Trump

[Puja]

This is the moderate wing compacting, not the establishment. It is always about an electable candidate to beat Trump. Biden always had those credentials, shaken by the initial lack of success. The landslide in SC showed a return to that belief.

I find it hard to concede Biden has much in the way of any credentials, a poor speaker with a poor background in policy and seemingly no ideas. He's very similar to Trump, bar he at least doesn't seem a piece of shit as a human being

I find it hard to find ways Biden is similar to Trump.

He is not my favorite candidate, but who am I to judge. He has those credentials with the democratic voters. That is all that counts.

There are also factors like:
Sanders followers are trumpians in methods.
Sanders campaign is favored by the Russians, like Trump.
Sanders is Trump’s preferred democrat candidate.

All reasons to prefer another candidate over Sanders for the moderates. And Biden is the only credible one, from the look of it.

I don't know Sanders would be Trump's preferred democrat candidate actually. Sanders portrays himself as an outsider, taking on the establishment, which is where Trump gets a lot of his votes from. I'm concerned that, if they put up another middle-of-the-road politician, they'll lose to his inane claims of being for the people against the DC machinery. Especially since Trump's already got his attack lines against Biden all lined up - it doesn't matter if the Ukraine claims are completely fabricated or not, what matters is that Trump will continue to repeat them ad nauseam and simple slurs will last longer in the minds of idiot voters than reasoned explanations.

Buttigieg's dropping out now to maintain credibility under the cover of being noble and stepping down for the good of the party and country. He's gaining himself support from people who will be invaluable to his future career and saving himself a battering on Super Tuesday from the fact that he has zero electability amongst minority voters.

Puja

[gransoporro]

Guys, they are just keeping the power dry. The attack will be on Sanders being a socialist. He even honeymooned in Moscow, as Trump and his minions said.

They can get videos of Sanders praising USSR, communism, Cuba, Castro, Sandinistas, while denouncing capitalism. All they need is to galvanize their voters, and make independent think that Trump is the lesser of the evils (cannot have a socialist and all the stigma associated).

If you disagree, feel free. This is what I sense here, in the Bible Belt. And I bet I have a better view than yours. Evangelicals here are already campaigning behind the scenes against “socialism”. Sanders gives Trump the perfect opposition. And he is not widely liked in the Democratic Party either.

What if the opposition was someone that is an actual adult, proven, responsible and even religious? Now the Bible Belt will not be that energized unless you promise them to overturn Roe vs Wade. You like it or not, Biden is seen like that guy. That is why they are fighting Biden here and now: he is the big problem. Sanders can wait until after the nomination, if he gets it.

[Digby]

I'm not exactly a huge Sanders fan, he has long history of saying things that'll make any run in a general election tricky, he's too old, he's had a heart attack, and on losing the nomination last time he threw his toys out of the pram and helped elect Trump, but Biden is an even weaker candidate - both it should go without saying are on their worst days better than Trump

[Mikey Brown]

Guys, they are just keeping the power dry. The attack will be on Sanders being a socialist. He even honeymooned in Moscow, as Trump and his minions said.

They can get videos of Sanders praising USSR, communism, Cuba, Castro, Sandinistas, while denouncing capitalism. All they need is to galvanize their voters, and make independent think that Trump is the lesser of the evils (cannot have a socialist and all the stigma associated).

If you disagree, feel free. This is what I sense here, in the Bible Belt. And I bet I have a better view than yours. Evangelicals here are already campaigning behind the scenes against “socialism”. Sanders gives Trump the perfect opposition. And he is not widely liked in the Democratic Party either.

What if the opposition was someone that is an actual adult, proven, responsible and even religious? Now the Bible Belt will not be that energized unless you promise them to overturn Roe vs Wade. You like it or not, Biden is seen like that guy. That is why they are fighting Biden here and now: he is the big problem. Sanders can wait until after the nomination, if he gets it.

