US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

I did read what you said. Does it really matter what people say? They don't have any special insight into why other voters made the choices they did? It's not that we're convinced by our own opinions, we just know that the fears of some female voters on the ground don't tell us much more than their own fears. It is patently obvious why black voters voted for Biden, and it's pretty obvious why that fed back into voters in general. Their number one priority is getting rid of Trump. Warren didn't lose because she's a woman. She lost because it was more important to her to take out an opponent than to win. She lost because she completely mis read the moment. Voters are not looking for revolutionary policies. THEY WANT TRUMP OUT. It's that simple. I think it's a disservice to women to use that excuse for her. How crazy would it be if Corey Booker was saying that the reason why he got no funding was because he was black?

Well, it does matter what people say as an insight into their own choices. And if you hear it over and over again, you start to see a pattern. So it doesn't matter to you what these voters say, only what you say. Fine.

 

[Federberg]

Well, it does matter what people say as an insight into their own choices. And if you hear it over and over again, you start to see a pattern. So it doesn't matter to you what these voters say, only what you say. Fine.

Not what I say. What they do. And the reasons they give for what they do

 

[Moxie]

Not what I say. What they do. And the reasons they give for what they do

So despite what they say, you'll go on believing what you want? You know Corey Booker being black isn't a good parallel, because a black man has been president. You won't believe me, apparently, but women in particular felt really burned by the last election. I don't know why you broker no nuance in the reason Warren did so poorly, even though she was actually long seen as a rising star in the party. I never said she didn't make mistakes, mind you.

 

[tented]

So despite what they say, you'll go on believing what you want? You know Corey Booker being black isn't a good parallel, because a black man has been president. You won't believe me, apparently, but women in particular felt really burned by the last election. I don't know why you broker no nuance in the reason Warren did so poorly, even though she was actually long seen as a rising star in the party. I never said she didn't make mistakes, mind you.

Yes, she’s out, but so are Tom Steyer, John Delaney, Michael Bennet, Duval Patrick, Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg, and Michael Bloomberg. If a noteworthy element concerning Warren being out is because she’s a woman, she would have been out long before all of these men who did worse than her. In fact, Klobuchar also did better than most of these men.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Yes, she’s out, but so are Tom Steyer, John Delaney, Michael Bennet, Duval Patrick, Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg, and Michael Bloomberg. If a noteworthy element concerning Warren being out is because she’s a woman, she would have been out long before all of these men who did worse than her. In fact, Klobuchar also did better than most of these men.

Trump proved most debates are useless events

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Curious to know what you think the "women" card is, and how Klobachar played it. Asking sincerely.

Come on, you know exactly what I mean. Women card is the argument that hey the country never had a woman president, I am a woman, make me the president. Amy indulged in it heavily. Warren did not play that much. Warren was mostly focused on policies.

 

[calitennis127]

It is patently obvious why black voters voted for Biden, and it's pretty obvious why that fed back into voters in general. Their number one priority is getting rid of Trump.

Their number one priority is getting rid of any Republican in power, Trump or otherwise. It's not just about Trump. It is absolutely hilarious how you superimpose your own views on others and attribute your own motivations to them to bolster your argument. You are perhaps the quintessential example of white left-wing presumptuousness where you put words in the mouths of others that are actually your own words in order to prove that your version of reality has to be correct.

Warren didn't lose because she's a woman. She lost because it was more important to her to take out an opponent than to win. She lost because she completely mis read the moment. Voters are not looking for revolutionary policies. THEY WANT TRUMP OUT. It's that simple.

No it's not. The Bernie wing of the Democratic Party is deeply committed to a certain economic agenda that they passionately believe in. They are highly antagonistic to the Democratic Party establishment and the economic elites (Wall Street, billionaires, etc.) as well as to Trump. Again, this is you superimposing your own feelings on others because you can't help yourself. You have no self-control in this regard. If you want something to happen you insist that everyone must feel the same way you do about things. You want Trump out badly so you assume that's all the Democratic electorate wants. As always, you are genuinely clueless about American politics.

The more pertinent reasons for why Warren lost are this:

1) The economic radicalism of the party resides with Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez. Sanders it the progenitor of that movement and neither Warren nor anyone else can steal his thunder because he was the original.

