2020 Elections

[secundem_artem]

My Sanders colleagues and friends (both here and online) are claiming that they're all voting for Trump.

This is a fascinating glimpse into the power of populism, regardless of ideology. I don't think many people would have imagined this kind of thing even 10 years ago.

It's not really that surprising.  A big chunk of Obama voters went for Trump the last time out.  Hope and Change v1.0 did not work for them (and they hated Hillary's guts) so they went for Hope and Change v2.0 with Trump. 

I thought in 2016 that both Sanders and Trump were talking to the same voters - they just blamed different causes for the situation in which those voters found themselves.  A thought experiment I had at the time was what would have happened if we had a Trump/Sanders ticket.

[ciao_yall]

I thought in 2016 that both Sanders and Trump were talking to the same voters - they just blamed different causes for the situation in which those voters found themselves.  A thought experiment I had at the time was what would have happened if we had a Trump/Sanders ticket.

Early on they were very similar. Anti-global trade, anti-immigrant, even both talking about raising certain taxes.

The difference in 2016 was Globalists (Clinton, plus other moderate R's and D's) and Nationalists (Trump, Sanders, labor unions).

[Diogenes]

I thought in 2016 that both Sanders and Trump were talking to the same voters - they just blamed different causes for the situation in which those voters found themselves.  A thought experiment I had at the time was what would have happened if we had a Trump/Sanders ticket.

Early on they were very similar. Anti-global trade, anti-immigrant, even both talking about raising certain taxes.

The difference in 2016 was Globalists (Clinton, plus other moderate R's and D's) and Nationalists (Trump, Sanders, labor unions).

Trump may very well be a Nationalist but unions and Sanders are not. I think Isolationist is a more appropriate term. 

[marshwiggle]

I thought in 2016 that both Sanders and Trump were talking to the same voters - they just blamed different causes for the situation in which those voters found themselves.  A thought experiment I had at the time was what would have happened if we had a Trump/Sanders ticket.

Early on they were very similar. Anti-global trade, anti-immigrant, even both talking about raising certain taxes.

The difference in 2016 was Globalists (Clinton, plus other moderate R's and D's) and Nationalists (Trump, Sanders, labor unions).

Trump may very well be a Nationalist but unions and Sanders are not. I think Isolationist is a more appropriate term.

So would voters who would have considered both Sanders and Trump be "deplorables" or not?

[mahagonny]

I thought in 2016 that both Sanders and Trump were talking to the same voters - they just blamed different causes for the situation in which those voters found themselves.  A thought experiment I had at the time was what would have happened if we had a Trump/Sanders ticket.

Early on they were very similar. Anti-global trade, anti-immigrant, even both talking about raising certain taxes.

The difference in 2016 was Globalists (Clinton, plus other moderate R's and D's) and Nationalists (Trump, Sanders, labor unions).

Trump may very well be a Nationalist but unions and Sanders are not. I think Isolationist is a more appropriate term.

So would voters who would have considered both Sanders and Trump be "deplorables" or not?

And how about college administrators who were democratic party elected officials building their career with support from unions? They are now opposing adjunct faculty unions and they love having a steady supply of cheap disenfranchised labor unable to fight anti-labor schemes like *part time*, term contracts. Which party wants them?

[secundem_artem]

I thought in 2016 that both Sanders and Trump were talking to the same voters - they just blamed different causes for the situation in which those voters found themselves.  A thought experiment I had at the time was what would have happened if we had a Trump/Sanders ticket.

Early on they were very similar. Anti-global trade, anti-immigrant, even both talking about raising certain taxes.

The difference in 2016 was Globalists (Clinton, plus other moderate R's and D's) and Nationalists (Trump, Sanders, labor unions).

Trump may very well be a Nationalist but unions and Sanders are not. I think Isolationist is a more appropriate term.

So would voters who would have considered both Sanders and Trump be "deplorables" or not?

And how about college administrators who were democratic party elected officials building their career with support from unions? They are now opposing adjunct faculty unions and they love having a steady supply of cheap disenfranchised labor unable to fight anti-labor schemes like *part time*, term contracts. Which party wants them?