Is picking a moderate or republican-lite a tactic that’s known to actually work?

[Digby]

I wouldn't want to say picking someone with the label progressive isn't going to work, not least as were she some years younger Warren would be my preference, but American has moved to the right over the last few decades and it's hardly unfair to think someone with the label moderate if a better electoral hope, and that any shift to the left should be demonstrated as being responsibly done in increments and not as part of a revolution.

[Stom]

I wouldn't want to say picking someone with the label progressive isn't going to work, not least as were she some years younger Warren would be my preference, but American has moved to the right over the last few decades and it's hardly unfair to think someone with the label moderate if a better electoral hope, and that any shift to the left should be demonstrated as being responsibly done in increments and not as part of a revolution.

You don't make change in increments. You make change by drastic change. America has many problems, but medicare seems like the biggest. Any watering down of plans to kill off the current system means they won't get change.

That message needs to be made loud and clear.

But hey, socialist policies have always been a "hard sell" thanks to no-one explaining them in simple bloody language!

[Mikey Brown]

Fair enough.

Seems from a very superficial glance that the American system is almost designed to see-saw from one to the other with the presidential election often prompting a swing the other way in the house.

The idea of incremental steps towards a better future is great but how long is any one party ever going to get? I feel like you may as well try and get someone in there who’d actually shake things up a bit.

As much as anything it might just be very funny. And after all, that’s what politics is really about.

[Digby]

I wouldn't want to say picking someone with the label progressive isn't going to work, not least as were she some years younger Warren would be my preference, but American has moved to the right over the last few decades and it's hardly unfair to think someone with the label moderate if a better electoral hope, and that any shift to the left should be demonstrated as being responsibly done in increments and not as part of a revolution.

You don't make change in increments. You make change by drastic change. America has many problems, but medicare seems like the biggest. Any watering down of plans to kill off the current system means they won't get change.

That message needs to be made loud and clear.

But hey, socialist policies have always been a "hard sell" thanks to no-one explaining them in simple bloody language!

Or they're just not very popular with a lot of people. Though if Socialist means Bernie or Warren rather than Corbyn that's far less alarming to me, but whilst their medicare plans don't alarm me they do alarm many people in the USA, it just seems a bit of a risk, maybe the time for that fight has come, but for myself I'd look to work in increments and not alarm so many people, especially when the alternative isn't a Republican whose policies I don't much like but is in fact a walking quasi-talking piece of shit

As an aside even Bernie has of recent times object to the word revolution, somewhat oddly given he's talked in such terms for a long time, maybe he's just figured he's got the nomination and it's time to start running the general election campaign not the Democratic nomination

[Digby]

The idea of incremental steps towards a better future is great but how long is any one party ever going to get? I feel like you may as well try and get someone in there who’d actually shake things up a bit.

If you can't show people you're making a difference maybe you don't have the right plans for a country, even if you happen to like them very much

[Mikey Brown]

The idea of incremental steps towards a better future is great but how long is any one party ever going to get? I feel like you may as well try and get someone in there who’d actually shake things up a bit.

If you can't show people you're making a difference maybe you don't have the right plans for a country, even if you happen to like them very much

I don't really follow how this relates to what I said. Are you referring to someone/something specific here?

[Digby]

The idea of incremental steps towards a better future is great but how long is any one party ever going to get? I feel like you may as well try and get someone in there who’d actually shake things up a bit.

If you can't show people you're making a difference maybe you don't have the right plans for a country, even if you happen to like them very much

I don't really follow how this relates to what I said. Are you referring to someone/something specific here?

Just because you can't secure multiple terms doesn't mean revolution is a good idea, indeed that likely makes it worse if the two parties are going to spend their time looking to critically undermine the efforts of a previous regime.

