I don't think ANYBODY has a complete handle on the ultimate costs, nor on how to relate them to the projected benefits, of a "Green New Deal". I'm more interested in whether a candidate is open to the idea of investment (don't call it spending, call investment) aimed to improve environmental quality, and open to the idea that such investment is worth it in the long run. If their on board with that, I think it's silly for people to argue over which one of them is more "Green New Deal-y" than another.
The GOP has made it clear that it's not interested in any project like that. Pointed out that difference is more productive than Democratic infighting.
Klinker said:
What I have heard from AOC on domestic policy seems both knowledgeable and reasonable. I doubt many people voted for her because they thought she was going to solve the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
That's Jared Kushner's job.
LOST said:
Klinker said:That's Jared Kushner's job.
What I have heard from AOC on domestic policy seems both knowledgeable and reasonable. I doubt many people voted for her because they thought she was going to solve the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
Yeah, according to himself he came out with a plan that is still secret, but it will be revealed within a month, and everyone is going to love it, except one party may not initially like it very much.
I have an alternative plan: stop aide to all actors in that theatre, and see how it plays out.
I was reading somewhere that these early polls on Presidential candidates are pretty good predictors of who will end up running, but they are not good predictors of who will ultimately win at all.
Poll of Iowa Caucus goers has Joe Biden way ahead.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/15/iowa-poll-biden-2020-democrats-1066661
LOST said:
Of course the Caucus is 14 months from now, Feb. 3, 2020.
So, who knows?
According to the actuarial tables, there is a 4% chance Biden will be dead in a year.
Klinker said:
LOST said:According to the actuarial tables, there is a 4% chance Biden will be dead in a year.
Of course the Caucus is 14 months from now, Feb. 3, 2020.
So, who knows?
Is that for a 76 year old from the general population? Or is that already taking into account that he has good healthcare?
basil said:
I was reading somewhere that these early polls on Presidential candidates are pretty good predictors of who will end up running, but they are not good predictors of who will ultimately win at all.
I think President Giuliani would dispute that.
Candidates who have already filed (or formed an exploratory committee) are here:
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020
I don't remember Delaney announcing, but it was over a year ago and probably didn't register in my brain.
ml1 said:
basil said:I think President Giuliani would dispute that.
I was reading somewhere that these early polls on Presidential candidates are pretty good predictors of who will end up running, but they are not good predictors of who will ultimately win at all.
Exactly. But talking about Giuliani, did he like get addicted to drugs or something? He sounds like a complete idiot every time he opens his mouth. He wasn't like that when he was NY mayor was he? Or were we just more used to it then?
I don't plan on spending much time in this thread, where I got personally attacked unfairly and banned for expressing non-establishment views. However, I wanted to share an article, about the importance of supporting a left-populist candidate, that more articulately states the case I was trying to make. The mainstream media will manufacture consent based on their preference for an establishment candidate or even a right-wing fascist, because they support the elite. Also, how the yellow vests are an important cautionary tale that has not been represented in a fair or insightful way. Candidates who support"neoliberal capitalism" will likely lead back to a right-wing populist like Trump to succeed them. He is part of a global phenomenon, not a one-off.
LOST said:
The list grows:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/24/bob-casey-2020-pennsylvania-clinton-1074811
At this point in time, the more the merrier. But once primaries get underway and a winner emerges (or actually becomes the nominee) there should be no sour losers.
I like Bernie's message, but after Hillary won the nomination he wasn't exactly whole-heartedly endorsing her, which very well may have cost her the election (we can never know for sure of course). That is actually what disqualifies him in my book.
nan said:
I don't plan on spending much time in this thread, where I got personally attacked unfairly and banned for expressing non-establishment views. However, I wanted to share an article, about the importance of supporting a left-populist candidate, that more articulately states the case I was trying to make. The mainstream media will manufacture consent based on their preference for an establishment candidate or even a right-wing fascist, because they support the elite. Also, how the yellow vests are an important cautionary tale that has not been represented in a fair or insightful way. Candidates who support"neoliberal capitalism" will likely lead back to a right-wing populist like Trump to succeed them. He is part of a global phenomenon, not a one-off.
Two Populisms, Not One
I read the article. Here's a description of populism by a self-proclaimed Populist and potential Presidential Candidate:
Brown is more of a Populist wannabe. Street's article is very specific about what a left-leaning populist would look like:
A left-leaning social-democratic “progressive populism” targets the capitalist concentration of wealth and power and the unbridled pursuit of private profit as enemies of the people and the common good. This populism is egalitarian and radically democratic. It tends towards socialism. Its attractive policy agenda, supported by working-class majorities, includes the downward distribution of wealth, the expansion of the social safety net, university quality health care, increased minimum wages and union power, public jobs programs, and the protection of livable ecology (a Green New Deal). Its diverse political figureheads include Jeremy Corbyn (leader of the British Labour Party), Jean-Luc Melenchon (head of La France Insoumie), Yanis Varourfakis (leader of the new Progressive International), and even Bernie Sanders.
Sherwood Brown's description of populism does not acknowledge the existence of right-wing populism. He lists Trump/Bannon/Le Pen and then writes on why they are not populists. But they are populists--just not on the left.
So he goes on to frame what a populist is in terms of what it is supposedly not and does not list any specific policies he would support like Medicare for All or a Green New Deal. He says he will build the economy from the "middle class out" but that is very vague and what about the poor? He does not challenge the system which created the inequality--he just speaks in terms of identity politics, and things like speaking out against a church shooting. LIke that makes you a populist? He talks about people signing a union contract, but he does not say he wants to strengthen unions--in short very sketchy. Fine sounding words but what specific polices does he support? I looked on his webpage under Issues and he does not list Medicare for All, Free College, A Green New Deal, a Living Wage, prison reform. Mostly just more testimony about how much he cares.
At this point, not even close to passing a basic litmus test for a populist.
Donald Trump is a populist. So are Marine Le Pen and Steve Bannon.
Really?
Populism does not divide our society into these people here or those people over there. It doesn’t fan resentments and exploit grievances. Populism never excludes based on race or gender or religion. It doesn’t appeal to some by pushing others down; it embraces everyone.
Populism speaks out against a church shooting, or a threat against a Jewish center, or the bombing of a mosque. A populist stands in solidarity against all acts of hate.
Populism is a belief that you build the economy from the middle class out, not by demanding tax cuts for the most affluent, with the long-discredited argument that prosperity will trickle down.
Populism is a trade policy that puts American workers and small businesses first, but never pits foreign workers against our country’s workers. We never confuse populism and jingoism.
Populism doesn’t preach hate. Populism preaches hope — hope that all workers will have the opportunity to build better lives for their families. I hear that same hope all over Ohio, from the young, diverse workers at a software company outside of Cleveland, to coal country, where people aren’t willing to give up on their hometowns.
I heard it in Cincinnati, where I met with janitors who had just signed their first union contract. One woman told me this was the first time in her 30 years of working she would be able to take a one-week paid vacation.
A true populist looks out for people like her, because populism values work and it respects the people who do it — every last one of them. Our society doesn’t value work the way we once did; Americans work harder and have less to show for it.
If you want to call yourself a populist, you better be ready to stick up for the little guy — whether she punches a time clock or earns tips. Whether she works in a call center or a hospital or on a factory floor. Whether he is a contract worker or a temp.
And you better be willing to be straight with the people you serve. A true populist tells the truth, because she respects people’s intelligence.
Of course we’ve always had cynical politicians. They — and the media that cover them too — often confuse popularity with populism. Populism and popularity may share the same Latin root, but not the same political home. An opportunist politician divides people and kowtows to the powerful. He spreads blame instead of solutions, and lies about bringing back an idyllic past that never was. And he often treats those with less power and privilege with disdain.
In Matthew 25, Jesus said, “When I was hungry you gave me food. When I was thirsty, you gave me drink. When I was naked, you clothed me. When I was sick, you visited me. … What you did for the least of these, you did . . . .”
Wait. Not exactly. Jesus would never have said that one human being is less than any other. Certainly Mohammed or Moses or Gandhi would never have preached that the worth of one human being is greater than the value of another.
In the translation published by the American Bible Society, the Poverty and Justice Bible, Jesus said, “What you did for those who seemed less important, you did for me.”
A populist recognizes that no one is less important or of less value. That’s the heart of populism: respect for all people — their work, their dignity, their intelligence. Our spiritual leaders embrace everyone. So must we.
nan said:
I don't plan on spending much time in this thread
I totally agree
Ugh - nan is such a buzzkill in this thread - I apologize to everyone. I keep thinking she'll get into the debate like we were the week without her. Instead she comes back and hijacks the thread.
Let's face it - nan won't talk well of anyone's candidates unless their last name is Stein or Sanders - and will find fault and bash whoever the MSM is promoting.