If you want to continue to turn every post, thread or sparrow that falls from the tree over to this this worked over, done to death, discussed to exhaustion, fvck me not this again subject, why don't you all join this party

[Parasaurolophus]

Aaaaaand we now get a Biden rape allegation from 1993 (the entire interview has not yet been released, but will be soon).


EDIT: It also looks like Anita Dunn, Biden's senior advisor (and now de facto campaign manager) may have been involved in shutting down a request to investigate the allegation in 2019. At the very least, that's a suspicious connection between Biden's campaign and the non-profit's decision not to investigate further out of misplaced concerns about tax law.

[Parasaurolophus]

Have you been hanging out in Bernie bro spaces on twitter? This is such bullcrap.

Nah. I've just been following the campaign extremely closely. And I have years of experience caring for someone who had dementia. Biden has always been stupid, but he hasn't always been this inarticulate. Even in the recent past. And no, it's not a stutter.

But you know what? Even if I were to concede that Biden seems every bit as mentally with-it as he was five years ago, and that his outrageous lies and general inability to put together coherent sentences unprompted (there are exceptions, but it's the rule) are just a "stutter", that still leaves

1. His lack of control over the coronavirus narrative.
2. His lack of leadership with respect to the coronavirus crisis.
3. Credible rape allegations.

And those things alone are enough to sink even a good candidacy. Which his manifestly isn't.

(And: yes, my preference, as an outsider, would have been Bernie. That hardly makes me a "Berniebro". And: no, I don't tweet.)

How is he supposed to control any of it? He's a presidential candidate, not the president. Genuinely perplexing take.

It sometimes happens, in this country, that opposition party leaders do not yet have a seat in the Commons (indeed, sometimes it's even the leader of the official opposition). When that happens, they're at a distinct disadvantage, especially when Important Things are happening. There's no question about that.

That doesn't stop them, however. They relentlessly critique the government from the sidelines. They push out their preferred alternative policy proposals. They rally the party around them. They coordinate with the party's deputy leader in the House of Commons to make sure that the party is on-message, and pushing the right policies and asking the right questions during Question Time. They tour the country to rally support and get a sense of what work needs to be done where.

Biden has the political connections. He's got friends across both sides of the aisle. He has people's ear. He has the support of every other candidate who dropped from the race, some of whom are in Congress/the Senate. He could and should be working hard behind-the-scenes to coordinate the Democratic response, and to smooth the passage of legislation with sympathetic Republicans. He should be the party's spokesperson. He should be showing Americans what the alternative to Trump should look like. He should be relentless and specific in his criticism of the administration and in his policy proposals, not tepid and vague. Hell, he could even be turning his campaign towards raising money for relief. It's really not that hard to give the impression that you're doing something.

Instead he was completely absent for the first couple weeks, declining television appearances by claiming that he needed time to "build a studio" in his house. Then, after donors complained, he finally showed up and did a bad job (in a poorly-constructed home "studio"). He traded in platitudes and looked weak and confused. This is not good leadership. It's textbook bad leadership. He's supposed to be the party leader, and he should be leading from the front.

Saying that he's not in office is BS, and a convenient dodge. He doesn't need a title to do the job of the presumptive nominee, to look like a president-in-waiting.

[mahagonny]

Funny, being a candidate who gives the advantage to Trump by being accused of sexual harassment, which Trump himself approves of and boasts about tasking full advantage of the opportunity for. So maybe the debate (if there is one) could plausibly as each candidate 'in your view, as powerful man in politics, is sexual harassment ever OK? And if so, when?'

[ciao_yall]

Have you been hanging out in Bernie bro spaces on twitter? This is such bullcrap.

Nah. I've just been following the campaign extremely closely. And I have years of experience caring for someone who had dementia. Biden has always been stupid, but he hasn't always been this inarticulate. Even in the recent past. And no, it's not a stutter.

But you know what? Even if I were to concede that Biden seems every bit as mentally with-it as he was five years ago, and that his outrageous lies and general inability to put together coherent sentences unprompted (there are exceptions, but it's the rule) are just a "stutter", that still leaves

1. His lack of control over the coronavirus narrative.
2. His lack of leadership with respect to the coronavirus crisis.
3. Credible rape allegations.

