|
Post by kerouac2 on Mar 25, 2019 21:16:23 GMT
And yet you are surprised and dismayed by some of my analyses of what will probably happen...
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Mar 25, 2019 21:20:54 GMT
Bixa, very few would call Jimmy Carter a very good president, but he certainly is a fine human being.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Mar 26, 2019 19:18:10 GMT
Meanwhile, French political analysts, knowing that Bernie Sanders has no chance, are dreaming about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if only because Fox News is totally obsessed by her. That's a good thing, isn't it? French political analysts obviously then cannot read polls. Sanders outpolled Trump across polling data from a broad range of sources and methodologies in 2016. Head-to-head he polled better vs. Trump than HRC did again across polls taken. He has been the most popular American politician since then in many polls. If Sanders can get the Democratic nomination, against an insider party machine that a large part of which would rather lose again to Trump than let Sanders lead it, he will defeat Trump. Trump is in a stronger position now than then -- the Dems and their captive media -- which essentially means all the major media except Fox News -- have handed Trump a huge gift with their xenophobic Russian conspiracy fantasies blowing up in their faces, and a lot will depend on the economy in the next year. Still, you'd have to think pretty poorly of the US to think we'd actually choose Trump, whose negative polling is still huge, over the politician with the highest positive polling. If the economy goes into recession, Sanders will win by a large margin; if it doesn't he'll still win but by less. His biggest challenge will be to win the primary, a match held on hostile territory and a space that will fight dirty against him if necessary. If he wins that battle, he'll win the second. Getting the nomination will be the difficult part. The problems for a bland centrist Democrat candidate will be the same problems that had HRC losing to Trump in 2016, they have no answers to the problems that real people face in their lives, that bland centrist candidate will block popular policies like Medicare for All, higher taxes on the wealthy, getting entangled in fewer foreign military morasses and their multi-trillion dollar costs, and on and on. Because that is what centrist democrats do -- are paid to do -- to prevent the populist left from getting anywhere near the levers of power. They are seen to be corrupt -- and they simply are. All the centrists take huge contributions from powerful special interests that aren't the same interests as those of the average citizen. And Americans aren't so stupid they don't know the system is rigged against them. Sanders doesn't take those bribes and never has, and everyone knows this. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (hereafter AOC) is indeed a rare phenom with immense political talent and upside, but on policy she is hardly different than Sanders. She's also too young to run right now.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Mar 26, 2019 23:00:05 GMT
Since the United States does not have direct universal suffrage for the presidential election, it hardly matters by what margin Bernie would win the Pacific states and New York and Massachusetts or whether he would win the popular vote. The red wave would sweep the electoral college.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Mar 27, 2019 4:42:51 GMT
Sweep? No. Sanders would only have to do slightly better than Hillary Clinton, who had stratospheric negatives -- just as Trump does. Clinton was possibly the only likely Democratic candidate that *could* have lost to Trump given his own historic polling negatives. People broadly underestimate how terrible a candidate Clinton was. Trump didn't triumph so much as have the election handed to him on a platter by the DNC.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Mar 27, 2019 14:50:46 GMT
Clinton was possibly the only likely Democratic candidate that *could* have lost to Trump given his own historic polling negatives. People broadly underestimate how terrible a candidate Clinton was. Trump didn't triumph so much as have the election handed to him on a platter by the DNC. Pretty ironic, considering HRC was possibly the most qualified candidate ever to run for POTUS, and at the same time one of the least likable. I prefer experience to personality, but what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Mar 27, 2019 14:56:07 GMT
I think it's a problem everywhere. It's a beauty contest -- and Trump had that wonderful hair and complexion going for him, not to mention having been a very popular television star.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Mar 27, 2019 15:09:53 GMT
Not to mention that the mainstream media (“drive by media”, Rush Limbaugh calls it) gave Trump so much free publicity, reveling in the ratings they got from it, that they are partly/mainly responsible for giving Trump the presidency.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Mar 27, 2019 15:30:38 GMT
I think it comes down to who the Democratic nominee is. If it's Trump vs. Clinton, Trump will be president; if it's Trump vs. Sanders, it'll be President Sanders. I called this one over two years ago. Insert another status quo, corporate centrist Democrat and the results will repeat. Like the Bourbons, the Dems have learned nothing and forgotten nothing either I'm afraid. Oh well, they'll all land in cushy jobs for their loyal service no matter what happens. The beauty of being a loyal insider is that there is never any real accountability for losing beyond the simple embarrassment. Stick to the official billionaire donor approved script, never question the narrative, and life will be good.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Mar 27, 2019 16:09:30 GMT
We do not have proof of the second hypothesis. One of the problems of politics (no matter which country) is thinking the you are right without the slightest way of proving it. That's what gives all of the fodder to political debates after the fact. "If you had done this, the right thing would have happened." There is no fucking way to know what might have happened when it didn't happen.
This is not a criticism. I have the same illusions about politics, but I would never dare to say that I have a crystal ball.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Mar 27, 2019 17:16:29 GMT
The problem is, I am very much in sympathy with Bernie (and hey, a US president who lives a short distance from my town!) I sent his staff some documents on healthcare here that contradicted some of the US BS about it. But his age is a real problem, and the same applies to the Drumpf. I think elderly people can contribute a lot - many think that Carter has contributed much more after his term than during it - but I'm uncomfortable with gerontocracy, whether Soviet, Israeli or Algerian, not to mention Ronald Reagan. And unfortunately the campaign can't even that out with AOC because she is too young to become President, unless I'm misreading the rules (which is entirely possible).
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Mar 27, 2019 17:25:56 GMT
No, I'm sure that even the Vice President has to be a minimum of 35 years old since there is the possibility of the VP becoming President. Just as ridiculous as the Electoral College of course, but at the same time, I can't imagine someone so young being elected in any 'normal' country.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Mar 27, 2019 17:54:44 GMT
I too think Sanders is too old. Given the toll the job takes on the office-holder, it seems ridiculous to allow candidates over say 60 or 65 at most.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Mar 27, 2019 18:22:50 GMT
I don't know if it holds true in every country that has democratic elections, but it appears that old people vote much more than the younger generations. After all, we have nothing better to do with our useless leisure time as we suck retirement money out of the young. Older people are generally not the most prone to vote for socialism, even if they did so all their life in the past (not really something that has happened in the United States). And young people don't vote nearly as much because they have important video games to play or parties to plan. It doesn't matter how much everybody tells them that it is super important to vote, they just think it isn't all that important because other people will vote and that's fine. And anyway, nothing will ever change. How many times have we heard that?
I am still waiting for the person with the magic touch who will get young people to vote, recent citizens to vote, the apathetic masses to vote. I don't think the name of that person is old Bernie Sanders. I bet a lot of that group doesn't even recognize his name.
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Mar 27, 2019 18:33:41 GMT
Something I heard the other day- if you’re 17 and not a socialist you have no heart. If you’re 40 and still a socialist you have no brain.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Mar 27, 2019 19:02:32 GMT
I suppose that depends on your definition of "socialism". The scary Reds who are going to take away everything you have worked for, or the European social-democracy, which in ideal circumstances (not always the case, of course) provides universal health care, old age pensions, builds social housing and generally tries to combat inequality in the population. And doing so with high taxation.
I have always found it ironic to read about the struggles for universal suffrage and that once it is achieved, so many people don't bother to vote.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Mar 27, 2019 20:34:17 GMT
The joke about fear of high taxation that people in the US have is that they're presently forking out way more in medical insurance than they'd ever have to pay in taxes under a sane social democracy system. Fools!
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Mar 27, 2019 20:38:25 GMT
Bixa, that’s not a joke!
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Mar 27, 2019 22:23:06 GMT
Joke in the sense of the joke's on them.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Mar 29, 2019 21:07:51 GMT
"It's the economy, stupid."
This phrase by James Carville and later adopted by Bill Clinton, continues to haunt me. As long as the economy is booming, the people in power stay in power.
I have had raging arguments with French friends about this. I always observe that the majority of people are happy if they have a job, plenty to eat and sufficient video crap or whatever (gun shows, Indian casinos, bars...). My idealistic friends say that people are worried about freedom of speech, justice, equality. Since when?
No way to beat Trump with a full stomach and a job.