[Mikey Brown]

I wouldn't want to say picking someone with the label progressive isn't going to work, not least as were she some years younger Warren would be my preference, but American has moved to the right over the last few decades and it's hardly unfair to think someone with the label moderate if a better electoral hope, and that any shift to the left should be demonstrated as being responsibly done in increments and not as part of a revolution.

You don't make change in increments. You make change by drastic change. America has many problems, but medicare seems like the biggest. Any watering down of plans to kill off the current system means they won't get change.

That message needs to be made loud and clear.

But hey, socialist policies have always been a "hard sell" thanks to no-one explaining them in simple bloody language!

This is probably the crux of a lot of the Warren/Sanders dispute for voters at the moment.

Dumming down any remotely progressive policies (and calling it realism or whatever) in the hope of not upsetting the Republicans so much, knowing they will then hack away at these policies even further if the chance arises, is just conceding defeat before you even start.

[gransoporro]

Guys, they are just keeping the power dry. The attack will be on Sanders being a socialist. He even honeymooned in Moscow, as Trump and his minions said.

They can get videos of Sanders praising USSR, communism, Cuba, Castro, Sandinistas, while denouncing capitalism. All they need is to galvanize their voters, and make independent think that Trump is the lesser of the evils (cannot have a socialist and all the stigma associated).

If you disagree, feel free. This is what I sense here, in the Bible Belt. And I bet I have a better view than yours. Evangelicals here are already campaigning behind the scenes against “socialism”. Sanders gives Trump the perfect opposition. And he is not widely liked in the Democratic Party either.

What if the opposition was someone that is an actual adult, proven, responsible and even religious? Now the Bible Belt will not be that energized unless you promise them to overturn Roe vs Wade. You like it or not, Biden is seen like that guy. That is why they are fighting Biden here and now: he is the big problem. Sanders can wait until after the nomination, if he gets it.

Is picking a moderate or republican-lite a tactic that’s known to actually work?

At the House level, yes. That is how they flipped Republican seats, at least in most cases. That is also how they won special elections for the House, or the Alabama senate seat ( although it was also much of a really bad republican candidate, there).

I may be wrong, but the new “socialist” wave came from winning primaries against democrat incumbents, not from GOP seats.

[gransoporro]

But hey, socialist policies have always been a "hard sell" thanks to no-one explaining them in simple bloody language!

In the US, socialism means centralized planned economy first.

There is a long tradition of socialist policies, from social security to Medicare, to bail outs of auto industry and farmers.


But if you brand someone as a socialist, you basically accuse them to want to centrally plan the economy, nationalize industries, etc.

That is seen very, very badly. You won’t get enough votes unless in specific districts. But if you suggest expanding Medicare, reducing drug costs, etc. Then it is fine and they will look at how much it costs first: they will not see those as socialism, even if they are socialist policies.

[morepork]

I wouldn't want to say picking someone with the label progressive isn't going to work, not least as were she some years younger Warren would be my preference, but American has moved to the right over the last few decades and it's hardly unfair to think someone with the label moderate if a better electoral hope, and that any shift to the left should be demonstrated as being responsibly done in increments and not as part of a revolution.

You don't make change in increments. You make change by drastic change. America has many problems, but medicare seems like the biggest. Any watering down of plans to kill off the current system means they won't get change.

That message needs to be made loud and clear.

But hey, socialist policies have always been a "hard sell" thanks to no-one explaining them in simple bloody language!

Or they're just not very popular with a lot of people. Though if Socialist means Bernie or Warren rather than Corbyn that's far less alarming to me, but whilst their medicare plans don't alarm me they do alarm many people in the USA, it just seems a bit of a risk, maybe the time for that fight has come, but for myself I'd look to work in increments and not alarm so many people, especially when the alternative isn't a Republican whose policies I don't much like but is in fact a walking quasi-talking piece of shit

As an aside even Bernie has of recent times object to the word revolution, somewhat oddly given he's talked in such terms for a long time, maybe he's just figured he's got the nomination and it's time to start running the general election campaign not the Democratic nomination

