DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

ml1 said:

 

I guess my question should have been -- do we need to give up on all the progressive ideas and settle on a so-called "centrist" before there are even any declared candidates?

 The answer is NO!

This is a very interesting chart. It shows have often a Member of Congress votes "with Trump" and then compares it to the vote Trump got in that Congressperson's State.  According to that formula Sherrod Brown has the second best rating in the Senate.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

ml1 said:

LOST said:

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:
.

 do we really need to start compromising before there are even any declared candidates?

 well, yeah. What are the odds that you won't vote for the Dem in 2020?

 It's always a compromise, even if you write in your own name.
"Back in the day" we believed that "the only solution is revolution". Nowadays we compromise.

I guess my question should have been -- do we need to give up on all the progressive ideas and settle on a so-called "centrist" before there are even any declared candidates?

 Well, no. That's what the primaries are for. The way one thinks about voting for a primary candidate is very different (or should be anyway) that how you vote in the general.

nevermind...

We went to the taping of this weekend's "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" on NPR, which was at Carnegie Hall last night.  While on a riff that started with a Joe Biden quote that moved on to 2020 in general, one of the panelists said, "Can we mention Beto?"  That line got applause from the audience.  Not only that, since it was a taping and they re-do some lines for better audio to edit in, the panelist had to repeat the line later.  The audience recreated their applause.

Just an anecdote, read into it what you will.  Please remember that "Wait Wait" at Carnegie Hall is one big collection of news nerds.

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:
I guess my question should have been -- do we need to give up on all the progressive ideas and settle on a so-called "centrist" before there are even any declared candidates?

 Well, no. That's what the primaries are for. The way one thinks about voting for a primary candidate is very different (or should be anyway) that how you vote in the general.

That's how I read Mr. Drummerboy's post which started your discussion.

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:
I guess my question should have been -- do we need to give up on all the progressive ideas and settle on a so-called "centrist" before there are even any declared candidates?

 Well, no. That's what the primaries are for. The way one thinks about voting for a primary candidate is very different (or should be anyway) that how you vote in the general.

That's how I read Mr. Drummerboy's post which started your discussion.

 I interpreted it as -- if you are a progressive, prepare to be disappointed. So just suck it up. 

ml1 said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:
I guess my question should have been -- do we need to give up on all the progressive ideas and settle on a so-called "centrist" before there are even any declared candidates?

 Well, no. That's what the primaries are for. The way one thinks about voting for a primary candidate is very different (or should be anyway) that how you vote in the general.

That's how I read Mr. Drummerboy's post which started your discussion.

 I interpreted it as -- if you are a progressive, prepare to be disappointed. So just suck it up. 

 Not going to work this time.  This:

https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071472768644898816

And this:

https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071473970728198144

Finally, this!

https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071479190635966464

Don't say you have not been warned.

ml1 said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:
I guess my question should have been -- do we need to give up on all the progressive ideas and settle on a so-called "centrist" before there are even any declared candidates?

 Well, no. That's what the primaries are for. The way one thinks about voting for a primary candidate is very different (or should be anyway) that how you vote in the general.

That's how I read Mr. Drummerboy's post which started your discussion.

 I interpreted it as -- if you are a progressive, prepare to be disappointed. So just suck it up. 

 My post said nothing about ideology. It says that the odds that the primaries will produce your perfect candidate - whether you're a Conservative Dem, a Centrist Dem, or a Progressive Dem - are quite small. So whoever it is,  vote for them anyway. Instead of wasting your vote on Jill Stein.

nan said:

ml1 said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:
I guess my question should have been -- do we need to give up on all the progressive ideas and settle on a so-called "centrist" before there are even any declared candidates?

 Well, no. That's what the primaries are for. The way one thinks about voting for a primary candidate is very different (or should be anyway) that how you vote in the general.

That's how I read Mr. Drummerboy's post which started your discussion.

 I interpreted it as -- if you are a progressive, prepare to be disappointed. So just suck it up. 

