Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 166167168169170 434> |
| Author | ||
rogerthat 
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
 Posted: July 26 2019 at 20:38 |
|
Last para is a dangerous bet. You may end up with Pence in 2024 (as HW took over from Reagan) and he will do his darndest to install a Christian state in USA. Democrats need to first stop the bleeding, before irreparable damage is done to the US. It nearly happened with Iraq and Trump already got dangerously close to starting what would have been an even more dangerous war with Iran. My counter argument would be: I don't understand why the Squad or the young, fiery progressives who support them do NOT understand the existential threat that Trump 2.0 would pose. Or, if they do and still seek to place ideological purity over the need to halt the march of Trump, are they really any better than straight ticket Republican voters? I do agree on the one hand that merely discussing who is best suited to beat Trump does not make a good case for voters to vote for you and you need to show them what YOUR big project for America is (curiously, only Marianne Williamson, the non politician, took this position in the first set of debates). That is, you do not drown out a wave by arguing why the wave is bad for everyone but drowning it with a bigger wave. That said, using sympathetic reporters or talking heads in the media and social media to assail Nancy Pelosi when she comes down hard on the squad is not helpful and only seems to tie in with the SUBSTANCE of Trump's criticism of them. If you will yourself criticise but characterise any criticism of you as racist, what are you doing in America anyway? Of course, the way he said it was indubitably racist and it gave an opportunity to the Democratic Party to put their civil war on hold. But the Squad do need to think carefully about what's at stake here. Shouldn't be hard either, or maybe all the social media accolades have got to their head. At the very moment when Trump seeks to paint the entire Democratic Party in the image of the foursome, it would make perfect tactical sense for the four to take to a backseat temporarily and negate his strategy (the fact that he is resorting to this gambit so early suggests he is nervous about taking on a strong Democratic candidate in his reelection bid). If they cannot see that, then maybe they don't really care about America.
|
||
 |
||
|
micky
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46838 |
Posted: July 27 2019 at 07:01 |
|
|
aye.. with you 100% there buddy.
as I have often said... Trump should not win in 2020.. that is not the same as he can not. If Democrats turn out.. nothing.. not even a good economy can save him. Why? Most do realize the state of the economy distills to one easy to understand and correct notion. The economy is doing well in spite of Trump.. not because of him. for many .. the 'great economy' has done little. It is great for wall street and those with means to profit from it. But those that can't or haven't? What about those whose who can and have? Really interseting article today in fact touches on that. Though I must admit continued surprise that so few recognize the facts as I've show them that are in play and why it is completely accurate to say that Trump did not win (those states) but Hillary lost them (or as we will touch on.. progressives (Bernie voters) gave to Trump) Michigan 2012 Presidential election approx 54-45 Obama with approx 63.5% turnout. 4.7M votes 2016 Presidential election approx 47.5-47.3 Trump with approx 63% turnout. 4.7M votes 2018 Midterm election Gov and Sen races 53-44/52-46 team Blue wins with approx 57.5% turnout (highest in 50 years) Trump won by approx 17k votes.. but almost 250k votes were cast for a 3rd party.. in 2012 there were... approx 50k... in 2008 there were.. approx 80k so the question for 2020 comes down to... do Democrats turn out. For Harris and Warren.. no doubt they do. And both would likely beat Trump. I think Warren with her strong appeal to Trump's base.. might actually destroy him what I could see as the biggest landslide since 1988. where it gets tricky are the other two. Sanders? I do think there really are some serious question and worries about how he would stand up against Trump in a one on one general election. However as far as motivating the vote. He does appear to have little to no support among the moderates and centrists.. but they are the ones that really are flipping out about another 4 years of Trump. One face of it, baring a meltdown or looking the complete over his head fool in a campaign directly against Trump, I think he would obviously hype energize the left of the party and likely offset any moderates or centrists that might out of disgust sit it out.. or vote 3rd party again as a repeat of the 2016 protest vote. as I alluded to earlear.. it is Biden that is the real worry IMO as far as being t he candidate that can be teh 2020 version of 2016 Hillary. The party is changing man.. there is a reason so many 2012 Democratic votes disappeared in 2016. Also as I posted .. one of the important subtle points that came out in that 2nd debate was that Obama years, even if highly preferable to what we have now, are still not exactly seen as sun filled green fields with lots of dope, hot natural chicks, and Jefferson Airplane flying into the sun on stage. The party has changed..   and do not want a reset to 2016.. 2008.. or even 1992. Will progressive pull a 2016 on Biden? It is possible.. and I might touch on later the strategy and thoughts behind doing so.. of course it is. Would it be enough to throw the election to Trump as it did in 2016. Maybe, but I don't think so considering by just how little Trump won by in 2016. It truly was a royal flush he had to pull to win the Electoral College and even though a lot of votes were lost to Hilary to 3rd party protest votes.. she lost many more by those that were apathetic and simply didn't get out and vote.. and that is a hallmark of the centrist or moderate. By all indications... the apathy is gone.. I think that Biden unlike Hillary could survive a mass defection by the left.. for as we saw in 2018.. there are a lot of new Democratic leaning voters thanks to Trump that really weren't in play in 2016. |