Social media has sucked the life out of informed dialogue. The public at large would be able to see that the biggest beneficiaries of welfare are in fact health industry executives, and they fund it. Obama was a pretty informed dude and tried to change it but bitched out at the end in the face of constant angry anecdote sprayed forth from the ether. The Tea Party fuckwits, birther movement, and on and on and on. In the end we got this diluted thing that gave a greater monopoly to insurance companies in exchange for them being compelled to not tell ill people to fuck off when they need treatment (bless them). I think it's hopeless if the way forward is seen as the ultimate vanilla milkshake going, Joe Biden. The public are that easy to manipulate through misinformation, and politicians are that sacred of it. My only hope is that Zuckergerg and his cuntish colleagues can be taken out of the political landscape with some logical policy and that the young Turks coming through the political ranks will have a landscape in which they are free to operate without the constant fear of assassination by anecdote.

We are probably pretty fucked.

[Mikey Brown]

If you can't show people you're making a difference maybe you don't have the right plans for a country, even if you happen to like them very much

I don't really follow how this relates to what I said. Are you referring to someone/something specific here?

Just because you can't secure multiple terms doesn't mean revolution is a good idea, indeed that likely makes it worse if the two parties are going to spend their time looking to critically undermine the efforts of a previous regime.

The Republicans surely will though. Isn't that just how it goes? Half-arsed good intentions in the hope they don't then roll it all back doesn't seem like it's getting the liberal cause anywhere. Obama wasn't particularly progressive or ambitious in his policies, though he talked a good talk, and didn't really get anywhere either. Surely that just allows the slide to the right to continue even further?

I didn't use the word revolution, but maybe Sanders does? I'm not sure.

[Mikey Brown]

I'm not sure why that response only just went through, but oh boy I've got just the thing for you MP. It's all your interests combined in a bite-size, contextless format for your viewing pleasure.



Not the first one, that's just silly.

[Mikey Brown]

The ONLY bad thing about twitter is when it posts 2 videos like that instead of 1.

[Digby]

You don't make change in increments. You make change by drastic change. America has many problems, but medicare seems like the biggest. Any watering down of plans to kill off the current system means they won't get change.

That message needs to be made loud and clear.

But hey, socialist policies have always been a "hard sell" thanks to no-one explaining them in simple bloody language!

Or they're just not very popular with a lot of people. Though if Socialist means Bernie or Warren rather than Corbyn that's far less alarming to me, but whilst their medicare plans don't alarm me they do alarm many people in the USA, it just seems a bit of a risk, maybe the time for that fight has come, but for myself I'd look to work in increments and not alarm so many people, especially when the alternative isn't a Republican whose policies I don't much like but is in fact a walking quasi-talking piece of shit

As an aside even Bernie has of recent times object to the word revolution, somewhat oddly given he's talked in such terms for a long time, maybe he's just figured he's got the nomination and it's time to start running the general election campaign not the Democratic nomination

Social media has sucked the life out of informed dialogue. The public at large would be able to see that the biggest beneficiaries of welfare are in fact health industry executives, and they fund it. Obama was a pretty informed dude and tried to change it but bitched out at the end in the face of constant angry anecdote sprayed forth from the ether. The Tea Party fuckwits, birther movement, and on and on and on. In the end we got this diluted thing that gave a greater monopoly to insurance companies in exchange for them being compelled to not tell ill people to fuck off when they need treatment (bless them). I think it's hopeless if the way forward is seen as the ultimate vanilla milkshake going, Joe Biden. The public are that easy to manipulate through misinformation, and politicians are that sacred of it. My only hope is that Zuckergerg and his cuntish colleagues can be taken out of the political landscape with some logical policy and that the young Turks coming through the political ranks will have a landscape in which they are free to operate without the constant fear of assassination by anecdote.

We are probably pretty fucked.