2) As a boring, dorky little white woman, Warren has zero appeal among black voters. She is a white nerd with simply no aesthetic or stylistic appeal. She has a mullet haircut and stomps around like a frail little elementary school teacher trying to straighten out the 1st graders.

3) Her record of lying about her personal history, from being a Native American to getting fired for being pregnant. This made many voters skeptical about how she would withstand Republican attacks in the general.

You're welcome Federberg.

I'm always glad to explain these things to you.

How crazy would it be if Corey Booker was saying that the reason why he got no funding was because he was black?

It would be crazy but not for the reason you are insinuating. Booker is one of the whitest robots I have ever seen in my life, which makes sense being that he grew up in a 90% white, 1% black town. For him to claim "blackness" as his cultural identity is preposterous. Both of his parents were IBM executives and he grew up in an all-white town. He has no cultural connection to black America at all. His life experience is totally different than the average black experience.

 

[calitennis127]

I don't really see that the debates matter anymore to the general election. Hilary wiped the floor with Trump in most of their debates.

No she didn't, lol. She simply recited cliches that you find palatable. Trump actually spun the campaign in his fever with a dominant performance in the second debate, which came just two days after the Access Hollywood tapes were released.

His loose relationship with the truth makes him nearly impossible to debate, anyway.

Yeah, absolutely, as if you know what the truth is. The "truth" is totally on your side, totally. Like the "truth" that everyone just knew in January 2017 that Donald Trump urinated on prostitutes in Moscow because the dossier said that's what happened, only for the Horowitz report to come out in December 2019 and completely obliterate that narrative.

Yeah Moxie, the "truth." The Washington Post-manufactured "truth." That is Truth with a capital T, and you know it. You a big girl. You stand for TRUTH!

Until we stop living in this "post-truth" world with Trump, it won't matter how weak or strong a debater or even candidate the Dems put up.

Yeah, exactly right again. Once Americans get back to fully respecting CNN and MSNBC and other venerable institutions that touted Michael Avenatti for president, said that Jussie Smollett was beaten up by Trump supporters in Chicago, and insisted that the dossier was true - once we can get back to acknolwedging these and many other truths - then debates will matter again. You are so right.

Trump and the Republicans will drag out all the dirty tricks to take them down.

Yeah, that's what Republicans do, but Democrats would never do anything like that. Donna Brazile cheating to assist Hillary in a debate or Hillary funding the dossier to spread lies about Trump weren't dirty tricks at all. Only Republicans engage in dirty tricks.

You are so right again. You really have a great grasp on the TRUTH.

 

[calitennis127]

Regarding coronavirus.....Trump is absolutely right (yet again) that the Democrats are mainly interested in exploiting it for political advantage.

How we do know this? Well, compare the hype around coronavirus with how the media treated the swine flu (H1N1) in 2009 when Obama was president. Between April 2009 and October 2009, there were 20,000 Americans hospitalized and over 1,000 deaths, yet the stock market went up during that period. That is because the American media scum were not trying to use it to destroy Obama like they are Trump.

And here are some more numbers for perspective, from the CDC:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that swine flu infected nearly 61 million people in the United States and caused 12,469 deaths. Worldwide, up to 575,400 people died from pandemic swine flu. "

Chances are that coronavirus won't cause this many deaths but the hype about it has been so much greater because the American media scum happen to hate the president who is in power while it is happening and they want to take Trump's economic argument for re-election away from him.

Does the H1N1 Virus Still Exist?

The H1N1 flu, also known as the swine flu, is a type of influenza A virus. A new strain began circulating during the 2009–2010 flu season. Here’s what you need to know.

www.verywellhealth.com

 

[calitennis127]

Wow, look at the new jobs report. What a great job the Trump administration is doing with the economy. No wonder so many Democrats resent him. They know none of their candidates could manage the economy this well!

Job growth smashes expectations for February as unemployment falls back to 3.5%

Job growth smashes expectations for February as unemployment falls back to 3.5%

The Labor Department reported Friday that the U.S. economy added 273,000 new jobs during the month, while the unemployment rate was 3.5%.

www.cnbc.com

 

[calitennis127]

From the Bernie Sanders-supporting, Trump-hating Youtube channel "The Young Turk." Food for thought:

Why Joe Biden Will LOSE To Trump

 

[Federberg]

^I see you've decided to make an appearance like a bad case of corona virus...