||
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
||
|
||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: July 27 2019 at 07:49 |
|
|
^^^ I had posted Nate Cohn's analysis a while back in this thread and that has Trump with a chance to flip purple states like Virginia or Colorado back to Republican. That is NOT good news for Democrats. And just to satisfy my curiosity, I checked if a Democrat candidate could win by flipping Texas but losing all of the Midwest except Illinois and no, he/she can't. That is, even if the Democrats make inroads in the Sun Belt, a repeat of the 2016 rout in the Midwest will not get them over the line.
Further, IF the election were held today, Trump would win on most parameters of the Lichtman test. The only time the Lichtman test failed was 2000 cuz Florida.
I also find the logic of the politico article counter-intuitive and appearing not to consider anti-incumbency. When the economy is bad, it helps the challenger and that was Trump in 2016. When the economy is good, it will help the ruling incumbent. i.e, Trump in 2016 =/= Trump in 2020. If the economy remains good going into 2020, gonna be difficult to make a case for a change. People mostly vote for selfish reasons, is what I have seen. They don't care about democracy or about institutions. In fact, if they see the institutions challenging a sitting president presiding over a good economy, they may see the former as a hurdle and vote him back in in the hope that he can destroy them. NOW, I read a NYT report just today which says the economy slowed down to 2.1% growth in the second quarter. IF USA is in a recession by 2020, that would imo improve Democrats' chances considerably and give the lie to Trump's claim about the incredible economy and all that. If that doesn't happen, he could get re-elected and the economy will probably go bust in the middle of his second term a la Dubya part 2. |
||
|
||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: July 27 2019 at 08:13 |
|
Here's where I think the sharply ideological section of the left could make things tricky for the Democrats. A candidate who appeals to this 'base' may in fact result in moderates not feeling enthused about the Democrat candidate and either sitting out/voting third party/getting pissed off and voting for Trump. Whereas a candidate who brings the moderates, gets a foothold at least in purple or light red states (aka Hillary) could turn off the progressives, again swinging it in Trump's favour in close races. As of today, at least numerically, the moderates constitute a larger voting bloc than the progressives. Hence, IF a moderate becomes the Democratic nominee, the progressives MUST get behind him/her and vote tactically. They did not do this in 2016 and not doing so in 2020 will have grave consequences. It is not about who is right as between moderates and progressives. Progressives may even rightly hold a grouse against moderates for swinging third party if the Democrat candidate is too liberal. But politics is about building winning coalitions and ideological purity tests are not helpful for that purpose. The smaller but more activist and vociferous bloc must align with the silent voter bloc. Progressives surely realise that if Ginsburg too retires and is replaced by a conservative judge, even same sex laws could come under threat. If you don't have your eye on the bigger picture, it's on you. Yes, as Biden put it with inadvertent eloquence, "nothing fundamentally will change" with a vanilla centrist candidate but at least it will stop the bleeding. I have a crude test based on historical trends and who an incumbent reminds me most of. Modi reminded me heavily of Indira Gandhi and I said the 2019 polls would be either like 2004 (the last election an incumbent BJP govt had faced) or 1971 (Indira Gandhi's re-election). Trump is most like Nixon who too won a close race in 1968. IF Democrats swing too far left, we have a McGovern-Nixon repeat on our hands. The challengers need to help people who feel disgusted by Trump to vote against him by not making them feel like they have a Hobson's choice. I agree with those liberals who say the things Democrats are proposing are most centrist-left by European standards. But your country has also been more right wing than Europe for the last half century or so, so those standards may not apply.
|
||
|
||
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46838 |
Posted: July 27 2019 at 09:03 |
|
|
see the difference is moderates and centrists are not particularly ideologically driven.. when they dominated the party which they have to this point. It was both the greatest strength and conversely the greatest weakness of the Democratic Party. There is no ideologically basis.. obviously unlike the Republican Party or now the left wing of the Democratic Party.