You think there was informed dialogue in the USA going back to the tail end of the last century? HMOs have been taking piss much longer than that.

And what Obamacare delivered shows the problem of trying to make change, and make it stick. Obama really only got a small change through and that came with some big problems. If someone can reinvent the whole process then great, but the would be staggeringly unusual, it makes as much sense offhand as Trump going to tell Big Pharma they should make a vaccine for Covid19 and thinking that was a job well done.

[Digby]

I don't really follow how this relates to what I said. Are you referring to someone/something specific here?

Just because you can't secure multiple terms doesn't mean revolution is a good idea, indeed that likely makes it worse if the two parties are going to spend their time looking to critically undermine the efforts of a previous regime.

The Republicans surely will though. Isn't that just how it goes? Half-arsed good intentions in the hope they don't then roll it all back doesn't seem like it's getting the liberal cause anywhere. Obama wasn't particularly progressive or ambitious in his policies, though he talked a good talk, and didn't really get anywhere either. Surely that just allows the slide to the right to continue even further?

I didn't use the word revolution, but maybe Sanders does? I'm not sure.

If the changes you see wrought are partial and seen to work it seems to me much more likely they'll take. Trying to remake the US health system into one we might recognise in Western Europe inside 4 years is going to take up so much time and could easily fail. Slow change is boring, but it's more realistically all there is for me, or to go with Max Weber's take 'Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards'

[morepork]

Or they're just not very popular with a lot of people. Though if Socialist means Bernie or Warren rather than Corbyn that's far less alarming to me, but whilst their medicare plans don't alarm me they do alarm many people in the USA, it just seems a bit of a risk, maybe the time for that fight has come, but for myself I'd look to work in increments and not alarm so many people, especially when the alternative isn't a Republican whose policies I don't much like but is in fact a walking quasi-talking piece of shit

As an aside even Bernie has of recent times object to the word revolution, somewhat oddly given he's talked in such terms for a long time, maybe he's just figured he's got the nomination and it's time to start running the general election campaign not the Democratic nomination

Social media has sucked the life out of informed dialogue. The public at large would be able to see that the biggest beneficiaries of welfare are in fact health industry executives, and they fund it. Obama was a pretty informed dude and tried to change it but bitched out at the end in the face of constant angry anecdote sprayed forth from the ether. The Tea Party fuckwits, birther movement, and on and on and on. In the end we got this diluted thing that gave a greater monopoly to insurance companies in exchange for them being compelled to not tell ill people to fuck off when they need treatment (bless them). I think it's hopeless if the way forward is seen as the ultimate vanilla milkshake going, Joe Biden. The public are that easy to manipulate through misinformation, and politicians are that sacred of it. My only hope is that Zuckergerg and his cuntish colleagues can be taken out of the political landscape with some logical policy and that the young Turks coming through the political ranks will have a landscape in which they are free to operate without the constant fear of assassination by anecdote.

We are probably pretty fucked.

You think there was informed dialogue in the USA going back to the tail end of the last century? HMOs have been taking piss much longer than that.

And what Obamacare delivered shows the problem of trying to make change, and make it stick. Obama really only got a small change through and that came with some big problems. If someone can reinvent the whole process then great, but the would be staggeringly unusual, it makes as much sense offhand as Trump going to tell Big Pharma they should make a vaccine for Covid19 and thinking that was a job well done.

So what then? Keep calm and carry on (getting fucked)? There is information out there to be had, but it is powerless against the toxic tide of social media nonsense.