 Not going to work this time.  This:
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071472768644898816


And this:
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071473970728198144


Finally, this!
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071479190635966464



Don't say you have not been warned.

 oooh. Words of wisdom and political prognostication from that well-known political maven Leighton Woodhouse. I'm impressed!   

drummerboy said:

nan said:

ml1 said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:
I guess my question should have been -- do we need to give up on all the progressive ideas and settle on a so-called "centrist" before there are even any declared candidates?

 Well, no. That's what the primaries are for. The way one thinks about voting for a primary candidate is very different (or should be anyway) that how you vote in the general.

That's how I read Mr. Drummerboy's post which started your discussion.

 I interpreted it as -- if you are a progressive, prepare to be disappointed. So just suck it up. 

 Not going to work this time.  This:
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071472768644898816


And this:
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071473970728198144


Finally, this!
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071479190635966464



Don't say you have not been warned.

 oooh. Words of wisdom and political prognostication from that well-known political maven Leighton Woodhouse. I'm impressed!   

One of them was retweeted about 1000 times, including by well-known people.  Not to be ignored.  Do you even know what is going on in France?  And I don't mean the CNN version.  

On what basis should I care what Leighton Woodhouse has to say on anything? (hint - the number of retweets is unimportant) Does he have some track record of being correct in his political predictions and analysis?

ETA: and is he some sort of expert on French politics? According to a comment in that thread, he can't even get the margin of victory for Marcon correctly.

drummerboy said:
On what basis should I care what Leighton Woodhouse has to say on anything? (hint - the number of retweets is unimportant) Does he have some track record of being correct in his political predictions and analysis?
ETA: and is he some sort of expert on French politics? According to a comment in that thread, he can't even get the margin of victory for Marcon correctly.

Maybe you need Glen Greenwald then, or a number of others who will be writing about this historic moment.  This is a huge deal.:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1071749924075831297

and

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1071750453443080193

Why would anyone care about what Greenwald has to say?  How is what he says a "huge deal"?

nan said:

drummerboy said:
On what basis should I care what Leighton Woodhouse has to say on anything? (hint - the number of retweets is unimportant) Does he have some track record of being correct in his political predictions and analysis?
ETA: and is he some sort of expert on French politics? According to a comment in that thread, he can't even get the margin of victory for Marcon correctly.

Maybe you need Glen Greenwald then, or a number of others who will be writing about this historic moment.  This is a huge deal.:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1071749924075831297
and


https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1071750453443080193

 LOL

Yeah Greenwald is my go to guy for all things political. Even if he's right, like that proverbial broken clock, he's not worth the time.

Ok, then.  Nothing to see or learn. My bad. Go back to CNN. They will instruct you properly. That revolution was just some dumb sefish peasants who don't care about the climate, and would never happen here. We just need to elect another centrist Democrat and we will be fine. No need to worry.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

ml1 said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:
I guess my question should have been -- do we need to give up on all the progressive ideas and settle on a so-called "centrist" before there are even any declared candidates?

 Well, no. That's what the primaries are for. The way one thinks about voting for a primary candidate is very different (or should be anyway) that how you vote in the general.

That's how I read Mr. Drummerboy's post which started your discussion.

 I interpreted it as -- if you are a progressive, prepare to be disappointed. So just suck it up. 

 Not going to work this time.  This:
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071472768644898816


And this:
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071473970728198144


Finally, this!
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071479190635966464



Don't say you have not been warned.

 oooh. Words of wisdom and political prognostication from that well-known political maven Leighton Woodhouse. I'm impressed!   

One of them was retweeted about 1000 times, including by well-known people.  Not to be ignored.  Do you even know what is going on in France?  And I don't mean the CNN version.  

Just because someone's tweet has been retweeted doesn't make it "not to be ignored".  If he was picked up "by well-known people", their followers could have retweeted it from the well-known follower's page.  But that doesn't add credibility.

Sometimes people retweet because the tweet has a link to an article or other information. Sometimes its a retweet from an expert in a field, commenting on his field.  Sometimes it's a politician, and it's useful information about the views of the politician.  People also retweet because it's an opinion they agree with.