And those things alone are enough to sink even a good candidacy. Which his manifestly isn't.

(And: yes, my preference, as an outsider, would have been Bernie. That hardly makes me a "Berniebro". And: no, I don't tweet.)

How is he supposed to control any of it? He's a presidential candidate, not the president. Genuinely perplexing take.

It sometimes happens, in this country, that opposition party leaders do not yet have a seat in the Commons (indeed, sometimes it's even the leader of the official opposition). When that happens, they're at a distinct disadvantage, especially when Important Things are happening. There's no question about that.

That doesn't stop them, however. They relentlessly critique the government from the sidelines. They push out their preferred alternative policy proposals. They rally the party around them. They coordinate with the party's deputy leader in the House of Commons to make sure that the party is on-message, and pushing the right policies and asking the right questions during Question Time. They tour the country to rally support and get a sense of what work needs to be done where.

Biden has the political connections. He's got friends across both sides of the aisle. He has people's ear. He has the support of every other candidate who dropped from the race, some of whom are in Congress/the Senate. He could and should be working hard behind-the-scenes to coordinate the Democratic response, and to smooth the passage of legislation with sympathetic Republicans. He should be the party's spokesperson. He should be showing Americans what the alternative to Trump should look like. He should be relentless and specific in his criticism of the administration and in his policy proposals, not tepid and vague. Hell, he could even be turning his campaign towards raising money for relief. It's really not that hard to give the impression that you're doing something.

Instead he was completely absent for the first couple weeks, declining television appearances by claiming that he needed time to "build a studio" in his house. Then, after donors complained, he finally showed up and did a bad job (in a poorly-constructed home "studio"). He traded in platitudes and looked weak and confused. This is not good leadership. It's textbook bad leadership. He's supposed to be the party leader, and he should be leading from the front.

Saying that he's not in office is BS, and a convenient dodge. He doesn't need a title to do the job of the presumptive nominee, to look like a president-in-waiting.

Sadly, you are right. I'm not a Bernie fan at all.

Maybe this will bump Amy Klobuchar to the top of the ticket (Midwestern Moderate) and Elizabeth Warren as VP (Progressive Coastal Intellectual).

Or vice versa, that's cool too.

[dismalist]

Cuomo/Klobuchar could beat Trump, probably easily. I just don't see any other pair that could win. [Not that Biden couldn't win in principle. He most certainly could, but he's losing it.]

[ciao_yall]

Cuomo/Klobuchar could beat Trump, probably easily. I just don't see any other pair that could win. [Not that Biden couldn't win in principle. He most certainly could, but he's losing it.]

But Sandra Lee would be First Girlfriend or whatever. and I don't think we can deal with a Semi-Homemade White House.

Will the inaugural cake be an angel food cake from a mix, with marshmallows stuffed into the hole, canned frosting and boxed cookies? And a cocktail of red, white and blue jello shots?

[mamselle]

Warren/Klobuchar might push the "female electability" envelope in an interesting way.

As In, "There's No Hidin' Place Down Here!"

But it could also be a re-play of 2016.

What about Pelosi/Warren? Or Wareen/Pelosi?

That's a balanced ticket: one from the House, one from the Senate....

M.

[Cheerful]

But Sandra Lee would be First Girlfriend or whatever. and I don't think we can deal with a Semi-Homemade White House.
Will the inaugural cake be an angel food cake from a mix, with marshmallows stuffed into the hole, canned frosting and boxed cookies? And a cocktail of red, white and blue jello shots?

Governor Andrew Cuomo and Sandra Lee parted quite some time ago.

Creative cake idea!

[ciao_yall]

But Sandra Lee would be First Girlfriend or whatever. and I don't think we can deal with a Semi-Homemade White House.
Will the inaugural cake be an angel food cake from a mix, with marshmallows stuffed into the hole, canned frosting and boxed cookies? And a cocktail of red, white and blue jello shots?

Governor Andrew Cuomo and Sandra Lee parted quite some time ago.

Creative cake idea!

Did you ever watch the show? YouTube some clips. It's... disturbing.

Her recipe for clam chowder... starts with a can of clam chowder.