[Digby]

Social media has sucked the life out of informed dialogue. The public at large would be able to see that the biggest beneficiaries of welfare are in fact health industry executives, and they fund it. Obama was a pretty informed dude and tried to change it but bitched out at the end in the face of constant angry anecdote sprayed forth from the ether. The Tea Party fuckwits, birther movement, and on and on and on. In the end we got this diluted thing that gave a greater monopoly to insurance companies in exchange for them being compelled to not tell ill people to fuck off when they need treatment (bless them). I think it's hopeless if the way forward is seen as the ultimate vanilla milkshake going, Joe Biden. The public are that easy to manipulate through misinformation, and politicians are that sacred of it. My only hope is that Zuckergerg and his cuntish colleagues can be taken out of the political landscape with some logical policy and that the young Turks coming through the political ranks will have a landscape in which they are free to operate without the constant fear of assassination by anecdote.

We are probably pretty fucked.

You think there was informed dialogue in the USA going back to the tail end of the last century? HMOs have been taking piss much longer than that.

And what Obamacare delivered shows the problem of trying to make change, and make it stick. Obama really only got a small change through and that came with some big problems. If someone can reinvent the whole process then great, but the would be staggeringly unusual, it makes as much sense offhand as Trump going to tell Big Pharma they should make a vaccine for Covid19 and thinking that was a job well done.

So what then? Keep calm and carry on (getting fucked)? There is information out there to be had, but it is powerless against the toxic tide of social media nonsense.

Slow boring change delivered in increments. I wouldn't start with this position working from scratch, but they are where they are, so solidify the ACA Medicare for all who want it (all my own work that slogan)

Also I don't know how influential social media is, how many people use it, is it just the minority who use it who think it important, how much does that content spill over into what and how MSM covers stories? How much does the media inform debate and opinion given most people don't actually follow news/politics?

And what's the solution to stupid people? For now we just have to accept they get a vote and democracy isn't a good system and only the best we've come up with so far

[morepork]

You could start by having a functional public broadcaster that isn't Fox Gnus.

Speaking of stupid, I have just seen the exchange between him and Pharma execs, with the room trying so hard to help him process the concept of drug development and testing in requisite phases for both safety and efficacy, and he just couldn't do it. At one point he asked if a current "strong" flu vaccine would work against the "corona". There are landmarks in biology that are the foundation of how medicine is conducted today. Elucidation of the structure of DNA was one, and Vaccination is another. You'd think someone would take the time to grasp the fundamentals of vaccination before subjecting themself to live public humiliation.

[gransoporro]

You could start by having a functional public broadcaster that isn't Fox Gnus.

Speaking of stupid, I have just seen the exchange between him and Pharma execs, with the room trying so hard to help him process the concept of drug development and testing in requisite phases for both safety and efficacy, and he just couldn't do it. At one point he asked if a current "strong" flu vaccine would work against the "corona". There are landmarks in biology that are the foundation of how medicine is conducted today. Elucidation of the structure of DNA was one, and Vaccination is another. You'd think someone would take the time to grasp the fundamentals of vaccination before subjecting themself to live public humiliation.

You would, but clearly not everybody Shares that belief. Or not everybody is convinced that winging it is the best way to address a problem.

I felt sorry for him. I mean, even I did. And here not a peep in the media after that monster clusterfuck.

[Digby]

You could start by having a functional public broadcaster that isn't Fox Gnus.

Speaking of stupid, I have just seen the exchange between him and Pharma execs, with the room trying so hard to help him process the concept of drug development and testing in requisite phases for both safety and efficacy, and he just couldn't do it. At one point he asked if a current "strong" flu vaccine would work against the "corona". There are landmarks in biology that are the foundation of how medicine is conducted today. Elucidation of the structure of DNA was one, and Vaccination is another. You'd think someone would take the time to grasp the fundamentals of vaccination before subjecting themself to live public humiliation.

You would, but clearly not everybody Shares that belief. Or not everybody is convinced that winging it is the best way to address a problem.

I felt sorry for him. I mean, even I did. And here not a peep in the media after that monster clusterfuck.

He cannot be briefed on such details. Partly he hasn't got the attention span for it, and partly he's so conceited he's convinced he already knows better than the person trying to educate him so will simply dismiss them assuring he already knows best, being a stable genius and all