This Woodhouse guy wrote (and was "retweeted about 1000 times"), "Democrats who think that the appropriate answer to Trump and hyper-polarization is a transcendent, "unifying" centrist candidate should be paying attention to what's happening in France."  That's an opinion, and really isn't a meaningful statement.  He doesn't back it up, even in the later tweets.  If he said it in a bar, nobody would shout, "Wow!  That's not to be ignored!"

France has a different system, where there's a run-off after the first round of the Presidential election.  Macron was the "middle", and got into the second round and won with something like 66% of the vote.  Since the "left" candidate didn't make it to the second round, if his supporters acted like Bernie supporters then France's president would now be the right-wing National Front racist.  I don't think what's happening in France tells us that no matter who the Democrats nominate against Trump in 2020, we shouldn't vote for that person instead of some third-party.

nan said:
Ok, then.  Nothing to see or learn. My bad. Go back to CNN. They will instruct you properly. That revolution was just some dumb sefish peasants who don't care about the climate, and would never happen here. We just need to elect another centrist Democrat and we will be fine. No need to worry.

Do you actually watch CNN?  If you did, you would understand, as do I, that the demonstrations are about more than the gas tax. That was the match that lit the fire.  And I get my news from a mix of CNN, WaPo, Yahoo and NPR.

Well, one thing in common between 2016 US election and the current problems in France is that the Russians actively interfered with both, to maximize chaos and instability and undermine trust in western style democracies. And I am pretty sure Putin did not have the working middle / lower class in mind when he was doing this. To slightly mis-quote Trump: this may be a good time for a good revolution in the Russian Federation.

basil said:
Well, one thing in common between 2016 US election and the current problems in France is that the Russians actively interfered with both, to maximize chaos and instability and undermine trust in western style democracies. And I am pretty sure Putin did not have the working middle / lower class in mind when he was doing this. To slightly mis-quote Trump: this may be a good time for a good revolution in the Russian Federation.

 Well that's "subforum" business, but I hope any political party would agree, going forward, that any such shenanigans should be watched out for. That goes double for "home grown" disinformation, like the "Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies" garbage discussed last week here. 

nan said:

 Not going to work this time.  This:
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071472768644898816


And this:
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071473970728198144


Finally, this!
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071479190635966464



Don't say you have not been warned.

 I do not understand the point unless it is that we should elect a Centrist like Macron so that the people will revolt against him/her and bring about a Socialist Revolution. That seems like a Marxist analysis. At least it's what happened in Russia. My history may be rusty but didn't they replace the Tsar with "centrist" Kerensky which led to the Bolshevik Revolution? 

LOST said:

nan said:

 Not going to work this time.  This:
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071472768644898816


And this:
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071473970728198144


Finally, this!
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071479190635966464



Don't say you have not been warned.

 I do not understand the point unless it is that we should elect a Centrist like Macron so that the people will revolt against him/her and bring about a Socialist Revolution. That seems like a Marxist analysis. At least it's what happened in Russia. My history may be rusty but didn't they replace the Tsar with "centrist" Kerensky which led to the Bolshevik Revolution? 

That plus a world war.

Also, the other problem is that a populist palatable to the cities and suburbs is not necessarily going to be palatable to rural areas.

How to deal with the left behind areas of the country?

LOST said:

nan said:

 Not going to work this time.  This:
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071472768644898816


And this:
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071473970728198144


Finally, this!
https://twitter.com/lwoodhouse/status/1071479190635966464



Don't say you have not been warned.

 I do not understand the point unless it is that we should elect a Centrist like Macron so that the people will revolt against him/her and bring about a Socialist Revolution. That seems like a Marxist analysis. At least it's what happened in Russia. My history may be rusty but didn't they replace the Tsar with "centrist" Kerensky which led to the Bolshevik Revolution? 

 No, that is 180 degrees from the point.  The point is that we should not just assume that a centrist candidate will be sufficient to avoid extreme unrest and attempted revolution.  Macron was looked upon as the "safe" centrist choice, and France having "dodged a bullet" by not electing LaPen (French Trump).  But, in neoliberal fashion (as we have here), he gave huge money to the rich and put the onus on the poor and they are now revolting.  

The message is don't think the centrist candidate is going to save you.

nan said:

The message is don't think the centrist candidate is going to save you.

If we're waiting for a candidate -- left, right, or center -- to save us, then we're in worse shape than I thought.

PVW said:

nan said:

The message is don't think the centrist candidate is going to save you.

If we're waiting for a candidate -- left, right, or center -- to save us, then we're in worse shape than I thought.

 Well that is the general belief--just vote Trump out and we will be fine--any blue will do.  People in France were very relived to have narrowly missed their version of Trump by electing their version of Hillary Clinton.  And then things went South anyway.  

But as for saving, what do you suggest, given unequal wealth inequality where a handful of people have all the money and power.  The people in France decided that since the leaders were representing the rich over the working people, they would take matters into their own hands.  So, they are no longer waiting for their candidate to save them.  They are taking back their power by protest and it might be another revolution.  Same thing could happen here.

basil said:
Well, one thing in common between 2016 US election and the current problems in France is that the Russians actively interfered with both, to maximize chaos and instability and undermine trust in western style democracies. And I am pretty sure Putin did not have the working middle / lower class in mind when he was doing this. To slightly mis-quote Trump: this may be a good time for a good revolution in the Russian Federation.

 This is NOT because of the Russians, although as usual that's the scapegoat.  Time to stop blaming the Russians for years of neoliberal policies and wealth inequality.  

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

The message is don't think the centrist candidate is going to save you.

If we're waiting for a candidate -- left, right, or center -- to save us, then we're in worse shape than I thought.

 Well that is the general belief--just vote Trump out and we will be fine--any blue will do.  People in France were very relived to have narrowly missed their version of Trump by electing their version of Hillary Clinton.  And then things went South anyway.  
But as for saving, what do you suggest, given unequal wealth inequality where a handful of people have all the money and power.  The people in France decided that since the leaders were representing the rich over the working people, they would take matters into their own hands.  So, they are no longer waiting for their candidate to save them.  They are taking back their power by protest and it might be another revolution.  Same thing could happen here.

See my previous post, on my view that elected leaders legitimize change but rarely lead it. What kind of change would LePen have legitimized, and was the fact that she fell short something to be relieved about? Why do you think the French election essentially came down to these two? Why didn't Mélenchon, for instance, have a stronger showing, in your view?

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

The message is don't think the centrist candidate is going to save you.

If we're waiting for a candidate -- left, right, or center -- to save us, then we're in worse shape than I thought.

 Well that is the general belief--just vote Trump out and we will be fine--any blue will do.  People in France were very relived to have narrowly missed their version of Trump by electing their version of Hillary Clinton.  And then things went South anyway.  
But as for saving, what do you suggest, given unequal wealth inequality where a handful of people have all the money and power.  The people in France decided that since the leaders were representing the rich over the working people, they would take matters into their own hands.  So, they are no longer waiting for their candidate to save them.  They are taking back their power by protest and it might be another revolution.  Same thing could happen here.

See my previous post, on my view that elected leaders legitimize change but rarely lead it. What kind of change would LePen have legitimized, and was the fact that she fell short something to be relieved about? Why do you think the French election essentially came down to these two? Why didn't Mélenchon, for instance, have a stronger showing, in your view?

 I don't know a lot about French elections, but there is a global pattern where power coalesces in the hands of a few and they put the squeeze (neoliberal austerity) on the middle-, working-class and poor.  People get angry and sometimes they are brainwashed to blame immigrants or Russia, or some other group and believe in a right-wing figure like Trump or LePen or in Poland.  Other times they go for a Progressive like that guy in Mexico or Corbyn (and others deposed by the CIA).  Other times they settle for the middle like Macron (who is like Clinton/Obama), but the anger is seething and ready to explode. In France, they have not seen protests like that for decades--it is a huge event that is not getting the coverage it should and will be historic.  I have been reading and thinking about these things and there is much to learn about what is going on elsewhere to understand what has happened here and where we might be heading.  