 

[calitennis127]

^I see you've decided to make an appearance like a bad case of corona virus...

As usual no substantive reply from the guy who thinks that black voters in the United States have the exact same attitudes that he does.

 

[Jelenafan]

Gloomy Michigan scenario prediction for Bernie:

Michigan Was Once Bernie’s Resurrection. Now It Could Be His Burial.

The biggest prize of Tuesday's primary contests is shaping up to be far unfriendlier to Sanders this time around.

www.politico.com

This excerpt speculates that his 2016 Michigan victory was more a reflection of HRC's weaknesses than Bernie's bringing a new larger coalition:

"Clinton’s loss to Sanders in Michigan resembled a giant, mitten-shaped red flag. She won only 28 percent of self-described independents. She performed just as dismally among young voters, winning 32 percent of those under age 45. She was beaten in rural and exurban counties across the state, losing whites without a college degree by 15 percentage points. Even Clinton’s 40-point victory among black voters couldn’t make up for these deficits, because turnout of black voters—as with Democratic turnout across the board—was so underwhelming. (There were 130,000 more votes cast in the GOP primary, a fact Democrats shrugged off at the time.) "

 

[El Dude]

I haven't read more than the last few posts, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

I have no doubt that sexism is a factor in politics, as in most factors of life. But I do not think that's not the main reason Warren's campaign failed, or even a significant factor. I see it more as a combination of several factors:

1. She started out progressive, and pivoted more to the center. In particular:
2. She backed off on Medicare for All, offering a convoluted plan.
3. She's a quintessential New England white academic, so had limited appeal to people of color and working class whites. In other words, she's a Chardonnay liberal.
4. She back-stabbed Bernie with a rather dubious accusation of sexism, as well as other slights on him, despite him treating her with respect.
5. She has a long history of little lies, which damaged her credibility.
6. She hired Clintonian strategists and began taking Super PAC money with a hidden donor list, while still Bernie and others of PAC money.

Four years ago, like Bernie Sanders, I wanted Warren to run. I thought she was intelligent, balanced, and progressive enough to excite the left, but not so "pinko" to scare off moderates. When she didn't endorse Bernie, especially on the even of the Massachusetts primary which could have strengthened his candidacy greatly, I started having doubts. Those doubts have increased over the last year, for the reasons above.

The fact that she has not endorses Bernie, and instead still criticizes him, confirms all of the doubts that progressives have about her. Both that she's a lukewarm progressive, but more so that she would let her political aspirations and wounded ego damage the progressive movement. I'm not totally closed to her; maybe she's playing the long game and wants to be Bernie's or Biden's VP, and if the latter find a way to institute more progressive policies while Biden plays the increasingly senile Uncle Joe figurehead. But that's a charitable reading of her.

In short, her fall is easily explainable without even touching on sexism. Or rather, the element of sexism that is a major factor is her disingenuous levering of identity politics against the guy who should be her strongest ally and has treated her as a friend. I mean, that moment when she chastised him on a hot mic and wouldn't shake his hand was just deplorable. She dug her own grave.

 

[Federberg]

Gloomy Michigan scenario prediction for Bernie:

Michigan Was Once Bernie’s Resurrection. Now It Could Be His Burial.

The biggest prize of Tuesday's primary contests is shaping up to be far unfriendlier to Sanders this time around.

www.politico.com

This excerpt speculates that his 2016 Michigan victory was more a reflection of HRC's weaknesses than Bernie's bringing a new larger coalition:

"Clinton’s loss to Sanders in Michigan resembled a giant, mitten-shaped red flag. She won only 28 percent of self-described independents. She performed just as dismally among young voters, winning 32 percent of those under age 45. She was beaten in rural and exurban counties across the state, losing whites without a college degree by 15 percentage points. Even Clinton’s 40-point victory among black voters couldn’t make up for these deficits, because turnout of black voters—as with Democratic turnout across the board—was so underwhelming. (There were 130,000 more votes cast in the GOP primary, a fact Democrats shrugged off at the time.) "

yup. I made this point earlier. It's becoming increasingly clear that a large part of Bernie's success in 2016 was antipathy to HRC. I wonder if he'll do the right thing and quit if he gets a proper beating today. I hope so, but I doubt it. It seems being an insurgent is more important to him than beating Trump

 

[tented]

I haven't read more than the last few posts, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

I have no doubt that sexism is a factor in politics, as in most factors of life. But I do not think that's not the main reason Warren's campaign failed, or even a significant factor. I see it more as a combination of several factors:

1. She started out progressive, and pivoted more to the center. In particular:
2. She backed off on Medicare for All, offering a convoluted plan.
3. She's a quintessential New England white academic, so had limited appeal to people of color and working class whites. In other words, she's a Chardonnay liberal.
4. She back-stabbed Bernie with a rather dubious accusation of sexism, as well as other slights on him, despite him treating her with respect.
5. She has a long history of little lies, which damaged her credibility.
6. She hired Clintonian strategists and began taking Super PAC money with a hidden donor list, while still Bernie and others of PAC money.

Four years ago, like Bernie Sanders, I wanted Warren to run. I thought she was intelligent, balanced, and progressive enough to excite the left, but not so "pinko" to scare off moderates. When she didn't endorse Bernie, especially on the even of the Massachusetts primary which could have strengthened his candidacy greatly, I started having doubts. Those doubts have increased over the last year, for the reasons above.

The fact that she has not endorses Bernie, and instead still criticizes him, confirms all of the doubts that progressives have about her. Both that she's a lukewarm progressive, but more so that she would let her political aspirations and wounded ego damage the progressive movement. I'm not totally closed to her; maybe she's playing the long game and wants to be Bernie's or Biden's VP, and if the latter find a way to institute more progressive policies while Biden plays the increasingly senile Uncle Joe figurehead. But that's a charitable reading of her.

In short, her fall is easily explainable without even touching on sexism. Or rather, the element of sexism that is a major factor is her disingenuous levering of identity politics against the guy who should be her strongest ally and has treated her as a friend. I mean, that moment when she chastised him on a hot mic and wouldn't shake his hand was just deplorable. She dug her own grave.

And, let’s face it: Warren had the same chance as every other candidate of getting sufficient votes from women to win. But she didn’t. If anything, it could be argued that it was women who made her lose.

 

[Federberg]

I thought this was a good piece....

[TD valign="middle"]

[TD valign="middle"]By David Leonhardt
Opinion Columnist[/TD]

[/TD]

A poll conducted last year by NPR, PBS NewsHour and Marist College showed just how liberal self-identified Democrats have become. Most supported eliminating the death penalty, replacing private health insurance with Medicare and extending federal health benefits to undocumented immigrants. Almost 50 percent supported decriminalizing the border.

These are the kind of positions that the most progressive candidates in the presidential campaign, like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, supported. Yet Warren failed to win a single contest, and Sanders now looks like an underdog to Joe Biden.

So what happened?

My new column tries to answer this question. The short answer is that I think many Democratic voters have a more realistic view of politics than progressive candidates and activists do. These voters are more attracted to candidates who are likely to win — that is, whose views are in tune with the entire country — than to candidates with whom they have perfect policy agreement. Each of the policy positions I mentioned at the start of today’s newsletter is unpopular with most Americans.

If the left wing of the Democratic Party wants to stop losing elections — both to moderate Democrats and to Republicans — it needs to start caring more about winning. That will involve a less wishful view of public opinion. It will involve a version of progressivism that is willing to make at least a couple of strategic compromises. And those compromises don’t mean that progressives need to turn into moderates, I argue.

 

[Federberg]

Am I the only one now coming to conclusion that Bernie was just an anti-establishment protest vote in 2016, when Dems didn't think Trump could win? He should do the honourable thing and just beg out now, otherwise he'll actually do damage to his movement

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Am I the only one now coming to conclusion that Bernie was just an anti-establishment protest vote in 2016, when Dems didn't think Trump could win? He should do the honourable thing and just beg out now, otherwise he'll actually do damage to his movement

While anti-establishment factor was indeed there, it is impossible to deny Bernie has his own movement (as you yourself admit).

Bernie is not going to concede soon. He wants to debate again. This debate will be interesting with just two people and Joe often forgetting what is the current context (or who is his wife and who is his sister). If Bernie pulls a debate win, he may have a mild resurgence.

In the meantime, the establishment might want to kill all the remaining debates and perhaps use Corona virus for that purpose also. Next debate is scheduled to go on, but without audience.