They weren't enthused by Clinton.. and most thought Clinton had it in the bag.. most still got and voted. But enough.. note less than 80k votes in those 3 states was the difference between Trump winning and losing.. being either uninspired by Clinton and/or not driven by any particular or specific ideological issue that made voting important simply sat out the election. the difference is now of course.. while the Left has its ideology... the otherwise apathetic less ideological moderates and centrists are indeed highly motivated to vote. Trump is the great unifier of the party .. for now.. as I've often posted. It is after Trump is gone that I think we will see a great fracture in the Democratic Party and that fracture.. along with teh death of the Republican party as a viable national party... will be a profound change to our country and its politics. as far as Silver... if anyone thinks that Virginia and Colorado have a realistic chance to turn red or are even purple .. they are full of sh*t and just showed a complete detachment from teh reality on the ground IMO. Trump couldn't even win those states in 2016 when he had a 'clean slate' and was facing a historically unpopular and dis... sh*t.. largely HATED candidate. No.. as I've said and believe strongly it is true. There are no blue states turning purple today.. the rust belt? No...Clinton won MT in 92, Obama IN in 08' were those suddenly purple. Of course not .. they were flukes if you will as those 3 rust belt states were in 2016.. one that could happen again but really is extremely unlikely... the last three blue/purple and then Red switches happened more than a decade ago with MO, WV, and OH. See I like Silver.. and he and his site are a great resource for hard numbers. That is where Silver's usefulness.. and his expertise end. My poli Sci professor once told me and I think he was spot on... Politics is nothing more than a large scale exercise in sociology. And Silver by all I've read and heard spoken of him.. is a great statistician but lives in a bubble.. but know little of politics or sociology himself...a stereotypical numbers guy and geek if you will... I don't think he really has a grasp on just how angry this country about what is going on and happening to this country.. and again.. as we have long seen with Republicans.. the greatest fallacy in American Politics is that thinking people here vote based on their economic self interest.. ie the economy.... a bad economy like the crash Warren sees coming might kick 2020 into 1984 territory.. but a good economy will have little to do with what happens in 2020. Areas .. large areas of Trump support are not doing well .. feeling that 'great' economy.. yet they are his biggest areas of support. Why? Because it isn't about their self interest.. but larger societal issues.. in short.. the culture war.
Edited by micky - July 27 2019 at 09:05 |
||
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
||
|
||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: July 27 2019 at 09:30 |
|
|
^^^ Wasn't Silver. A different Nate. Nate Cohn. I don't think Silver would have a read so early on the election, long way to go.
|
||
|
||
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46838 |
Posted: July 27 2019 at 15:01 |
|
|
hahha.. well good rant wasted aye. Welcome to the 50's there Michael. Old age is going to suck man. Yeah Madan I saw Nate and immediately thought of Silver.
agreed though it is a long way to go. Really the best analysis that can be given at this point is it is the Democrats election to lose, and lose it they can in the right (wrong) circumstances. Hence the extreme focus on electibility and perceived ability to beat Trump. One on one Polls like we see now are silly and pointless like Biden smoking Trump by 10 points in Ohio. The damn campaign hasn't even started yet... but one thing that can be taken from them is a measure not of Biden's ability to win but just how unpopular Trump really is. As I've said.. 43% percent gets you.. massacred.. embarrassed ala Mondale style man. And Trump sure isn't making any kind of effort to appeal to any of those 57% that do not support him is he? Anyhow at this point all that really can be said is All things being equal, a good solid Democratic candidate who gets out the vote should not just beat Trump.. but destroy him in 1980's old school fashion. The trick will be.. avoiding a repeat of 2016 and blowing an election they should not lose. And as I posted.. there are two candidates that have a much greater chance of inadvertently giving Trump those 4 more years.