As I have said about Trump -- he is not the cause of our problems, but a symptom of a corrupt system in late stage capitalism. He does a lot of the same things Obama did, but he has ripped the decorum off and has no shame and no control.  Obama is part of the reason we ended up with Trump, so voting in another Obama or Clinton will not end many of our biggest problems. Trump might also win a second term against a candidate like that because people (outside of wealthy white suburbs) are very angry and desperate and poor. This is really a time for a new kind of candidate who will work on behalf of the voters, not the oligarchs and corporations.  

According to that recent climate report we have 12 years left to do something drastic.  On that alone, people need to demand better of their leaders.  Healthcare too is a crisis situation.  There really is no reason to tolerate any candidate who does not support Medicare for All and A Green New Deal. Candidates who don't are not on our side.  And that's just a minimum of what we need. 

Here is Macron's speech to the country. He apologizes profusely.  He canceled the new taxes, but did not reinstate the tax on the wealthy.  So, some are saying too little too late.  I was amazed that he said he did not know about the desperate situation of the French people.  How can you be so out of touch? Don't know what will happen next. 

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

The message is don't think the centrist candidate is going to save you.

If we're waiting for a candidate -- left, right, or center -- to save us, then we're in worse shape than I thought.

 Well that is the general belief--just vote Trump out and we will be fine--any blue will do.  People in France were very relived to have narrowly missed their version of Trump by electing their version of Hillary Clinton.  And then things went South anyway.  
But as for saving, what do you suggest, given unequal wealth inequality where a handful of people have all the money and power.  The people in France decided that since the leaders were representing the rich over the working people, they would take matters into their own hands.  So, they are no longer waiting for their candidate to save them.  They are taking back their power by protest and it might be another revolution.  Same thing could happen here.

See my previous post, on my view that elected leaders legitimize change but rarely lead it. What kind of change would LePen have legitimized, and was the fact that she fell short something to be relieved about? Why do you think the French election essentially came down to these two? Why didn't Mélenchon, for instance, have a stronger showing, in your view?

 I don't know a lot about French elections, but there is a global pattern where power coalesces in the hands of a few and they put the squeeze (neoliberal austerity) on the middle-, working-class and poor.  People get angry and sometimes they are brainwashed to blame immigrants or Russia, or some other group and believe in a right-wing figure like Trump or LePen or in Poland.  Other times they go for a Progressive like that guy in Mexico or Corbyn (and others deposed by the CIA).  Other times they settle for the middle like Macron (who is like Clinton/Obama), but the anger is seething and ready to explode. In France, they have not seen protests like that for decades--it is a huge event that is not getting the coverage it should and will be historic.  I have been reading and thinking about these things and there is much to learn about what is going on elsewhere to understand what has happened here and where we might be heading.  
As I have said about Trump -- he is not the cause of our problems, but a symptom of a corrupt system in late stage capitalism. He does a lot of the same things Obama did, but he has ripped the decorum off and has no shame and no control.  Obama is part of the reason we ended up with Trump, so voting in another Obama or Clinton will not end many of our biggest problems. Trump might also win a second term against a candidate like that because people (outside of wealthy white suburbs) are very angry and desperate and poor. This is really a time for a new kind of candidate who will work on behalf of the voters, not the oligarchs and corporations.  
According to that recent climate report we have 12 years left to do something drastic.  On that alone, people need to demand better of their leaders.  Healthcare too is a crisis situation.  There really is no reason to tolerate any candidate who does not support Medicare for All and A Green New Deal. Candidates who don't are not on our side.  And that's just a minimum of what we need. 

 I can't possibly correct all of the nonsense in your post, but I'll take a whack at a couple of things.

Do you not understand that if it wasn't for Obama and Pelosi and Reid and the ACA, that we would not be talking about the possibility of Medicare for All today? 

They say "You're welcome", by the way.

As for Obama leading to Trump - you only think that because you are still under the very mistaken conclusion that economics drove Trump's "win". This has been dis-proven probably a dozen different ways by now. But you will continue to believe it, and because of that, all of your analysis will be wrong.