. The socialization of capitalism is a slow and unsteady work in progress.

"That's not so much a prediction as a hope for an eventual split so you can jump on the third party bandwagon."

Oh Hell Yeah!

Any force that releases us from the death grip of moldering, feckless political nihilism found in the composting Democratic party will be a welcome relief.
Party leadership has an instinctive will to kill off it's left. They have no ideas

Maybe it would be. But it's not going to happen. The more likely scenario is that any split in the Democratic party simply gives over more power to Republicans.

But I don't think it's going to come to that. More and more Progressive Democrats and Democratic Socialists are going to get elected. Just as the TEA Party dragged the Republicans to the right, the progressives will drag Democrats to the left.

2020 baby! Things are gonna be changing for the better.

"If you have strayed, all is forgiven, but you better come to Jesus right now because memory is long, and history judges the cowardly squish far more harshly than the honest enemy. And you can’t say that no one was there at the time to tell you that this was it—this was the pivotal moment where you had to make the right choice."

It's Bernie, B!tch

Hey, I'm okay with Bernie, if he gets nominated I'll be proud to vote for him. Just like last time.

It's his turn after all...

This is what I keep talking about. I've spent hours talking about this, here on CHB and elsewhere. The Tea Party and Freedom Caucus takeovers, and the Trump takeovers of the GOP are a blueprint on how it is done, and there is no reason why we can't simply use the same methodologies on our side.
It is cheap, it is effective and transformative, and as far as Bernie goes, if he sees the sea change in the party, maybe he will be smart enough to finally JOIN so that he can be more than just a write-in wet dream for Republicans.

Yeah Chunk, I know...you don't believe in it or believe it possible by any stretch.

Surely you've stopped by Huffpo and seen this article?

That's demographics at work.

Richard Ojeda Drops Out Of Presidential Race After Giving Up State Senate Seat To Run (HuffPo). First casualty.

I didn't figure he'd make it to Iowa. He's a Republican, he'll find another way to attach himself to a government teat.

I was under the impression he is a Democrat.

Yup, here he is, Richard Ojeda - Democrat. (albeit a "Conserv-a-Dem")

He's so principled he'll attach any label that furthers his career.

He voted for Trump. That's really all I need to dismiss him as a principled candidate or a man that can be trusted to hold office.

It appears a bit of a hubbub is taking place around the Starbucks executive planning to run as an Independent. He aint got nuthin' the Democrats aint got and is likely to be ignored by voters.

Nate Silver had this to say about Schultz...



He's also against healthcare reform...

This might be one of those Neoliberals I've heard about.

Schultz talks about not being able to afford Medicare For All like everybody gets it for free. Currently we don't even get it for free when we turn 65, after a lifetime of paying in. People under 65 would be paying a lot more for coverage (to buy in to Medicare) than they would pay upon reaching 65. Nobody serious actually thinks Medicare For All means free National Health for everybody.

Moving toward that would be very gradual.

It appears to me that Shultz feels that Billionaires are under-represented in the Democratic Party.


How, Howard? By taxing rich motherf*ckers like you, that's how.
No wonder he wants Democrats to lose...

I was, frankly, shocked at the "tin ear" responses of Bloomberg and Schultz, really demonstrating that they are no more qualified to be president than Trump. I think both of their campaigns essentially ended today. In brief, they overreacted, lied, and showed their true colors: they THINK they're qualified because they're rich, period. That's not how it works, buds.

Apparently not, because as we've all been told in the most shrill tones imaginable, any and all Democrats are all neoliberals, merely by virtue of their membership in the party, thus it is wrong and immoral to vote for any Democrat whatsoever.

[/sarcasm]

It's never too early to discuss getting rid of Fatass.

Hmmmm....
Feels like your referring to my posting Jeff. If so, your spinning my criticism of the Democratic Party. We've had neoliberal democratic presidents since Clinton. You may have trudged into a booth and thrown the lever for another back in 2016. To say that theres not a predominantly neoliberal concensus in the Democratic Party is like republicans saying there the Party of Lincoln.
It's really not a subtle concept to grasp. Theirs a range of democrats but the majority and the party organization is predominately neoliberal.
Sorry if that sounds shrill to your ears. Defending my posting, not trying to change your
I'll shut up now.

I almost never cite to National Review, but here's a piece that bears reading: The Sham of American ‘Centrism’. It points out that the "centrism" espoused by Schultz and other "Independents" is really a very minority view. It also explains how Trump got to the White House, and where Dems won in 2018. It could be the formula for 2020.

BTW, Corey Booker announced.

OMG, how can it be silly season already? Chris Christie is being attacked for complimenting Corey Booker (genuinely) and Elizabeth Warren for apologizing for taking a DNA test.

Schultz is a real disappointment. Makes me think that the Starbucks Board of Directors came-up with all of Starbuck's great social ideas and that Howard was dragged along kicking and screaming to support those social initiatives.

Advertising and PR firms came up with any great social ideas that may have been implemented by Starbucks. Shultz and the board of directors chose only those which would increase the bottom line the most for the minimum investment.

We don't know how Schultz voted or even if his vote was weighted. From what I've heard from Howard Schultz this week, doesn't square with the policies of Starbucks.

Shultz apparently has been a Democrat in the past. But the leftward surge within the Democratic Party, especially the threat to raise taxes on the very wealthy, has forced him to move right. More or less into the realms of lassaize faire or "neoliberal" economics. Not that these aren't already rampant in both parties but they are more often publicly advocated by Republicans.

Shultz imagines he could draw voters from both parties for the win.

I imagine he would be ignored by both parties for an embarrasing and expensive trouncing.

If Schultz even enters the race (he hasn't officially done so, yet), I think he'll fizzle quickly, as he finds his views are not widely held. The "center" is not occupied by billionaires.

We are all shaped by our roots, and he had humble roots. I think his social views are genuine. On the other hand, he has been infected by millionaire-itis. He has said that he's "self-made" - a phrase I abhor - which is patently untrue. He made some good decisions, had some valuable insights, and got lucky in life - but he didn't get there by himself. He had his parent's support. He's White. He lived in "the projects" - government subsidized housing; he got a scholarship (i.e., other people's money) to get into school; he got help getting his first job; he got SENT to Italy by his employer, where he got his insights; he gained experience through his employer in the business; he got to keep most of his profits because of tax codes that are generous to investors. He's been helped throughout his career, but he's blind to that.

I'm thinking Beto O'Rourke has let his window of opportuity slip by.

Unless he's waiting for the rest of the field to self destruct before jumping in...

Schultz is already appearing to be something of a horse's ass.
already quoted as blurting out "I don't want to talk in hypotheticals...etc."

Pfffttt, the whole idea of campaigning is to flesh out hypotheticals and create ideas.

I want folks to try a thought experiment involving Nelson Rockefeller.
Just for the hell of it, put aside his draconian crime and drug policies and look at the rest of his record.
I wager that if Nelson Rockefeller were alive today and registered as a Democrat, he could point to his past work and get a lot of respect, maybe even a win albeit he would have to make inroads with the more progressive camp. He would have to make a reckoning with his Bidenesque stop and frisk and his monstrous drug laws.
But look at the rest of his past record fer chrissakes.
Rockefeller is more liberal than Joe Biden, and certainly more liberal than Schultz and Bloomberg.

For all his proclivities and excesses, Rockefeller was actually a pretty compassionate fellow with a mind for social justice. A Republican...pretty incredible.

And when a guy like Nelson Rockefeller comes off as more liberal than Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg and Mister Starbucks, that speaks VOLUMES.
By the way, most of Nelson's policies worked, too.

That speaks volumes as to how far off to the Right Democratic pols are today. The funny thing is, if you look at the rest of Rockefeller's policies, even AOC could get him to budge a little.

And Lincoln (R) even freed the slaves! Republicans have not always been this crazy.

Bernies in....

As an "independent" or as an actual member of the Democratic Party?
Not anxious for a repeat of 2016.

Bernie: to old and to far left. The Democratic voter wants and needs a candidate that looks, talks and thinks like they do; so no over 60 candidates.

Bernie had the highest approval ratings among the millenials.

I saw much good coming out of the 2016 election.

interpret for me ... was it the policies which inspired millennials or is it the cult of personality and modern Americans suffer from a disease.

I don't claim to speak for younger generations. Just looking at the polls.

If Bernie runs and Beto doesn't, I'm all in with Bernie.
Bernie "had" the best numbers with millenials in 2016 and given the lackluster quality of the Democratic field I think he will shoot to the top.
I don't think he's too old. Bernie's still got the fire in his belly and he's not liable to retire any time soon anyway.

Beto could take those millenials away from him though. Along with people of color and a few more demographic slices of the pie.

I'm not saying Beto would be a better president. Just that he will win in a long, hard fought primary race.

It's a bit of a chicken/egg question. But I'm going with the policies.
They stood out from the pack and resonated with younger voters because younger voters(Millienals and now the first waves of ZGen) tend towards socialism. Unlike older folks they are seeing the ravages of runaway capitalism.


Then he went viral and became a Super Hero.

Thanks

Rock stars and politics. Mr Trump doesn't have any appeal for me ... his speeches are typically dumb, based in ignorance and fear but clearly he has great appeal among his supporters ... I call it tarnished charisma or more aptly dumbed down charisma i.e only the ignorant are captivated.

I think in addition to policies, Sen Sanders did have charisma. I don't think people go crazy over policies but they do become emotionally invested when touched.

Whomever the Democrats run better have rock star status with an ability to pre-emptively defuse the 6th grade insults with that certain je ne sais quoi. Mr Trump is not creative enough to find a proper retort and devolves into childish nonsense.

What did Sen Sanders say ... someone who will definitely defeat Mr Trump

Beto's got the rock star thing tied up if he runs. Good people flock to him the way assh*les flock to Donald Trump. Immigration reform is gonna be big in 2020 after the Children In Cages™ policy popular with Republicans. Beto's strongest point is immigration.
Bernie is all about economic reform.

Economic reform is probably more important.

But the children.....

The rest of the field has the charisma of a warm bucket of spit.

For me, 2 years is a bit long to decide who I will vote for. Everybody hasn't even declared yet! Then there are the 'debates'. I do like it when there are many running and they all get exposure, kinda helps in the decision. As far as Bernie goes - HE IS TOO OLD TO RUN! He is, right now, 77 years old! He will be 79 when he runs and soon to be 80! Life expectancy is approximately 78 years old. So, folks are going to vote for somebody who the odds are against even surviving the 4 years! (I know, this one is a moveable target). Anyway, I have previously expressed my thoughts on a government run by the elderly and I stand by it. I don't think voting for somebody who is 80 years old is a good thing. I am speaking of my own capacities and they are at the top of my age group and that means not a whole lot (I turn 84 next month). My memory is crap, my physical body is not what it was even 5 years ago, etc. Being president is not an easy thing and, I fear, it would wreck somebody who started at 80 years old. So, if you are voting for Bernie I would pay attention to who the vice president was.

Bernie threw his hat into the ring. Meh. I'm not excited about Bernie this time.

I'd like to see a Biden/Harris ticket - where Biden only stays for 4 years.

Even relatively young men who served aged a lot in 8 years. It's a demanding job, if you don't spend all day watching TV and tweeting.

I know! Look at Pence, He's aged a decade in two years! I HAVE noticed how bad Trump is looking just Playing at President. Of course, facing the rest of your life in prison or being "retired" by the Russian mob has to take a toll. Same with Manafort. I wonder how Stone will fare in lockup.

Well, Sanders has just blown away the rest of the declared democratic candidates in fundraising so I expect the FUD machine to start amping up. If there's one thing the corporate democrats understand is the power of money and Sanders has been raising the wrong kind.
His age will be used against him and is not ideal but I say let em at it. He's to old to be thinking of a soft lucrative lobby job and won't give a fart about how it plays in the 'Bill Gates Daily' or the 'Bezo's Times'.
The rest of em will have to defend their taking the money while serving the public interest which really means they just wind up taking the money and redefine what the public interest was meant to mean.
Neoliberals in a nutshell, basically.

There was a lot of talk in 2016 about how the right wing smear machine left Bernie alone because he never stood a chance of winning...

Right now I see him as the obvious frontrunner with an excellent chance of winning.

The anti socialist propaganda is already ramping up, in large part because AOC is making a big splash in Washington but AOC wouldn't be where she is today without Bernie.

Democrats who try to swim upstream against the populist current are going to find themselves swept away.

Harris is one of those candidates who will be swept away. She seems to be running as "not a democratic socialist". But she wants to accomplish the same things.
Biden really is too old. He hasn't kept up and there's no fire in his belly. The only reason he might run is because his dying son asked him to. We all remember Uncle Joe fondly but electing him because we liked Obama isn't the direction the country needs to go and isn't a path I think voters will choose.

So you and I have switched roles this time, Rick. You're going mainstream and I'm going socialist.(or Beto if he runs)

Bernie will be a one term president, of that I think we can be sure. If he succeeds he will pave the way for a new era in American politics and a New Deal of some sort for the working class. His VP will likely be elected in his stead in 2024, much as you imagine with Harris and Biden.

But with Harris and Biden very little will be accomplished as the corporate wing of the party will remain in control.

I will say this about the current Democratic field: all of them are better than Trump, and most of them are likely to be really good (and progressive) leaders. Yes, Gillibrand and Klobuchar are more centrist, but other than to the chunkstyle voters, would be considered progressive in most circles. Gabbard I am reserving judgment on - because of her anti-gay associations. Biden has skeletons, let us not forget (although I do love Joe).

My hope is that the field remains positive in their competition (and there are others yet to join). I happen to think Cory Booker has the strongest credentials (as a lawyer and having been both a Mayor and Senator).

Kamala's getting Clinton staff and donors. Ugh!

Biden is a litmus test for weather you've paid any attention at all over the last 30 years...

Warren was a Republican too recently and says a lot about how far to the right the Democratic party has drifted that there's so many former republican rats on board now... Go back and fix your old party and let the left course correct the ship willya!

Beto is an empty vessel that were supposed to project our hopes and dreams onto while he cashes big donor checks and stays aspirational while noncommittal.
Klobacher's politics grew in bad soil of centrisim.

Gillibrand will be whatever she thinks you want her to be for the win that she's risked not knowing what to stand for anymore.

Booker took to much corporate cash. People remember.

Bernies old but old school. He knows what side he's on.

Except we cannot AFFORD to watch the DNC do the same thing to him again.
Lucy wants to hold the football and she promised Charlie Brown she wouldn't yank it away at the last millisecond.
Have we learned ANYTHING yet?
I don't think Bernie learned from the last time.

Come on, don't ignore that, you can't.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm gazing into my cracked crystal ball and telling you what I see. I could pull out the dogeared old Tarot cards with the missing Fool and Two of Swords(replaced with images and pips crudely drawn on a scrap of grocery bag and an unpaid electric bill) But the results would be the same.

A Trump re-election is obscured by the crack and veers into the area where I can only see rats and cockroaches.

It's Bernie all the way unless Beto runs then it's a nasty fight that Beto wins but the left gets all huffy and writes in Ralph Nader resulting in Trump's re-election. Then they spend years telling us it wasn't their fault and the lesser of two evils and whatnot.

You really need to stop punching left with imaginary scenarios of why weak tea neoliberal candidates lose. It's been repeatedly pointed out that there were more defections of Hillary supporters to the Romney camp than there were left wing Sanders supporters defecting to the Trump camp after their respective primaries. It's old scapegoating and all to familiar 'repress the left' phoney solutions to solve a self inflicted political problem.

It was more geographic fluke than weak tea neoliberalism that spoiled the 2016 election. The fact remains that Clinton won by nearly 3 million votes.

And this time around the way I see it a weak tea neoliberal is gonna kick Bernie's butt if he runs.

Whatever gives you comfort from that historic low voter party turnout against an historically negatively viewed opposition candidate.

Top three excuses for neoliberal loss:
Russia
Bernie voters
Comey

But hey, she won the popular low voter turnout vote!

Rinse and repeat while the needles drift into the red and neoliberals continually fine tune market messaging solutions to public problems.

As an aside, I see nothing but positives if Beto runs. Not for the same reasons as you might Gregor but there will be a silver lining in his candidacy.

Don't get me wrong from my musings on the upcoming election, I don't know whether Beto would be anything but an incompetent tool of the corporate wing of the party. Blank slate, remember? Tabula rasa.
He might also become a competent tool of the social democrats.
But with that in mind
I don't think he's gonna run.
Y'know why?

Be still my beating heart!

Biden! Beto! 2020!

Sanders got over 600k volunteers already. He's off to a strong start.
There's reports out there that say Clinton's met with Biden. Mustn't count out the self regard of these increasingly irrelevant elder politicians to get in the race.
I'm very much hoping they will.

Didn't JFK have young children when he ran?

How'd that turn out for the kids...

600k volunteers? or 6k?

I'm still thinking Bernie's gonna steamroller the rest of the field.

I'm seeing a few hit pieces in the press aimed at him. I read a couple and they sound like they were translated from the Russian they were written in.

Y'know...if I was into revenge politics I might be kind of excited if we elected a card carrying socialist in answer to the Trump fiasco.

Republican heads would be exploding like pumpkins on the Fourth of Halloween.

Now that was an inspired post Greger.

Bernies plan sounds wonderful but who is going to pay for it? Will taxpayers agree to have their taxes raised hugely--to borrow a word? Or will there simply be more US debt issued that someone will willingly snap up?

And don’t tell me about the military budget being eviscerated. That simply will not happen. From what I have read of your posts over the years Greger we both seem to agree about the concept of what is politically possible, and what is simply not.

Bring it on Chunky! Am I being too weak?

It's not even that. I'd love to see Bernie get elected but it is a mathematical impossibility because, just like in 2016, Bernie Sanders is going to run the Indy 500 WITH THE GODDAMN PARKING BRAKE ON...

AGAIN!!!

And guess what the Democratic Party will do? (and they will do it legally this time)
They'll dry up any and all money for him, because he is not a Democrat.
And they'll shut him out of debates, because he is not a Democrat.
And so on and so on and so on and so on.
Because he is not a Democrat.

And yet somehow, in ways that NOBODY has managed to explain, either last time or this time, or the next time, somehow...Bernie is supposed to magically be able to overcome this handicap AND campaign AND get the same media exposure AND get party support AND up and downstream funding, and get a fair shot on the ballot in all fifty states.

Legal? Did I say legal? I meant "as legal as it's ever going to be"...all up in here.

And in this magical Bernie world, Lucy also doesn't yank the football away at the last second.
And we all get whirled peas, too.

It's like that scene in "Downfall" where the Fuhrer is moving army divisions around on the map but those army divisions don't exist anymore. Bernie is making another fundamental lapse in judgment.

Are we really going to do a repeat of 2016?
Sell me on why we're not. Sell me on why he can win as an auslander, as an independent outside of the two major parties.
Sell me on this magical rainbow farting unicorn idea, please.

Ken, there's plenty of money out there and plenty of places gubmint can skim it off the top.

I'm fond of Transaction taxes. A wee tax on every digital transaction that takes place anywhere for any reason.

Social Security is an easy fix, raise the cap...and not just a little bit.

Healthcare might be a straight deduction from your paycheck. The bigger the paycheck, the bigger the deduction.

One program at a time...one tax at a time...we just need to get started cause the grits done hit the pan and there's an awful mess that needs to be cleaned up.

Most likely yes. Either Biden or Beto(or Biden and Beto) vs Bernie.

If Bernie wins the Democratic nomination(and he certainly could) Howard Shultz will run against him, if they nominate a centrist he won't run.

It's complicated.

And there's something to be said for having a milquetoast liberal president signing bills coming up from an increasingly activist legislature.

We should know in a week or so what Beto plans to do...

Biden leading in all the polls...yeah we're gonna do it again. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

1 million have volunteered to the Sanders campaign since his announcement.

Yep, just what we need! An 80 year old president!

Between another corporate serving neoliberal democrat or grandpa......
Go grandpa!

Between Grandpa Biden and Grandpa Bernie I'd prefer Bernie.

If Bernie gets the nomination will the centrists sit home?
Or flock to Howard Shultz because the S word...?

Sanders raises 10 million in first week. 40% from new donors.
The knives will be out for him from here till November.

My wife actually watched Bernie on CNN yesterday. She said somebody asked him why he has not actually joined the Democratic part. His response, she said, was somewhat confused but boiled down to the fact that he ran and won as an independent in his state so he couldn't possible become a Democrat. She went on to say that he claimed he was a Democrat in all but name.

So, if he actually won he would also be an almost Democrat and 80 year old who seems a bit confused as to exactly who, or what, he is. Seems a bit sketchy to me. At least, if Biden ran and won he wouldn't be confused about who and what he is (I like biden a LOT more - except for the 80 year old thing) In either case who is vice president becomes a LOT more important as well.

As far as what the Dems will do. Basically, not a damn thing. They got so beat up last time for not 'fully' supporting the guy who wasn't a Democrat, without, incidentally, telling anybody, that I fear they just won't have the gumption which somehow doesn't really surprise me.

Of course, in the fullness of time, all will become apparent. <G>

Sanders supporters don't really care so much about party brand loyaly. They are fired up about his policy positions. After the last 30 years, who wouldn't be? That's why practically every other Democratic candidate has adopted at least some of his policy as their own positions. Funny how that worked. Not bad for an old geezer.... His age isn't ideal but he seems spry enough for 1 million volunteers. Maybe once they hear he's not a member of club DEM they'll mutiny?
If all you got on the guy is 'he's not a true democrat' I think that's going to fall on a lot of deaf ears. May even help with independents.

Y'know...I just happen to be a card carrying Independent and you're right about that.
I love Uncle Joe as much as anybody but he never once showed me that he had what it took to be president.
The Democratic sea of candidates is wide but it's shallow.
All of the candidates support some of Bernie's policies.
One of them supports them all.
One of the big hurdles candidates face is name recognition. Everybody knew Trumps name. He had been in their living rooms countless times firing poor hapless individuals who failed to be the ideal lickspittle. Everybody knows Bernie.

jgw, I think there is little doubt that, as a democrat, you are a bit on the conservative side. So if Biden and Bernie are the top contenders and Bernie ultimately wins...

Do you vote blue no matter who? And pull the lever for Bernie?

Or do you vote for Le Barristo Grande Howard Shultz? The centrist billionaire who will only run if the socialist Bernie Sanders wins the nomination.

These are truly exciting times we live in!

Can Democrats find and entirely new way to shoot themselves in the feet? Or will they stick to the tried and true? Stay tuned folks and you'll find out!

Hey guys, I did not write the rules for how POTUS elections work.
Or, to put it another way, I did not design the track at Indianapolis.
All I know is, if you bring an NHRA top fuel dragster to the Indy 500, it will be done after 1320 feet and the race is 500 miles long.

80 is certainly getting up there. Maybe he'll stroke out and clear the field. Maybe he'll win and be a great President for 8 years. My 91 year old neighbor was still sharp as a tack and would climb up on his roof to oil the muffin fans. Lifespan and activity level at age 80 are very widely variable.

Four years.
Then Republicans will take it back and begin undoing everything he did...

What if a car comes on the track and laps the pack at least 4x in the early heat?

Yep, you are, again, right! I too know a few that are alert. However, when you are around 80 your physical self starts to fail as well as the mental.

I suspect my problem with an 80 year old president is that 80 years old, in that office, doesn't just call for mental but physical wellness too. There are stats on all of this stuff and when you hit 80, unless you are an exception, you are also on the downward path. Or, I guess, one could take the Jackass path and work less than 3 hours a day/

My hope is that the Dems can get themselves a real winner that is less than 80 and less than 75 would even be better! (I am not suggesting any teenagers! <g>

I've never been much of a Bernie fan. Love his policies...but have doubts about his executive abilities. He remains my pick to win for now because the rest of the field is boring beyond words. How he would actually perform as president worries me a bit.

I like Hillary Clinton. I wish it was possible for her to run again and beat Trump. But that ship has sailed and there aint nobody standing on shore who I consider to be qualified for the job and able to defeat Trump.

In fact, I suspect the 2016 election spelled the end of civilization as we know it, there may be a slight chance of redemption with a democratic sweep in 2020 but I'm not counting on it.

Whoever creates the most excitement will get the nomination. Bernie stirs things up wherever he goes.

I'm gonna ignore Bernie's age for now and treat him like a regular human being. Albeit one whom I'd rather was younger...

Jay Inslee - I think I like him.

I think I like the red meat he just threw into the Democratic brawl.

Climate change...plain and simple.

So Bernie had a rally in Brooklyn.
13,000 attended...

Over 12000 Chicago.

Hickenlooper and Inslee have jumped in. We may get to three debate nights.

Liz Warren wants to break up big tech. Maybe a good idea but unless all the Republicans emigrate to Israel or Russia or somesuch it aint never gonna fly. We can't even negotiate with big pharma, slobber all over ourselves giving money and cutting regulations for big oil, can't control big banks, bow down and give big ag everything it wants.

Big Government seems almost powerless to deal with big corporations...
Wonder why that is...?

I consider this kind of stuff an effort to not regulate. Most of our problems stem from the fact that gov no longer seems to have the capacity to regulate. Dealing with Amazon, Google and Facebook with breaking them up really means 1)gov won't regulate them, 2)gov can't regulate them, or 3)hurt them enough and maybe they will clean themselves up thereby relieving gov of that duty.

Take Amazon. This one really amazes me. Say you want to sell stuff on Amazon so you setup an account to do just that. You get really successful and suddenly Amazon is selling everything that you are selling at a better price! It is my understanding that this is, exactly, what Amazon does. Warren says she wants to do this for them little people. Baloney. What needs to be done is to stop Amazon from ripping off their sellers! (seems too simple to me)

Then there is Facebook. If you breakup Facebook it will just go away. It needs what it has to survive.

I am not really sure how one would breakup Google. It does do different things but I suspect they are all, in the end, related and interdependent. (probably wrong about this one too)

What I am saying is that if many folks, or gov, feel that any company is doing bad things then regulate them in an effort to stop the offensive stuff. If that doesn't work then either break them up or shut them down but try the regulations first. The trick, I suspect is to legislate this stuff instead of doing it all by presidential fiat.

Presidential fiat came into its own during the Obama time. The reason is that he couldn't get any legislation passed due to Republican intransigence (which they announced, on TV, when he got elected). Now the jackass administration sees this a the way to go - even if it does seem to be kinda neat to get around congress.

On that "presidential fiat" thingie. Obama was just selective about priorities. For example, Congress passed laws saying deport all these people, but then only gave him enough money to deport 1/10th of them. Obama chose to concentrate on the criminals and leave the Dreamers alone. Makes perfect sense. It's up to the President to execute the laws. He was just trying to do the best he could.

Trump wants to take money the Congress has already allocated for other stuff for his wall, when the Congress said "no wall money". That's WAY WAY more of a power grab.

Also, re Amazon: Supermarkets have been offering their own inexpensive store brands for years, or maybe decades. That's what Amazon is doing. Nobody makes people buy the Amazon brand. Wanting to break up the Amazon/Whole Foods acquisition has nothing to do with anti-trust. It's just attacking a company because it's successful. Why not attack WalMart? Why not Big Pharma?

And I say simply tax the living f*ck out of them. Not the rich guys personal income so much as the corporations that make them rich. And of course regulate the f*ck out of them so they aren't harming the environment, their employees, and people who have to live near industrial polluters.

But Republicans are against taxes and regulations...

Republicans are great for driving forward through their rear view mirror.

Beto's in!
I wonder how long he can be the empty vessel for voters to fill with their hopes and dreams?
I'm predicting another Obama style run from his camp. We'll see.

The word for the next two years is


CHARISMA

Better an empty vessel than one full of bullsh*t.

Immigration seems not to be on your radar much but it's a huge huge issue. Beto wants to tear down the existing walls.
He could turn Texas blue in 2020! He's a bit of a folk hero there now and Texans don't love Trump much. He only lost to Cruz by 2.65 points.

The guy is a super-salesman with charisma out the ying yang!

We'll find out over the next few months but I think he's gonna catch fire and win like Sectretariat at Belmont.

I live in Texas in the heart of Trump country.

I don't know very many anti-Trumpites but do know oodles of MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters. All are ignorant. All are bigots. All love Trump.

I haven't read any after election reports but suspect when I do, they will say Democrats turned out more voters to make it close. I am not sure what that means.

More precisely in El Paso. His reasoning is the current wall defeats the strategy of making the two communities one because of the economic symbiosis between them. or Mr Trump is for a wall ... simply a metaphor for his bigotry ... and Beto is against a wall ... his metaphor for building communities with respect

What I do know is if the candidate is lackluster in presentation there will be a lackluster voter turnout. It's not enough to be against Mr Trump, although that should be enough, a solid charismatic candidate will seal the deal. Mr Trump said Beto's hands blah blah ... I love debating 13 year old bullys ... typically they are stupid and never realize it ... entangle him in policy, people will see Mr Trump is unqualified, but do it with fire

I live in Florida in the heart of Trump country. Sucks don't it? But there are other parts of Texas(and Florida) which are not so much in favor of Trump.

Trump won by 9% in Texas against Clinton.
Beto lost to Cruz by less than 3%. By 2020 I expect Trump to be further damaged than he is now. How will a politically damaged Trump fair against a hometown boy? We'll have to wait and see on that but I'm betting Trump won't do nearly so well next time around.
In Texas or anywhere else.
Beto might not actually flip Texas but it could be pretty close.

More than anything though, he brings some excitement into the race.

Ever since Reagan I’ve had a large piece of mind that understands that an effective leader is, first and foremost, a top salesperson. Running for president is more like a beauty contest or a prize fight than it is a reasoned assessment of competence to manage the government.

That's why I love politics so much. A horse race, a beauty contest, a prize fight, wrestling pigs in the mud! All rolled into one giant extravaganza! Peanuts! Peanuts! Gitcha peanuts!

Trump sees the truth of it. It's all entertainment and your ratings with your viewing audience are all that counts. What we are watching now is a twisted nightmarish Hunger Games style reality show.
Real people are dying and the fans are cheering it on!

And all we really want is someone who can competently manage government and put forth a reasonable agenda that benefits the whole country and by extension the world and all of mankind...

Any one of the Democratic candidates would do a fine job as president.
It's gonna be tough putting government back together back together because Trump has simply not bothered to fill empty positions, entire departments go without leadership or workforce. Internal government infrastructure is collapsing brick by brick because Trump just can't be bothered. He's busy looking at porn on his goddam phone and has no time for it.
Normally a president would steer the ship of state to the right or left, Trump sawed off the rudder and went to bugger the cabin boy.

Yeah...any Democrat. But watching the race will be fun. I've picked my horse on beauty and performance in a previous race, but I've still got a small bet on Bernie.

.
Politics are the entertainment division of the Military-Industrial Complex.

And just as dangerous as their fireworks division.

Here I thought the military was simply acting as corporate security services and politics the marketing dept. Hmmm...

What happens if the Dems stop preaching to the choir and start preaching to the other side (going on Fox when they can, etc), mention little things like Trump destroying everybody's health insurance, shutting down medicaid and medicare, threatening war with anybody he doesn't like (long list there), privatizing public education, privatizing the VA, etc?

This is probably a rhetorical question as its unlikely to happen real soon...........

Still crickets from you JGW?

Welp, it's official. Lunchbox Joe is tan, rested and ready to take on the mythical school yard bully and restore the liberal order so many pine and yearn for.
The best quote I've heard is 'watch his campaign melt like a sandcastle in a p!ss storm..'

Yeah, he's in for some disappointment I think. Getting into the race will make his future speaking career a little more lucrative though. And maybe a book deal...

(APPLAUSE)

And that cabin boy is Stephen Miller!

I thought that was what Trump was “supposed" to do. Break the gubbmint so to speak.

Perhaps the unfilled positions were by design and not just his incompetence.

I saw a recent poll where ANY of the 2020 Dem Candidates would be Trump

(except Hillary Clinton who's not running. )

I can only admire the belief that the Dems can take out Jackass in 2020. If he can hold onto this economy the Dems better look out. We are talking JOBS! Its really not important whether the Dems will wreck the economy - its not theirs anyway. Anything they say won't count. Historically this is what happens when 1 party has a great economy and Trump has one, right now.

I think he will crash it sometime next year. The debt alone will help in that one. We must sell our bonds and with the debt starting to get as big as our entire gross national product (gnp) we will have to increase the interest to keep up sales. That interest alone will seriously inflict damage on most Dem promises (any everybody else too).

We will, of course, know all in the fullness of time (love that phrase)

I don't know about a great economy for Trump's base: Coal miners are still SOL, unless they did what Hillary suggested and trained for something else. Manufacturing workers are in bad shape and the steel and aluminum tariffs are just going to make it worse. Farmers have gone bankrupt again because of the tariffs.

I think the "good economy" is limited to business owners and rich people. Employees who still have a job have seen no tax break. Retirees saw a Social Security increase but a Medicare increase that gobbled it up.

Trump isn't keeping the economy rolling. The economy is keeping him rolling. It won't take much to upset the applecart. I'd rather see a scary hiccup in the economy than an actual tsunamai of sadness.

This weekend Biden stumped about the fallacy of our so called great economy. If you're in the upper middle class or the one percent, yeah sure, it's great. Everyone else, not so much.

"The stock market is roaring, but you don't feel it.
You got a two trillion dollar tax cut, did you feel it?"

7:44 mark in the video clip

Even libertarian think tanks are noticing the thin veneer that allows Trump to get away with crowing about a roaring economy. They are noticing how paper thin it is and how dangerous it is to crow too much.

Former American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks sounds like a changed man.
Is it possible for libertarianism to show a center left form of compassion?
Arthur Brooks seems to think so.

I found it interesting that this administration has decided to punish EVERYBODY, including close allies like Japan, China, UK, etc if they dare trade with Iran. This is one that may just push our economy overboard. What is being suggested is that we are going to refuse to trade with virtually ALL that we currently trade with. Pretty interesting - we have decided to tell everybody that they no longer have a choice as to who we will allow them to trade with. I tend to doubt that this is going to be received with enthusiasm.

One of many, my friend. That "the economy" has withstood Trumps hamfisted management of US trade is a miracle unto itself and proof of the resiliency of the global marketplace.

But along and along we gonna load one too many straws on the camels back. And s***'s gonna hit the fan like you never seen.

I am pretty sure the US has been in a long simmering low key war against Iran for years.

I believe one of reason for invading Iraq was to plant US forces next to Iran. Ever since we have tried sanctions as a way to impose our will upon the Ayatollah.

I still do not know why conservatives hate the Iranians for taking back their country, but apparently they do.

History in a nutshell.......

Its actually very strange. President Carter demanded that the Shah (the guy we put in charge of a Democratically elected government we decided to get rid of) empty his prisons of political prisoners. The Shah then went right ahead and did that. Shortly after the Shah got himself deposed. Then an ex American Attorney General got an army plane to transfer the Ayatollah from Paris to Iran. Not too long after that the released political prisoners, and a bunch of pissed off Iranians charged our Embassy, captured everybody there and kept them hostage. We have been angry with them every since as they might have been angry that we overturned their Democratic government and imposed the Shah on them (not a real nice guy but excelled in having some of the very best torturers in the world) but they failed to thank us for getting their political prisoners freed or taking the Ayatollah, who was not exactly our fan, back home.

Just thought I would throw this one in. I also suspect, since my memory isn't as great as it should be there may be errors in the above - apologies..............

You forgot the cake Ollie North took them along with the promises if they would just hold those hostages until after Reagan beat Carter. Then the Reagan administration was all buddy buddy with them. So this meeting with adversaries to make some promises if they help elect your guy, is nothing new.

All this hostility toward Iran could just be another Trump ploy, like North Korea (fire and fury) so he can later deescalate and claim statesmanship.

I continue to wonder about the greatest deal maker the world has ever seen. As far as I can tell he has yet to make a single deal. I know, he has claimed the Nafta fix which was actually worked out by Obama. Instead of making deals it seems as if what he is really good at is pissing off folks who used to be allies. I do know that nobody trusts, nor much likes, us anymore.

O.K., it comes from a lefty rag but the book review of 'A Crises Wasted' and the author, Reed Hunt, showcases what appears to be a very good critique of the democratic party and the surrounding incompetence of president Obama.

I like the fact that the guy, Reed, is a party insider with a front row seat to the fiasco and connects the dots from Obama to Trump.

“In the expression of leadership,” the author concludes, “Roosevelt’s speech resembles Trump’s inaugural address in 2017.”
Article Here

What's been obvious to those that weren't committed to her highness from the jump of her candidacy but has been missed by the party's organization and adherent's, has now been described by one of it's own. Ought to be a good read and I look forward to checking it out of the library.

It may be too little too late but you never know. So far the party has taken a more aggressive and undemocratic tone to any criticism and primary challengers with more progressive platforms are now prohibited from entering the race. It's now more or less having a progressive caucus when you can pry the democratic party from the cold frozen dead hands of neoliberals.

A real shame when compared to recent examples of solid progressive victories thru a mobilized base and a platform run on ideas instead of resumes.

Anywho, just goes to show the fallacy of 'selling out' your traditional base to 'compromise with the other side' and pick up the 'holy grail' of election victories. The middle unicorn.

After selling out your base you run out of things to sell.

I'm still thinking a Warren/Bootyjudge ticket. Warren is starting to stand out, and on policy, no less.

Well one things fersure. The planetary climate destabilization is not worth nor will be given it's own debate with the Democratic presidential primary candidates. That has proven itself to extreme with Club DNC...

No Green New Deal FOR YOU!!!

Funny that...more and more conservatives are making the switch every day. The evidence is pretty compelling and about half the people affected by fires and floods and hurricanes and droughts are Republicans.

Any Republican who still believes in facts and science is admitting the climate is changing, and making plans for it. Trump fans who are just a continuation of the Bush people who thought they could manufacture their own reality, not so much. I predict a lot of disappointed wishful thinkers.

The Pentagon seems to be making reality-based plans.

War is a facts and figures business. Business is a facts and figures business too. Insurance companies can put exact price tags on the costs of global warming. Eventually the market will insist that the government take action.

Which is to say...right now Our Corporate Overlords™ are preventing much government action on climate mitigation because there are still profits to be made. When climate mitigation is required to maintain profits then climate mitigation will occur.

Politics isn't based on facts and figures. The winners of our elections aren't necessarily the ones with the most votes...

To bolster Gregor's point:
Florida's property bubble

Say......
Didn't the Democrats appoint some Tampa rep as the GND committee chair? The same rep who's biggest contributors are in the real estate sector?

Gosh, I hope the GND won't get parlayed into coastal property wealth protection. What a missed opportunity that would be...

I foresee a huge market for a service that picks your house up with a crane, and puts some pilings or concrete block walls underneath. I think that would be a real winner in Florida. It's basically the house moving business, but up instead of relocation. It's actually easier, since they don't have to move it down the highway.

Maybe this has to happen after the houses get flooded, just to get the finances right. somebody could make billions buying up flooded houses and rehabbing them. Shame though if they can't do it before the flooding.

House jacking is extremely expensive and labor intensive. Houses aren't built to be picked up and set down like egg cartons. Lots of cribbing and shoring. My guess is we will see the historical norm of abandonment and exodus with exploitation of victims up and down the line.
It's hilarious in one sense. All that money laundering in real estate investment going on in south Florida right now. All that money swindled out of foreign countries being invested in structures built on shorelines and barrier islands that have no long term prospects. It would be funny if it was only happening to these rich swindlers. As usual, it will be hardest hit among the majority of poor and working class.
There's a metaphor for capitalism in there somewhere.

You forgot the federal flood insurance scam. Our tax dollars have been going to literally rebuild waterfrontsummer cottages for the rich for years. There have been some that have actually been rebuilt every year. They were supposed to deny insurance to folks on flood plains, waterfronts likely to be hurricaned, etc. But that never happened.

Here is a link to one of many replies if you google somthing like: "federal flood insurance rebuild"
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/11/28/510202.htm

Heck JGW, the amount of swindles are too numerous to keep a thread coherent. But, yeah, I'm with you on regulatory capture. It's only accelerated in the last few election cycles.

Weather it's big Mo getting it's man appointed as agency head or big Mo writing the laws. It's all we hear from these days and seems to be the only one getting it's interests served.

I heard an interview of Bernie on NPR today. Seemed very reasonable. I think he would do a good job, with a little congressional cooperation.

Unlike a bunch of other wishy washy candidates Bernie is pretty clear on what he wants and how he plans to achieve it.

Bernie has a problem with women's issues. You're asking him to divide people by sex. Bernie doesn't divide people up into categories, They're all people, they all have the same rights.

Same with racial issues...Bernie doesn't think like that.

He'd be a fabulous president. But Joe Biden has been annointed by the party.

I really liked the fact that he kept on coming back to FDR and the government programs people like, which were all loudly dismissed as socialism by conservatives at the time. It's rather like Trump's populist promises, but not fake. On the other hand, he's laid down the glove and taking on Big Health Insurance and Big Pharma. They will spend billions to defeat him.

I tend to agree with Beto: Electing Joe would be a step backwards. But that may appeal to Obama voters who voted for Trump.

Bernie AND Biden are just too damned old! I remember when Reagan was no longer home and his wife seemed to be running the nation. So, if you are going to vote for either one of these elders better check the capacities of their wives just in case.

Different people age at different rates. The Bernie I heard in an interview the other day sounded perfectly rational and capable. Of course by 2028 that might not be the case.

I WANT YOUNG BLOOD TOO!

My generation has pretty much botched up everything they have touched as we entered into end stage capitalism. Joe Biden has been a part of that every step of the way.

Bernie Sanders has led the socialist opposition most of that time. And to be honest, he hasn't led it that well because socialists have lost a lot of ground since the fifties. I imagine Bernie cut his teeth on New York City beatnik coffeehouses, jazz and socialist rhetoric....Heady times those...

Where did the Bohemians go? Who has been pushing for the rights of the workers and the common man? They were still around in the sixties...the folk singers and war protestors.

What in the world has happened to us?

I think we mostly got reasonable employment and 401Ks. Of course your $100K in a 401K will last you about two years in retirement. Then it's cat food or prescriptions on your piddling social security check.

Socialists lost ground because they allowed the Right to redefine their title. Modern socialists are rarely the extreme groups that want the state to have everything because the state is the citizens.

Except, in the main, the only difference between most 'socialist' countries of northern Europe is that we continue to have For Profit Healthcare which is a terrible mistake for not only healthcare itself, but from a financial point of view. It is, in other words something that is logical as public education, police departments and fire departments, libraries, etc.

The simple fact is that there are some things, financed and supplied by the state, in the interest of the common good that belong.

Socialists have never been extreme groups that want the state to have everything.

Socialists are now and have always been supporters of the working class.

The Proletariet.

It's an ongoing existential struggle that has been with us throughout our history in one form or another.It is, perhaps, what sets us apart from the other animals.

Politics is where it plays out as drama.

I see it as a strategy game.

I am curious. I can't find a single truly socialist nation. If Socialism is so great why are not a bunch of countries socialist? I am talking about nations where the airlines, railroads, computer companies, etc. are all owned by the state.

Just wondering. I googled this and the only stuff I found were articles on failed Socialist states (usually starting with the Soviet Union).

I think that's the reason everybody has moved on from that definition of Socialism. The problem with it is one of scale. Central planning only works for a small enterprise, like a Kibbutz. When the enterprise gets larger, the planning grows exponentially. Beyond a small size, the planning fails.

So what actually works is a mixed economy, where government supplies the services it can supply best, and everything else is private enterprise. That's what they have in the most "socialist" countries, and in the least "socialist" countries. It's just a matter of degree. Like we think police should be employees of the state. In Somalia, they think police should be private. You can make a huge list of things the government runs here in the US, and compare those things to other countries. So-called socialist Scandinavian countries probably overlap our items by 95%!

Because every government is part capitalist and part socialist.

They are twisted together like strands of DNA. Can't have one without the other.

Most European nations are social democracies. It's a model that's working all over the place. Workers are paid well and working conditions are good. There is paid family leave and a 30 day paid vacation. Higher education is free. Medical insurance is provided. Life is pretty good for everybody.

We can have that here. And the rich will still be rich.

It's a win win situation.

And that is precisely why it won’t fly...

China

>China

Maybe back in 1949, but the Shanghai stock exchange is the third largest stock exchange in the world.


The government or the Red Army does own or hold a majority of stock in many companies, but they don't control or own everything. China is a mixed economy.

Yeah, China ain't how she was, PIA. But neither are we for that matter. As far as I know, the Chinese government is still committed to a socialist cause.

It's how they've organized their markets that makes them different from the western capitalist economies. How their monetary system works is another. I'm not advocating here, just mentioning that there are fundamental differences in how China has organized it's economy compared to ours. One of the reasons the president and his pay day loan style banks and hedge fund trade representatives want to change that right now.

For a more nuanced look at the Chinese economy and how it has been organized, you could do worse than listen at David Harvey, a Marxist economist. It's eye opening and he has credibility of the subject since he teaches in China for a semester or two every year.

Watch video here


I can't say that China will remain committed to a socialist cause. After all, they've had decades of students sent over here to attend american business schools.

Twisted together like strands of DNA.

Show me a purely capitalist country...?

"The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Piketty's paper is an inconvenient truth for the Democratic Party. The party's leaders see themselves as the left wing of capital — supporting social policies that liberal rich people can get behind, never daring to enact economic reforms that might step on rich donors' toes. Hence, the establishment seems intent on anointing the centrist Democrats of capital, who push liberal social policies and neoliberal economic policies."




Uh oh....

PIE CHART FIGHT!!!

I'm not so sure about that. It's not what happened in 2018, and we elected one or two Democratic Socialists to the House with every seat in play. Democrats certainly came out to vote, and there was no big push for progressive goals.

Voters are aware that a vote for Democrats is a vote progress. It may be an illusion, smoke and mirrors, but some small progress usually occurs under a Democratic administration.

But yeah, I think Democrats, and democrats, and some not so democratic, will be voting to oust Trump.
In large numbers.
Everywhere.

It may or may not be enough.

I agree with 99% of what you say Gregor, but I have a comment on this:
I think this depends on your perspective. If you are in the 1%, these last few years have been extremely progressive. If you are just a normal citizen, not so much.

It looks like the Democratic party is going into it's usual corporate huddle and excluding real progressives again. Hence the financial threats being made into their political policy.

Believing the same "Were not as bad as Republicans!" strategy will be enough to get a top tier time share salesman like Joe Biden elected. I'm not so sure. I'm not alone in expressing refusal to vote for that guy.

The party is pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporate party. The same party that owns the Republican party
.
I see it as a matter of what to eat at a KenTacokHut. Similar price points with slightly different ingredients owned by the same firm.

Joe Biden is just the executive model of the Boorish Trump.
At least Republican voters are getting something from their party. Democrats? Not so much...

Oh, there's been remarkable progress for the 1%. But that happens under either party. "Some small progress" means they passed the ACA under Obama. Gay marriage became legal...small progress for the 99% but quickly snatched away when Republicans come back to power and begin funneling ALL progress back to the 1%...

No, you certainly aren't. Just because I liked Clinton doesn't mean I have to like Joe.

Do I think it's a good idea to replace Trump with a terrible Democrat? Just because he's a Democrat?

Do I think that Joe Biden would be a better president than Trump? Not necessarily. He's a bumbling inept fool.

Likely a one term president because he's older than dirt and because he'd be an utter failure as a president, prompting the election of another Republican in 2024.

I'd rather see Trump go ahead and destroy the economy in his second term and the Republican Party along with it.

Pretty nearly any candidate besides Biden would be okay with me. I'm hoping those sensible folks up in Iowa will see it more or less the way I see it. It's up to the primary voters but the way I see it Biden is as big a fraud as Trump.

I won't vote for him.

Just remember folks, we're also voting for Congress and we HAVE to get rid of Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate Majority.
If we fail, it won't matter if we win POTUS or not.

Actually, Biden with a Democratic Senate and House would not be that bad. He would get some qualified advisers and actually listen to them, so he would not be wrecking everything he touches. He would also probably sign anything congress sent him. Not inspiring leadership, but not disasterous either. And as lame as he is, I think he probably understands that Putin and Kim are not out best buddies.

In any case, I don't think we can personally afford to sit back and watch Trump in what his supporters call "payback mode" for another four years.

Bannon: Trump will be in payback mode if he wins in 2020

If anyone else can afford it, good for them but I think most of us can't.

What, Like Obama?
Would Biden get more third way types that want to kneecap progressives for conservatives like Rahm Emanual gleefully did?
Geitner 'foaming the runway' for his fellow white collar banking grifters while millions lost their homes?

Yes. Please.

I'm of the opinion that the Democratic party needs to be destroyed. There will be no chance for progressives to have a shot at the controls until centrists prove themselves utterly impotent and ineffective to the economic/ political realities they have divorced themselves from for most Americans.

The gift of distraction from Mueller and the Russian hysteria has allowed the neoliberals to largely escape any meaningful critique.

Hopefully, Joe Biden will be the rope for the party to hang themselves with.

Hopefully someone will take away his undeserved lead in the polls because I see exactly what you do and it's not a scenario I want to contemplate. Biden will be a disaster.

I'd rather see the party reformed than destroyed.

Our economic, military and political realities today are nothing I wanted to contemplate but here we are.

At a certain point you realize that there is no salvaging of the democratic party. Having become, as one writer put it, 'one of two factions of the corporate wing'.

For every hopeful green shoot that appears the power structures within the party weed it out to maintain their grip.
When the progressive left decided to ask how come there are so many conservative, corporate stooges, like Lipinski or Manchin, in what had been or still is heavily democratic districts and focus their upcoming efforts on those seats instead of trying to flip red to blue districts, club Dem had an answer. No primary challenges will be tolerated!

What I hate about these party hacks is that there records suck! Yet here we are being admonished to vote for the sake of whatever they got.

Already, tarps are being removed from the hectoring horns. The very soul of the nation is at stake and you will be responsible for the end of the great American experiment and all the promise it held if you sit out or vote third party in the coming election.

I can hear the cries of 'IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!' now.

On the flip side the recognition that there is no route to reform within the party may very well lead to alternatives being established. Already, there are alternative funding sources now established to deal with the frat boys hoarding all the campaign money for them and their ilk.

I suspect that blockading progressives from hiring campaign shops will result in alternative campaign shops, outside the influence of the DNC, to be formed.

Ditto with the media's near blackout of left wing commentators or arguments getting aired.

This may be the silver lining and start of something better than what the Democrats represent now.

I don't see how this could have happenned last night without these alternative support structures:

Caban for the win!

Caban would have had her knees broke by Emanual before 2016, I would confidently guess.

"But this election has ramifications beyond the reform movement, and beyond Queens. As others have pointed out, the Democratic establishment in New York and Washington was shocked by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s upset victory over Crowley last year; for much of the campaign, Crowley didn’t even bother to show his face. That was not true this time; the establishment aggressively backed Katz—the whole Queens congressional delegation endorsed her, except for Ocasio-Cortez—but it wasn’t enough to beat Cabán, who had an army of small donors behind her."

A more nuanced view

It's encouraging to see, but I'm not gonna read too much into it. She was the better candidate and it was a lot of the same voters who sent AOC to Washington. A lot of people are sick of the Democratic machine and its kowtowing to corporate interests, but not enough to make a difference nationwide yet.

Yeah, time will tell wether or not it's got any legs. The nearly dormant progressive left was enrgized in 2016 though and it's had some notable successes in the off year and mid-terms . I'll take what I can get and hope it keeps on truckin.
In Upstate a similar election played out last week as well. 3 young progressive candidates went up against the party backed nominees and all three party backed candidates lost.
The Democratic party has to pay lip service to more progressive proposals. Some positions are currently out of favor that should have been obvious.
Some myths about politics have been dispelled to an increased audience.
My sunny side of the street, I guess.

We could sure use a lot more of those on ballots nationwide.

I would settle for more progressive and socialist districts being allowed to have a more progressive socialist candidates to keep incumbents honest and truly representing their constituents.

Oddly can't happen for some reason.

After the first Democratic Presidential Candidate debate of what appears will be a ratings grope death march of TeeVee executives I rather enjoyed the beat down Joe Biden got on his ACTUAL record. At time he looked cratered and word is the smart money is looking into other shop windows. I hope that trend continues.

For every one of the candidates I hope it happens. I'd like to think consistency would matter on some of the most existential topics in human history but I could be wrong. Let's go to the records and see who's been walking the walk.

Or there might be an internet sex tape scandal that takes our breath away for weeks.

Gawd, I'm glad I gave up TV when it went digital!

I think Trump has made sex scandals obsolete. Anybody can do almost anything, and still become President. It's the American Dream rooting around in the cesspool.

I saw a video where they were claiming that Obama is now rated as the worst President since Truman by 33% of the population. Of course that's just the Trump base following his obsession with The Black Guy. I suspect that if you ask them about specific actions and policies they didn't like the only thing they can come up with is ObamaCare, which is actually serving most of them very well.

Perhaps you've forgotten that Obama was a liar? That he blew up the deficit? That he ruled by executive order like some kind of tinpot dictator?

Don't forget he went golfing and wasn't carrying some White guy's clubs! The nerve!

In hindsight, Obama turned out to be a disappointment.
He talked of people's material concerns in 08 but legislated from the right. He stocked his cabinet with finance.

Obama did NOT legislate because he wasn't in the legislature. I think he would have been a lot more productive if Congress had not blocked his every move. I don't think you can blame him for that, unless you think he should have ordered a few selective assassinations.

The Obama years were disappointing but it wasn't his fault.

He was erudite and charming. My disillusionment began with the banking program. For years it was to easy to play reactionary politics and defend him from bigots and zealots but there were uneasy signs during his administration.
Time and distance for some perspective about his performance in the kitchen have only turned me off to his presidency more. Some of his cabinet choices proved themselves to be real tools. Geitner comes to mind.

He did bail out Detroit so there is that. No small thing at the time.

Has anyone noticed how much attention NewsCorp is paying to Biden and Harris, not so much to the second place candidate?

I can see Kamala getting the party nod. She's like a Hillary 2.0 for libs.

She's a women! She's tough on poor people! She's a minority! She's fiscally conservative!

She seemed deferential to Sanders during the debates, as most of the candidates now are considering how far the party has had to shift the conversation to his platform.

I think the Frat boys and girls are playing an inside long game on the Sanders threat. I can't see how it won't get decided by super delegates in a second round of voting at the convention with, what is it 72 candidates running? Some on little more than a few billionaires' money.
So if blue dog Joe hangs tough to the convention I could see things getting interesting within the conservative liberal establishment. Do you support the Virtue Signal candidate like Harris or the reflexive instinct of a Blue Dog Democrat with neoliberal street cred like Biden.

I think the media corps. will continue to black out Sanders alternative.

"Grim argued in the Post that the old-guard Democrats — led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — were buffaloed long ago by The Gipper: by Ronald Reagan’s presidential landslide in 1980 and 1984 reelection. They suffered a “traumatic political coming-of-age” in Reagan’s rise and have never been the same, he argued.

Because of that experience, their consistent fallback position is: “Now is not the time; push too fast or too far, and there’ll be a backlash,” according to Grim.

The old-era Democrats are still now “unable to embrace the new political environment in which the progressive agenda is genuinely popular,” he noted. “For people under a certain age, this slinking in the corner is deeply strange behavior.”

While I'm glad Grim said it I'm not so sure if that's truly what motivates the entrenched party leadership. IMO the leadership's interests are not that different from republicans interests as a whole. They just sell it a different way.

Full Article

Any Republican can do almost anything. I guarantee the conservative moralist brigade will attack mercilessly every minor transgression of the libertine "Democrat" party. Pederasts, predators, and preachers are welcome in the GOP, but the standard doubles when a Democrat is involved.

I see Epstein is back in the legal system for trafficking minors. It will be interesting if he gives up his buddy Donald for another deal.

Or Clinton for that matter.

Steyer looks like he's lacing up!

Billionair cuts to the chase

I don't frequent any places where I might run across the actual vile stupidity of Republicans but...

Do you suppose they are using the term clown-car in reference to our ridiculous field of presidential wannabes?

I'm really looking forward to the winnowing that will quickly take place once the primaries get underway.

You also don't want to contemplate the numbers, which are in the centrist's favor. That's human nature because the overwhelming majority of human beings simply are not political.

So in essence, you'd rather destroy the majority in the hopes that a minority gets to pick up the pieces and take control while giving a free ride to the Right.

Why?

I gave it up years before that. I hate to even be in a room where a television is on....

Even if it's a great concert, documentary or film?

It's just endless chatter as far as I'm concerned. Video is your livelihood so I can't imagine you'd understand my complete disdain for it.

I enjoy the occasional movie in a theatre, or a live concert now and then, or used to. Mobility issues keep me pretty much homestuck these days but I've never once considered television as a form of entertainment.

I watch some Youtube videos sometimes, mostly about machinery or cooking, sometimes some music, sometimes a boxing or MMA match. But I'm likely to lose interest and click away...preferring to read or write, or just sit and think.
In silence.

Townies know nothing of silence.

Au contraire, even Leon Russell once quipped "My hobby is silence."
It's not just video being my career, it's film.
For me at least, film is an art form, and a good film is like observing beauty, humanity, conflict, joy...the entire scale of emotions. Film is communication of ideas. Film is photography.
Film is also sound, it's music, it is the audible magic carpet that propels a person's heart.

And with the advent of high definition digital and the drastic drop in HDTV prices it's now possible to bring that experience right into your home.

Dustin Hoffman was recently quoted as saying,
"I think right now, television is the best it's ever been, and I think it's also the worst that movies have ever been - in the 50 years I've been doing it, it's the worst."

He's not talking about sitcoms.

Anyway, please know that solitude and silence are also valued by us "townies". (LOL)

Video and films are certainly art forms. Just not ones I'm especially drawn to.
First thing townies always say when they come out here..."Sure is quiet out here..."
No traffic noise, no sirens, no airplanes. Cicadas in the trees, chickens squawking, hawks shrieking, wind soughing through the pines. It seems to make them a little bit nervous. Like they're listening for banjos.

But I have a confession...I liked "Stranger Things". Watched seasons one and two and will eventually watch season 3. I've kinda got a crush on Winona Ryder but the urban fantasy/horror aspect of it really appealed to me too. "Warehouse 13" was another....I'da been seriously into "Game of Thrones" but too much effort to watch it without HBO. I've just got rather odd and peculiar tastes. I thought the ill fated "Lone Ranger" was an awesome flick! And "Kill Bill" loved that one...so you see....it's best that I'm kept isolated out here..."Natural Born Killers"...anything by Tarantino...

Yes, well... I still hope to visit you before one of us croaks...

Ditto

'It's not show art, its show business!!' - Gary Blair

It's not needed anymore. I still have a nice lil av system but I treat TV like sex. I won't pay for it but I'm not judging. It's a mostly neoliberal hellscape enforcing a dominant cultural narrative aimed at pushing product.

Soooo sick of another recycled Joseph Campbell hero journey.

I agree with Gregor. Trying to talk to someone in a room with a TV is like a Roger Altman conversation. It's slightly schizophrenic.

Libraries also work well for content.

Television is a hypnotic media that ropes you in and traps you. It's addictive and invasive. It stops your thought process and pumps false information into your synapses...you switch into teacher/student mode and let it brainwash you. The Milk of the Poppy can do wonderful things, just as television might sometimes deliver wonderful products. But too much and you're addicted.

I guess my thing is video games. The artwork these days is amazing and it's interactive so I'm not just sitting there drooling while the story plays out, I'm part of the action.

I installed some antennas when it went digital and video recording software so I could record multiple channels at once. Have not bothered for a few years. Commercials were so obnoxious, I just watch Netflix and Amazon Prime now. My wife watches YouTube a lot. News is on MSNBC, CNN, and BBC streaming.

Well that's also digital. The HD digital switchover wasn't just about over the air broadcast. I'm sure you already know this but the entire concept of television was drastically changed.

We didn't just swap our NTSC for ATSC, we abandoned all analog recording formats altogether, and we've now even abandoned analog photochemical (motion picture film) along with it.
The movie industry was so sure for so many years that film would be preserved as an acquisition format.

It wasn't.
Here's a dumpster filled with Panavision motion picture film camera bodies.



Here's me with the very last camera I used on a professional commercial shoot, a "Panavised" Sony F5 digital cinema camera, in 2016.



Simply put the film business IS now the television business, because there's no difference anymore between the two except for some overpaid moguls and an old outdated "studio system" that can't even maintain a hold on theaters anymore, because the theater is now in your living room for a couple hundred bucks.

And that's okay because it appears that theater patrons don't even know how to be civil in a theater anyway.
But movie theaters are about to die a long and painful death anyway.
Premium Video On Demand with same day or a ten day release window is the end of movie theater exclusivity.

Congratulations. You escaped.


Soon we won't have to leave our cubicles for anything! CGI will replace reality and eventually we will all just be digitized and fed into the system. Wetware will become a thing of the past...

And AI is going to be able to create any VR adventure you want in real time. Being a movie or TV star will just be replaced by computer models of your body, your movements, and your voice. Instead of being paid a million dollars for a movie role, you will get one dollar a million times from viewers who license your data for their own VR experiences.

Want a romantic interlude with Judy Hopps? No problem: Costs you a dollar to Disney. Want to see Brad Pitt and a young Elizabeth Taylor in a remake of The Wizard of Oz? Danny Devito and Miley Cyrus in The Last Tango in Paris. Anything you can think of, the machine can make for you. The censorship aspects become impossible to enforce, because CGI images are not real people.

There's a good book I read awhile back called 'Snow Crash' that had a reality not unlike what you're describing, PIA. I think it was called the 'metaverse' but it was more like a 3-d internet where you walk around in it with your avatar, not unlike a video game. You were 'goggled in' and could hook up with friends and pretty much anything was on tap to do.

Wetware!

Yeeesh, that sounds so dystopian.

Loved Snow Crash! Did you know there's a sort of a parody of it called Head Crash? It's a 'must read' if you liked Snow Crash.

Snow Crash was okay, but some of Stephenson's later books are fantastic. I especially recommend Cryptonomicon, System of the World, and Seven Eves.

Wow, his later stuff gets better? cool.
Head Crash! I'll look for it.

It also got mention in a book called 'I Hate the Internet'. Not a great book to be reading at that time as it seem to predict what was coming in our society and made reference to 'Snow Crash' as being all to prescient. A good book to read if you got the time but depressingly unsparing as it strips away the veneer of our current society.

His Baroque Cycle trilogy(of which System of the World is part) is pretty much a 1600 page prequel to Cryptonomicon.

You get to meet and hang out with Isaac Newton and many other of the early Enlightenment thinkers and architects, You get to be familiar with the Sun King Louis XIV! And the adventures of Half Cocked Jack, King of the Vagabonds, will take you all over the 17th century world. The history of computers and money...

If someone ever asked me what the best books I ever read were...
Neal Stephenson is on the very top of the list.

Headcrash is available as a used paperback on Amazon for around $5.

They didn't just "goggle in"

A proctoprod was part of the immersive experience...

His second book "Zodiak" is a hoot too.

Didn't like Zodiak all that much, which kind of turned me off of Stephenson for a while. Then I read another later book and I was hooked. I meant the trilogy when I said System of the World. Great stuff and it will keep you busy for a while.

I always call the trilogy System Of The World too. I had to look it up. It's really a more fitting title for the story.

Democratic unity in 2020

And this right here is what I was talking about in the roundtable a moment ago. These folks are VOTERS. They'll vote blue no matter who, just like I will. But non-voters will sit it out in huge numbers.

Biden will pull off a squeaker if he's the candidate.

Warren or Sanders would win in a landslide.

Biden will attempt to re-assemble the mess Trump has made into his 1980s vision of what America should be, then lose in 2024 handing the ball back to Republicans.

A truly progressive candidate will re-make Trump's disaster into the America that America should be. Voters will once again have something to be positive about, something to get excited about, and something to get out and vote for.

A New Tide will rise which actually floats all boats, not just the yachts. Higher wages, better benefits, health insurance, as much education as anyone wants. You want business to flourish? Make sure their customers have plenty of money to spend.

Then we'd better do a good job of selling Warren, and she better not fall for Trump's Pocahontas nonsense in the debates.

I tend to view the upcoming two party debates as being somewhat similar to a first day in prison, where the new guy has to pick the biggest baddest inmate and punch him as hard as they can.

You have to let the bully know you're not going to take any of his sh!t right off the bat.

Anyone who engages Trump the way Hillz did is dead meat.
He only understands one means of communication.

Near as I can tell, the primaries are decided by older white voters, Boomers are still in charge....Biden it is...

That would be unfortunate. I don't think many Democrats favor Biden as their first choice, but they would vote for him if he is the nominee. Still almost a year to most primaries. A lot can (and does) happen in a year.

Mobilizing your base so more of them show up to the polls seems to be a good way to win elections.

2016 had low voter turnout.

Dems want to run an 'anyone but Trump' campaign and get an acceptable candidate for their donor class. Rank and file dem voters will fall in party line. I'm not convinced that will work just as it failed in 2016 but it's been the familiar game played for as long as I can remember with a couple of exceptions.


Sanders would be one of those exceptions, IMO. He'll get no traction with the wealthy and Hillary supporters. Question is will he have a deep enough bench of support to overcome those wealthy and Hillary Dems?

No it didn't. It had higher turnout than in 2012.

American voter turnout never varies much...

I've got another theory...The Press doesn't like Sanders.

The Press controls public opinion.

I'm a Hillary supporter and he's got plenty of traction with me. I can't speak for the wealthy but that money is mostly going to the DNC and PACs rather than to individual candidates. But the shine is gone off of Bernie just like it did with Beto. He'd be doing himself a favor if he got out after Iowa and endorsed Warren. I'm disappointed about both of them but have to move on as my early bets fail to pay off.

It's eight months until the Iowa caucuses. Warren's star is rising. I'm fine with that. Harris does nothing for me, an able politician but not somebody I want to see elevated to the highest office in the land.

True that. Clumsy way to bury the point.

Trying to say you have to turn out your base in greater percentage than the other party. There's a million charts and graphs and they all point to something but I'm still standing on mobilizing your base in greater numbers.

I recall Democratic turnout was lower than Republican in 2016. Might be wrong on that too.

Trump has smartly kept his voters foaming and howling for 3 yrs now. He can count on that base of support to show up.

It will be up to the Democratic machine to turn out it's base in large enough percentage (agreed, where you really have too!).

Clearly, that did not happen in 2016. Recall the Hillary machine was hoping for Trump to win the Republican nomination as they believed he would be easier to beat...

I think the Democrats are at risk of repeating the same mistake in 2020.

Not that it matters but I believe the Democratic party is incapable of transforming public opinion into political support as effectively a Republican do.

That's 42% of the voters best as I can tell, can you win an election with that?

Then you understand after all!
I've said MANY times that Republicans work like an ARMY while Democrats act like a bunch of hissing kittens and hand-wringing purity ponies over minutae.

It's like watching a flock of meadowlarks trying to beat up a monitor lizard with a bouquet of tulips.

If we are up against a machine like that and forced to play on a tilted playing field (gerrymandering and vote suppression) then it is clear we have to look at overall mass electability first, just to get a foothold back.

It is NOT HOW elections should work and I am the first to agree with you on that but it's the reality right here and right now.

Yes.
It's already happened.
The Democratic machine ran a candidate that had low voter approval. It didn't help having the outright corruption of the parties nominating process laid bare in a time of anti-establishment anger.

Mobilize your base with proposals that have broad popular support, directly addressing people's material concern.

Corbyn did it in the U.K. Obrador did it in Mexico.

My question to you, Jeff, is why the Democratic party won't?

We saw how 2016 went down. The fact that I keep hearing 'anyone but Trump' from libs tells me the party is not going to in 2020 either.

The latest punching left by Pelosi and now Trump confirm the parties position of having no vision of transformational change for mobilizing the base and, just as important, increasing it.

I think they're going to try and pick up a rebound off of Trump, just as they'd hoped in 2016.

A timely article from a lefty mag is describing another fascinating race shaping up in W.Virginia.

The reason I'm fascinated by W.Virginia are it's labor history and politics. Another is the deafening silence for any political examination in how the Democratic party has so alienated itself from voters who were solidly blue. For me V.Virginia represents a broader dynamic going on in the Democratic party between genuine progressives and inclusive populists pitted against the corporate wing. Between the Steve Smiths and the Joe Manchins, Sanders vs Clinton, etc..:

"A contest between Manchin and Smith will draw a line in the sand, forcing those interests that have traditionally adhered to the state Democratic Party’s coalition to decide whether they believe in a party that continues to be dominated by corporate interests or one that seeks to build a genuine popular movement to benefit working people."


Full article

Very impressive article about Elizabeth Warren. She's all about policies and her policy ideas come from the think tank in her Senate office and a network of the best and brightest we have in America. I think she might be the most competent President we've ever had!

This Was Elizabeth Warren’s Plan All Along

The bottom line is that everything comes down to income inequality.

Almost Robert Reich verbatim. And I loved this quote:

Hammer, meet nail.

She'll get the Lanyard Liberal vote. She's got them policies.
I don't think she'll be transformative though.
She wouldn't be a disaster as much as we've seen. I think she believes she can tame capitalism.

I'm surprised you don't have more complaints about her, considering her role in bailing out the banks in 2009. But no matter: She would be the most competent President ever, but she won't get elected. The thing I learned in 2016 is that women don't trust other women. There's just some deep misogyny in most women. I suppose it has something to do with competition.

But she would make a great VP to some pretty boy with credentials, like George Cloony. Between Amal for foreign policy advice and Elizabeth for domestic, he could be great. A liberal's Ronald Reagan. Since we have amply demonstrated that any rich celebrity can be elected, I think George is a shoe-in. He has 1000 times Trump's CV.

And it would be funny to see all those Trump supporter's wives vote for George because he's hot.

Clooney might be a liberal wet dream, but he aint in the race. I'll go this far though...if we have to have Biden as the nominee maybe he'll pick Warren to run with him....

A comedian quipped about the bank bailout of 2009- 'Why didn't the government give PEOPLE the 1 1/2 trillion dollars with the caveat that the money had to be deposited in a bank and only so much could be withdrawn at a time? Banks would get recapitalized, people would not have lost their homes and demand in the economy would have been restored. Why was it given to banks to give themselves pay raises and buy up all the foreclosed homes?'

For me, that wasn't so much a joke but a comparison of an FDR style solution and a neoliberal solution.

I'm not convinced, when given the choice, which way Warren would go. I do know of another candidate's direction and will be rooting for him. He who is a solid second that shall not be named, or if necessary, only in negative framing by the establishment.

If Biden get the nod, I'll join the majority and vote for no one.

I was told, by a TeaPartier no less, that the bailout should have been spent on paying off peoples' mortgages - according to him it would have taken care of ALL of them. Of course, it would have taken out the banks as well, and eliminated the debt economy - which is practically the whole economy... po' banks!

We is so fekked...

It reminds me of Ralph Nader's convergence theory and show's me where some hope lie's, Logs.

Why wasn't the recent tax bill aimed at keeping money in the pockets of those who need it most...?

Why is a living wage such an atrocity? National healthcare such an outrage, and free education beyond the pale?

Biden is taking a firm stance against Medicare For All.

He took a firm stance against the ACA too. Wonder how he stands on the $15 minimum wage. The House has offered up an opportunity for the candidates to discus it.

Or they just could have given everyone some bank stock when they bailed them out. Then it wouldn't have been a bail-out so much as forced recapitalization. The people getting foreclosed could have traded their stock for their mortgage debt. People with no debt would own some bank stock.

They could have done a lot of things. It's what they did, though.

That's channeling Will Rogers in 1932:



That's not what Will Rogers would have done.

Will Rodgers had an entirely different political landscape to navigate than the one we navigate today. At least there was some leftism in his time, though the second great purge was getting underway. There was still some.
Hardly any today and the Democratic party is going into overdrive to see that there isn't anymore in 2020.

"Last week, the Boston Herald (7/11/19) decried Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Omar as far-left “bullies” who were undermining Pelosi, and “sowing division” at a time when the party “needs to project a unified—and more centrist—front to retain its majority and knock Donald Trump from office.” The piece did not, however, scrutinize Pelosi’s political positions—or even identify them at all.

This is a common occurrence in media, and has the effect of normalizing the right wing of the party as the default. Constantly reminders that Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and co. are leftists prime the news consumer to be on the defensive. “You are about to hear socialist propaganda,” is the subtle message delivered. But an analogous message is not transmitted if others are not identified as on the right. Understanding the power of this technique, in 2015, nearly 90,000 Britons signed a petition asking the BBC, in the interests of even-handedness, to start describing Prime Minister David Cameron as “right-wing,” just as it constantly called Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn “left-wing.”

Full article

Lets me honest Jeff. You may be comfortable voting right wing and feel absolved if there is a D next to the name but I no longer am. I won't vote right wing and have had years of resentment having been hectored by libs into doing so. Lesser of two evils and all that rot.
I have concluded the Democratic party is a paid instrument to keep any avenue of leftist political expression neutralized. To ignore it is simple willful ignorance at this point in these dark and creative times.

Well, yeah, pretty much. How long has it taken you to figure this out, Grasshopper?

But come election day we get to choose whether we want Democrats or Republicans appointing judges. It's not a venue for leftist political expression it's where we choose Republican or Democrat. Doesn't matter if you vote or not, one side or the other will win. If I had to get out of this chair to vote I'd sit home too. My district is deep ruby red like the glowing eyes of Cthulu. Democrats don't even run for office around here. So my vote is dust in the wind anyway...

Somewhere between Bill Clinton and Obama.

At least there was some leftism in 1932 in the USA? People were just then furtively dipping their toe. How do you expect it to happen, just all of sudden, like switching on a light switch? It took forty years to drag us this far to the Right.

I think the landscape wasn't much different than right now.
The so called "Business Plot" featuring a consortium of far Right business interests were contemplating an armed overthrow of the Roosevelt administration in 1933.

Then enjoy four more years of Trump!
Sorry that you interpret my saying I can't afford four more years of Trump as "hectoring". Clearly you can afford it.
Good for you.

Trump isn't the problem. He's a symptom. Electing a crappy Democrat(Biden) is going to make the problem worse. It just kicks the can down the road. No telling which reality tv star or Nascar driver they'll elect in 2024 after four years of boring Democratic leadership.

Actually leaving Trump in office until the economy finally collapses might be better than Biden. At least in the long run. Might be pretty ugly here in the short term where we all live...

Trump is a symptom

Ever see Idiocracy? It will definitely be a WWE wrestler.

There was much left wing activity before the 1930's, Jeff.
Working class people were organizing and agitating since the 1600's. To say we were just dipping our toe into the water by te 1930's would be inaccurate to say the least.
Heard of Eugene Debs?
High plains farm revolts?
IWW?
Didn't they burn a couple of guys for being anarchists in 1920's?

Dipping our toe? I think we read very different histories Jeff. We have purged any leftist thinking in this country so effectively that we've given guy's like JGW the idea that it's all right to simply say the left merely believes in clear food labeling.

Again, you might have a way to rationalize voting for right wing candidates but I can no longer do it. Democrats have been carrying water for the ultra right and giving them an even freer hand to explore the outer limits of their ideology by snuffing any left wing counter proposals.

Like a green new deal
living wage
medicare4all
etc...

Back in the 30's a lot of people were socialist and even communist in the US. The peak of this was in 1945 when our allies the Soviets essentially defeated the Nazis. But then came the Red Scare but also the brutal invasions and occupations as the Iron Curtain went up. That had a huge effect on the left in the US. And I think it continues today, with stuff like Russia's invasion of Ukraine. shooting down commercial airliners, China's genocide against the Uighurs, etc. Nobody wants to be THAT socialist. The communists in the US are pretty much just a few mentally ill folks who thrive on the notoriety. The remaining left are union-supporters, employee-owned company supporters, now medicare4all supporters: In other words, FDR-style Democrats. Just a little bit left of centrist Democrats.

So the "left's" positions are not hard for the rest of the Democrats to agree with. They just think that they might not be able to implement them, because half the country is still scared of "socialists coming for their kids and their guns". I don't think centrists are the left's enemies: I think they are just practical. Convince the majority of voters that medicare4all is good, and the Democrats will do it.

Eugene V. Debs ran as a Socialist candidate for President of the United States five times, including 1900 (earning 0.6% of the popular vote), 1904 (3.0%), 1908 (2.8%), 1912 (6.0%) and 1920.(3.4%)
At its peak in August 1917, IWW membership was 150,000.
So yes, we were dipping our toe.

Fast forward to the Thirties, the Crash, the Depression.
Perhaps I understated more than a little.
What was the peak membership in the USA of socialist and communist groups?
But I'm looking for the kind of numbers that win elections. Majority numbers, the kinds of numbers that move countries one direction or another.


Of course they're not difficult to align with. The problem is that we didn't fight hard enough back then to counter the smears, anymore than we're fighting hard enough now. The labels stuck back then and Republicans are using that now.
Why are we resistant to ducking and weaving, so that we can avoid being bashed on the head repeatedly?



Convince the majority of voters that FDR style New Deal social democracy is not the brutal confiscatory boogeyman of the Soviets or Venezuelans.
CONTROL the DIALOGUE by CONTROLLING the power of the LABELS.

Can no longer do it? It's amazing that we can field 23 candidates, most all of them significantly to the Left of Trump, even a moderate milquetoast who is a 90's retread and STILL to the Left of Trump, and be tagged a closet Rightie or Right Wing Enabler.

So, moving to the Left is moving to the Right because it's not Left ENOUGH, so we're going to allow Trump to move us even further to the Right because we are not satisfied with the smaller move to the Left.

I think I get the strategy now. I think I understand it.

Most of the country doesn't have a concept of what a left alternative is and believes the framing from the right on it. Like it's confiscatory, makes people wear plywood suits, drive concrete cars etc...
Eugene Debs is one example. IWW is another. Unions a third socialist and communist, etc, etc, etc. Most are gone now. But we've discussed all this in the thread 'What Left'.
If you think being left of Trump makes you left I don't know what to say. Political dyslexia? I would consider the democrats to be center right to far right and their history of supporting right wingers over leftists is clear. So is selling out Unions and working class people.
We just had a marvelous example of that with the house leadership attacking it's left flank and opening up further attacks on it by the president.
Mocking left wing proposals is another example of punching left.
Closing primary challenges and making the party a club is another example.
For some, these actions should further erode the center rights base of support. My instincts tell me the center right leadership is banking on running a monkey and winning since Trump is so offensive to them. Time will tell.
I'd rather vote for Eugene Debs and not be a part of the rightward drift.

No, I did not say that being Left of Trump makes one Left, but apparently you're convinced that being Left of Trump makes one Right, and that the only solution is to allow perfect to be the enemy of good, and to allow us to go even further Right in an effort to go Left.
But no dyslexia there!



But we will be able to address these inequities better under four more years of Trump...said NO ONE EVER.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."

Such an Orwellian statement. I remember it during the last Presidential election and it was revealing how much that candidate sucked that the more left leaning base kept having that thrown up in their face as a rationale for getting behind the corporate candidate (yet again).It was vacuous and, yes, a form of hectoring.

Vote for who you want Jeff, but for me it comes down to having a line which you can't cross (or follow rather) and for myself I won't follow the Democratic party any further in it's rightward drift. If it has real legitimacy then the Democratic party should be just fine without my vote.

If it losses legitimacy then it should be knocked out in elections and something else will have to replace it that has more. Guilting people is no substitute for good policy and ideas. The party is on notice from what little is left of unions and the same from leftists. It's response was to change party rules and give it's illegitimate cogress members tenurship. That's undemocratic and the question has to be asked 'who's interests are being served with this arrangement?"

It's ironic that Nixon was quoted as saying 'were all Keynesians now". Fast forward 40 some years and we have the head of the democratic party declaring 'were all capitalists now'.

I'm not hearing ANY predictions about how Biden plans to fix anything. Warren has plans in place, Bernie has been planning this forever. Biden has Obama.

I'll have the gluten free, sodium free, thin sliced Milquetoast please! With a side of climate catastrophe and a global extinction event.

I certainly don't blame a leftie for not planning to vote for Biden. I don't know why any thinking democrat would vote for him in the first place.
Is he inevitable? Or does he really just represent the undecided voters? Bernie and Liz are pretty much tied for second. Here's a scenario I'm comfortable with...Maybe Biden will fade and this will turn into a race between Bernie and Liz!

EPIC

Trump would need to nuke Paris to get any attention while that was going on.

Well were all hoping for a Sanders/Warren ticket and bulldoze the corporate wall down...

"When people say that Democrats should unify, the part they leave out is most important: Around what? Nearly everyone in Washington seems to assume that progressives should shut up, accept their place, and unify around the status quo.

Think about what an arrogant and preposterous request that is. Progressive leaders, including our representatives in Congress, should abandon all of our policy positions and sell out our voters to please the Democratic establishment. Saying “hell no” to that would be an enormous understatement."

Cenk Uygur in 'The Wall Street Journal'. Strange days indeed...

Democrats should unify behind AOC

Fantasy Sanders intro music for his acceptance speech for the nomination in 2020....

Oh Dear!

The degree of seperation between these camps gets smaller and smaller...

"How did wealthy sex offender Jeffrey Epstein come to be palling around with Bill Clinton and Donald Trump?

People who know those involved said Epstein’s connections to two U.S. presidents ran through one bubbly British heiress: Ghislaine Maxwell."

Full article

I don't think Biden will hang onto his front runner status much longer. Liz Warren is loading up some solid ammo and she's going to use it on him.

Right now? This minute? The answer is crystal clear...Oust Trump.

That dynamic isn't going to change. Angry voters show up to vote.
That's our 2020 wild card, almost a "get out of jail free" card.

There are several issues worth unifying over beyond that though.

Immigration reform. A Democratic controlled government can do it with a few swipes of a pen.
Double the minimum wage. The house just passed a bill to do it.
Open Medicare up to people 55 and older with plans for further expansion.
Make higher education more affordable and abolish student debt.
Get rid of the Social Security cap entirely.

That's a few things.

I believe that was the lanyard's play in 2016 Gregor. What gives you hope it'll work in 2020?

You asked...I gave you some examples. Those things were mostly considered radical ideas until Bernie made them mainstream in 2016. They're all on the Democratic to do list now.

Will they get them all done? Nope. But progress will be made and things like this give some of us reason to hope that the future may not be as grim as it looks.

You may be right. I'm not as sure about it.
Warren could lash together the same constituency as HRC did in 2016 but will it be enough?
There needs to be some damn righteous indignation and condemnation for what has happened to the average American overthe last 40years and I don't know that Warren is capable of doing that. Yeah, the lanyards will come out and vote but success has always been mobilize working class voters. PMC's have a hard time with that concept. I'm not sure she can do that yet.
My horse has been a proven bet but the 'Never Sanders' corporate wing is going to be an uphill battle. For all their rationalizations being about winning elections they have failed miserably but that doesn't seem to have weakened their grip on the party any.
The opinion of the democratic party leadership at my local level thinks anyone should be able to beat Trump as he's so offensive. I think they're being over confident as they were in 2016.
Someone once made the observation that the single greatest talent liberals possess is making failures sound like successes and keeping themselves from being turned out. I'm inclined to agree with that observation.

You think the upsurge in public opinion against Trump and the Republicans doesn't represent some righteous indignation and condemnation of what's happened to the average American over the last 40 years? Trump has brought it home, rich assh*les are running the show and they're trampling all over everybody else's rights.

Clinton won by 3 Million votes. Democratic voters weren't terribly excited about the race, the primary was ugly and it was a sure thing anyway. Trump didn't stand a chance against her, we saw it in the papers and in the polls.
Things are different this time around. Democratic voters are outraged.
A small percentage of Republican voters are finding it more and more difficult to support this administration...



It would be such a waste to squander this advantage on someone like Biden. Bernie or Liz are either one fine by me. I'm leaning towards Warren as a personal favorite. The press might see a Warren Vs Sanders race as a very lucrative redux of 2016...

The only plus about a Warren vrs Sanders race is that the loser's people are certainly going to go vote for the winner. There are almost no fans of one that would find the other one unacceptable.

There's a strong 'Never Sanders' crowd that I'd like to test your argument with PIA.

Looks like Pelosi has assured the owners that, should any progressive candidate win the nomination and go on to win the presidency, any progressive plans will be kneecapped. I think I said somewhere to watch out for the neoliberal head fake when she was made speaker. Sadly, that concern was proven out:

"Former congressional staffers and other critics said that by agreeing to suspend the debt ceiling until 2021, Pelosi gave Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) the ability to extract massive spending cuts and other concessions from a Democratic president in exchange for raising the debt limit."

Pelosi Blasted for Deal That Enables GOP to Thwart Progressive Plan

More of that Neoliberal 3 dimensional chess that always seems to benefit the ownership class and the far right....

The most vociferous of that lot seem to be the ones who oppose him because he's not a Democrat and hence should not be the "Democratic" candidate. The same ones have a deepseated issue with the word "socialism". But, as a group, they are conditioned to vote in every election. They are the first to shout "Vote Blue No Matter Who!" when they want you to vote for their candidate and they will be the last to sit home when there is a chance to do their civic duty. They'll vote Sanders if The Fates should weave that thread.

Loyalist Democrats one and all. But they'll be voting en masse
in the primaries. They'll be deciding who gets the nom-noms.

Lefties wanna take over the country? They need to overwhelm this crowd in the primaries.

Not exactly. There's a Neoconservative 3D chess game going on over there too that always seems to benefit the ownership class while duping the far right into voting for them.

Bougies control both sides and just play them against each other.

I believe that enough people are weary of the childish antics of a bunch of spoiled rich brats.

Anyone who agrees is cordially invited to vote these infantile whelps completely out of power in November 2020.

No, you may not get exactly the change you hoped for...some elements of corruption and failures or moral rectitude transcend party boundaries but it is nevertheless clear that one party is currently tearing down any avenue of investment in our future to pay for the fortunes of Mammon today in a way which eerily resembles the saturnalias of Caligula.

If you love Caligula but you're not invited to a front row seat at the saturnalia, you're a fool who thinks some of the palace festivities will just rub off on you merely by virtue of the fact that you're aware of them, when in reality you should acknowledge that you're just another peon outside the palace walls, holding your ears shut so that you can't hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Even a junkyard rat has enough common sense to hop a train to the supermarket.

Vote Blue No Matter Who? Only if we eliminate Biden. No promises if it's Biden. Has anyone else noticed his resemblance to a snake?

A Slytherin? Strolling with the Gryffindors and Hufflepuffs?

"Traveling hundreds of miles across Iowa, passing cornfields and covered bridges, visiting quaint small town after quaint small town, listening to the stump speeches of Democrat after would-be Donald Trump-combating Democrat, only one thought comes to mind:

They’re gonna blow this again."

Matt Taibbi gives some good insider analysis of both the press and Democratic candidates from the road in Iowa. Nice audio read option of his article if you prefer to lissen at him.

The Iowa Circus

Left to their own devices they probably would blow this again.
The anti-Trump sentiment will see them through.

Must be strange to be in Iowa during all this...Presidential candidates on soapboxes on every corner with cameramen trying to find an angle that looks like somebody is paying attention to them...

This is going to go on until February when the caucuses begin.
Money's gonna dry up for a bunch of them. Soon I hope.

Yeah, mebbe.
The Democratic party has been a perpetual disappointment machine for decades now for some. I also see Trump keeping his base wound up and motivated , whereas Democratic party leadership keeps punching left while desperately reading the political game box lid for rules violations over the last election.
I think it's gunna come down to who gets their base out more (has it ever been otherwise?). Meanwhile the Democratic party gets older, more insular and resentful of an energized, more youthful populist left that could bring some much needed energy to a weak and tired party.
The sad part is it could be so easy for them to win. That's my measure of how much they suck.
You may be right Gregor but but bad management has a way of hanging on these days.

Well this was a nice surprise to read about this weekend. Corrupt leadership getting challenged from below. More please....

The end is nigh for Pelosi anyway. She's 79 and has promised to step down from her speakership after the elections. Her retirement soon after that is pretty likely. She's really not equipped to usher in a new age of social populism and that appears to be the way democratic voters are heading.

The end is nigh for a lot of old codgers up in DC.

She seems to be very competent for 79, but anyone that age should be thinking about retirement. They also should have spent the last 10 years training their replacement. And when the replacement surpasses your competence, it's time to go.

She's clung to her position thru corporate patronage so that's a kind of competency, I guess.
She really got played by Trump and helped fund his border wall and concentration camps. Unless that's a good thing for Libs. Times are strange and loyalties are no longer clear.
With her, I'm reminded of how the petite bourgeoisie of Germany threw in with the fascists when push came to shove and socialists were gaining ground. I have to wonder if the border wall and concentration camp funding while punching left at the core of recently elected lefties is the start of them going over.
Or perhaps she's really not that competent after?