Edited by micky - July 27 2019 at 15:05 |
||
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
||
|
||
|
progaardvark
Special Collaborator
Crossover/Symphonic/RPI Teams Joined: June 14 2007 Location: Sea of Peas Status: Offline Points: 52608 |
Posted: July 31 2019 at 07:26 |
|
|
Back to climate change. Recently an organization called Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI) did a study on the "scrubbing" of the phrase "climate change" from government websites between the Obama and Trump administrations.
From the conclusion section: "Despite the growing climate crisis, the Trump administration has wasted over two
years of potential crisis response by failing to communicate climate science and
develop sound climate policy. It has both disinvested from, but also spent
significant time and resources censoring, agency websites in order to obscure
climate change science. As has been reported, this censorship is direct – ordered by
political appointees – as well as indirect – taken on by program staff in order to
accommodate the new political climate. The wholesale removal of
epa.gov/climatechange stands out as a blatant and substantial example of the
administration’s efforts to undermine climate knowledge, but many smaller,
targeted changes have occurred as well." Overall the term has dropped 26% across 5,301 federal government websites. However, it's very noticeable on the EPA website, where that figure is a 61.57% drop. The full report is here: https://envirodatagov.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/New-Digital-Landscape-EDGI.pdf
|
||
|
----------
i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag that's a happy bag of lettuce this car smells like cartilage nothing beats a good video about fractions |
||
|
||
|
King of Loss
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 21 2005 Location: Boston, MA Status: Offline Points: 16889 |
Posted: July 31 2019 at 09:24 |
|
|
||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: July 31 2019 at 23:41 |
|
|
So what happened in the second debate? Heard Biden fumbled again, facing attacks from all corners.
|
||
|
||
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65606 |
Posted: August 01 2019 at 01:13 |
|
|
^ Biden fumbled because he's old and tone-deaf. None of them looked very good. We may be in a brave new post-Trump era where if you're not outrageous you're crap. |
||
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
||
|
||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: August 01 2019 at 03:38 |
|
Yup, that's where it's headed. |
||
|
||
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46838 |
Posted: August 01 2019 at 04:49 |
|
yeah Biden... a great deal of inertia is going to get him a ways but think at some point as we really get into next year he is going to run out of gas, or simply drop dead  wise point if I may. Obviously these debates were dominated by the progressive-centrist split. Lots of commentary on that, and the 'right wing talking points', but again sort of ignores that the party as a whole IS moving left and do want change. I think the real debates sort of start once the field gets winnowed and the debates begin to hone on the real choise the Democrats will be faced with. The 'nothing is really going to change' of Biden (and be sure.. you will hear that clip of him saying that a million times in ads in the next year, or the 'brave new world (politics) of Warren-Sanders. the more so because .. simply Biden and Warren do not like each other. Disappointing they haven't been on the same stage yet, but even if they had, the format and shear number of candidates would have diltuted the substance of that. Lessions needed to be learned from 2016 and it seems that many in the Democratic Party have forgotten them. People want change, they gave Trump a chance, now in 2020, it could well be next man/woman up. Far from being pie in the sky or political suicide (was Trump and everything he was.. suicide). I think the outrageous you speak of can easy be twisted to mean utter disgust with the status quo.
|
||
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
||
|
||
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46838 |
Posted: August 01 2019 at 05:04 |
|
Personal observation David? If so, I'd be curious to know about the one person who probably best of all of them across the two debates. For not only to these eyes, but more importantly the narrative that came from these debates which is important for it sets a great narrative moving forward for face it.. only the most energized per se are really paying attention, thus that narrative is important for that is what most are following it in passing or simply looking to that narrative at this point in the campaign rather than following it directly. It is the summer you know, and a long way off for most until they do need to make up their minds and actually vote. Warren by far looked best in her first half.. and the second half. Good analysis on her on her talent and skill in dealing with the dynamics that were in play during that 2nd debate.