I did a search - and it looks like Eric Holder hasn't come up on this thread.
He's doing good work with Obama on fighting against gerrymandering.
Thoughts?
jamie said:
Ugh - nan is such a buzzkill in this thread - I apologize to everyone. I keep thinking she'll get into the debate like we were the week without her. Instead she comes back and hijacks the thread.
Let's face it - nan won't talk well of anyone's candidates unless their last name is Stein or Sanders - and will find fault and bash whoever the MSM is promoting.
Obviously, anyone not agreeing on this thread is not welcome. I will leave again. I put in the link to an interesting article about global Progressive trends. Now you can all just get back to discussing the candidates who are all variations on one theme.
As a parting gift, I will post a bonus link to one more article related to the 2020 election (On Topic!!!):
Corporate Democrats Are Already Punching Left Ahead of 2020
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/corporate-democrats-are-already-punching-left-ahead-of-2020/
Well-informed public discussion is a major hazard for Democratic Party elites now eager to prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the 2020 presidential nomination. A clear focus on key issues can bring to light the big political differences between Sanders and the party’s corporate-friendly candidates. One way to muddy the waters is to condemn people for pointing out facts that make those candidates look bad.
jamie said:
I did a search - and it looks like Eric Holder hasn't come up on this thread.
He's doing good work with Obama on fighting against gerrymandering.
Thoughts?
Holder might be able to go to toe with Trump. Could be a very entertaining series of debates. Two guys from NYC will get a lot of people in the tri state area out to vote.
What I would hate to see is the divide among the Obama crew, if so many of them decide to run. which will only give fodder to Tweety bird during the primaries.
It's going to be a real scrum. Bernie's first task appears to be dumping on Beto, since he would view him as a threat.
But unlike recent primaries when a second-place finisher ran again and won the nomination, such as with John McCain in 2008 or Mrs. Clinton in 2016, there has been no rush of new support to Mr. Sanders ahead of his formal announcement. Instead, the early maneuvering is striking for the large numbers of officeholders, activists and voters who want to wait to see how the Democratic race develops. And that roster of progressives includes many who backed Mr. Sanders two years ago.
…
Perhaps nowhere is his success more evident than in the lineup of other presidential candidates. Two other lawmakers who backed Mr. Sanders last time, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, are both moving toward long-shot, populist bids of their own.
And that is to say nothing of Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who watched as Mr. Sanders occupied the progressive lane that some on the left had hoped she would fill against Mrs. Clinton in 2016; or, for that matter, Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas, whose unvarnished appeals on the stump and refusal to take PAC money in his Senate campaign this year recalled Mr. Sanders’s approach.
The other potential candidates pose a more practical threat to Mr. Sanders: They may also absorb some of his former campaign aides.
While he would retain the same senior team, Mr. Sanders may suffer defections among some key staffers who worked for him in 2016.
For example, Symone Sanders, his former press secretary (who is not related to the senator), said she may work for one of Mr. Sanders’s opponents.
“There are a lot of good candidates this time,” Ms. Sanders said. “I’m going to wait and see.”
Further, the political consulting firm led by three of Mr. Sanders’s top digital aides from the last campaign — Kenneth Pennington, Hector Sigala and Elizabeth Bennett — worked for Mr. O’Rourke’s Senate bid and are hoping to work on his presidential campaign should he run, according to a Democratic strategist familiar with the firm’s thinking.
Two veterans of Mr. Sanders’s 2016 campaign, Becky Bond and Zack Malitz, were instrumental this year in helping to organize Mr. O’Rourke’s race against Senator Ted Cruz. Both said they are eager to be a part of any “Beto for President’’ effort.
“I don’t know if Beto is going to run, but if he does I’m all in,” said Ms. Bond.
Mr. Malitz added: “I want Beto to run and would want to work on that campaign.”
But it is not just lawmakers, strategists and potential staff members who are hanging back from Mr. Sanders: Some of his supporters in early nominating states are doing the same, in part because they do not want to litigate the divisive 2016 primary again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-president-2020.html
How is Beto a threat to Bernie? They have little if anything in common. Bernie supporters would not switch to Beto, a standard issue corporate Dem. Candidates like Beto are why people support Bernie.
leather couches $300
More info
Multi Family Garage Sale Sale Date: Apr 20, 2024
More info
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
What I have heard from AOC on domestic policy seems both knowledgeable and reasonable. I doubt many people voted for her because they thought she was going to solve the Arab-Israeli Conflict.