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Mar 29, 2019 22:06:59 GMT
Sorry to say you are absolutely right.
|
|
|
Post by casimira on Mar 30, 2019 13:56:03 GMT
I suppose that depends on your definition of "socialism". The scary Reds who are going to take away everything you have worked for, or the European social-democracy, which in ideal circumstances (not always the case, of course) provides universal health care, old age pensions, builds social housing and generally tries to combat inequality in the population. And doing so with high taxation. I have always found it ironic to read about the struggles for universal suffrage and that once it is achieved, so many people don't bother to vote. Sadly, this is a very real issue. There is so much ignorance about how people, and, people who vote, define and or perceive "socialism". This is reinforced by the conservative media to the point of out and out brainwashing. Rush Limbaugh uses every opportunity he can to drill into his listening audience how the movie The Lives of Others is what US citizens would be subjected to should the "socialists" gain control of the country. It's a scare tactic and many, many people fall for it. (Add to this frequent media headlines about social media sites like Facebook and allegations of how their personal information is being "hacked" which in their minds is the equivalent of "being listened in on".)
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Mar 30, 2019 14:46:03 GMT
I can’t fathom how people who are not nvested in the stock market (something like 75% of the US population) can take the Dow Industrial Average as the sole indicator of a booming economy....
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Mar 30, 2019 14:49:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Mar 30, 2019 15:01:10 GMT
I can’t fathom how people who aren’t invested in the stock market (something like 75% of the US population) can take the Dow Industrial Average as the sole indicator of a booming economy.... Or indeed the exchange rate. It takes a whole range of indicators, that often point in different directions (because some people do well, and some people don't). Or, come to that, property prices. I'm old enough to remember the attitude that you buy a home for security of tenure and a degree of freedom,and any capital gain is a lucky bonus.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Mar 30, 2019 15:45:51 GMT
I am a bit surprised that the Democratic party (just using the name since there is that unfortunate two party system) has not found a way to repackage social democracy to make it appealing to people who fear a plunge into evil communism. If it suddenly became a renaissance of "traditional American benevolence" I'm quite sure that people would find it more appealing, especially if it were wrapped up in the Golden Rule and other Christian dogma.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Mar 30, 2019 17:17:30 GMT
K2, perhaps we need you to come advise the party leaders!
And by the way, it apparently is no longer the “Democratic Party”. It has been re-christened by conservative talk radio and TV commentators the “Democrat Party”. I guess so we Dems don’t get any credit for a good thing like being democratic.
“Social Democrats” sounds a lot less scary than “Democratic Socialism”. But I doubt either would fly in ‘Murica anymore, since red-hating has become so ingrained, and most ‘Muricans can’t/won’t/don’t distinguish between socialism and communism.
Co-opting the Golden Rule might help, but really, so many are BLAMING the poor for their poverty, and white privilege is running rampant. If Donald Trump and Kiley (or is it Kourtney?) Kardashian are “self-made billionaires”, the rest of us whose surnames are ordinary and anonymous haven’t a chance.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Mar 30, 2019 17:21:26 GMT
Renaming the Democratic Party "Democrat" (which sounds rather ungrammatical), reminds me of the new far right party here that split off from the National Front (also renamed). The leader calls it Les Patriotes, the Patriots, as though everyone else in the country is unpatriotic.
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Apr 1, 2019 11:17:56 GMT
I am a bit surprised that the Democratic party (just using the name since there is that unfortunate two party system) has not found a way to repackage social democracy to make it appealing to people who fear a plunge into evil communism. If it suddenly became a renaissance of "traditional American benevolence" I'm quite sure that people would find it more appealing, especially if it were wrapped up in the Golden Rule and other Christian dogma. There's the parable of the Good Samaritan, or making something out of "Am I my brother's keeper?" (answer: Yes, we all are). It's an old saying that the British Labour Party owed more to Methodism than to Marx. But then there's the issue of identifying - to a much greater degree than over here - "government" as a priori something to be suspicious of - and working out why that is and how that suspicion might be overcome. I suspect the habit of constant ad hoc legislative tinkering with administrative detail might have something to do with it. My blog | My photos | My video clips | My Librivox recordings"too literate to be spam"
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Apr 3, 2019 13:42:40 GMT
French political analysts love fairy tales (unintentional off-colour pun), so now they are taking a look at the chances of Pete Buttigieg.
|
|