Edited by micky - August 01 2019 at 05:05 |
||
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
||
|
||
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2007 Location: Michigan, U.S. Status: Online Points: 66588 |
Posted: August 01 2019 at 07:43 |
|
|
As we have previously discussed, I am one of those moderate/centrist Democrats, which I have mostly considered to be a social Democrat. I agree with the Democrats on many of the social issues, but I am fiscally conservative and part ways there. I really cannot see myself voting for a Warren or a Sanders. While I know that they think that they mean well, their policies of free everything are nothing but a pipe dream and I believe would do far more harm than good for our country. I have watched all 4 debates because I must be a sadist and the only candidate that I think that I could fully support would be Delaney, and obviously he is not going anywhere. If the Democrats settle on Biden, I would probably support him, but like with Clinton, I wouldn't be overly thrilled about it. If Sanders or Warren is the candidate, than I might have to go a different way with my vote.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: August 01 2019 at 09:17 |
|
It can be another change election but of what kind. To my mind, the candidate who plays well with the electorate of the disenchanted is one who is prepared to go economically left while not straying left socially per se and particularly on immigration and national security. That is, healthcare reform may play well but border decriminalisation will not. Both Gabbard and Yang seem to be playing this sort of game but not many others and none of the big name candidates who are polling well so far. |
||
|
||
|
King of Loss
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 21 2005 Location: Boston, MA Status: Offline Points: 16889 |
Posted: August 01 2019 at 11:16 |
|
These things are not free, they are being paid by taxpayers. How is having taxpayer funded free tuition public colleges bad for our country? They'll mean millions of people can now go to college, upgrade their skills and graduate WITHOUT DEBT. How is having a Medicare-for-all system bad for our country? It might lead to a much lower cost of healthcare in this country, which would mean thousands of dollars of extra money per family to spend on other things. Britain has a nationalized healthcare system and it costs half the price as ours with the even better results... Both of these two policy ideas would be an immediate boost to the macroeconomy as a whole. Maybe if you're extremely well off, it won't benefit you, but how many of us make millions of dollars a year? My parents are considered almost "rich" by what the government says, but they aren't doing all that well. These "pipe dream" ideas are already adopted by other developed countries and research shows there's a clear benefit to the many, not the few at the top.
Edited by King of Loss - August 01 2019 at 11:26 |
||
|
||
|
omphaloskepsis
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: October 19 2011 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 6801 |
Posted: August 01 2019 at 11:48 |
|
The Elite Left and Right are two wings on the same Globalist War Hawk. It's not Left vs Right. It's Elite Establishment, Havard, Yale, MSM, and Big Tech, Pharma VERSUS (US, You and me, the working class, doctors, nurses and the poor.) Big Tech, MSM, and DNC are rigging it again. For example... Gabbard was the only candidate not Trending on Twitter last night. Yang and Gabbard gained between 8-10 thousand Twitter followers last night. The next closest candidate? Booker, with a net gain of 2 thousand Twitter followers. Gabbard is suing Google for 50 million for manipulating search results against her. Why? Gabbard is Anti War. Media on the Right are among the few reporting about Google/Twitter and Gabbard. Conservative news sites such as OAN, FOX, and Infowars report on Gabbard. It's crickets on the Left. Except for a few independent Liberal journalists such as Jimmy Dore and Tim Pool. Jimmy Dore is a progressive democrat, not a republican. Tim Pool is a liberal independent journalist. He admits to contributing to Gabbard and Yang's campaigns. A month ago, on page 162 of this thread, I predicted that Kamala Harris's Achille's heel would be her prosecutorial record against poor minorities. Again, my predictions come true. I also predicted on page 162 that Kamala Harris would fade like a shooting star. I stand beside my prediction. More predictions coming soon... Edited by omphaloskepsis - August 01 2019 at 12:16 |
||
|
||
|
King of Loss
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 21 2005 Location: Boston, MA Status: Offline Points: 16889 |
Posted: August 01 2019 at 11:57 |
|
That's cause the mainstream media is connected well with the US establishment, which is essentially Eisenhower Republican/Rockefeller Republican in nature. Generally, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but VERY VERY keen on interventions globally. Having been around Harvard quite a lot (My cousin went there), these views are held by many of the kids of the elites that go there.
|
||
|
||
|
Argo2112
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2017 Location: New Jersey Status: Offline Points: 4462 |
Posted: August 01 2019 at 12:11 |
|
|
Keep in mind , before we can make everything all sunshine & unicorns we have to get the orange man out of office. I'm worried if we end up going hard to the left it will scare the crap out of the center & we'll end up with four more years of Uncle Donnie.
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 166167168169170 434> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
The American Politics Thread
Topic Options
micky wrote:
