To me, that would seem like yet another "retro" candidate.Originally Posted by David Krein
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Posts
- 1,230
To me, that would seem like yet another "retro" candidate.
Nobody ever got to a single truth without talking nonsense fourteen times first.
- Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
Someone else asked me this question. In recent decades, being VP has turned into a stepping stone to running for president (Nixon, Humphrey, Mondale, HW Bush, Gore), yet it's interesting that there's scant news of the idea of Biden running, especially since he did run as recently as 2008. People would bring up age (hey, he's the same birth cohort as you!), but I don't see any reason why he couldn't pull it off if he wanted to.
Biden doesn't poll well though. He could get about 10%.
But it might help Bernie Sanders (they are the same age).
Biden's cosmic score is OK, but no better than Hillary's all things considered.
No you aren't, but will he run? On his deathbed, his son tried to push him into the race. Maybe that's enough to overcome the barriers, but he's had a lot of tragedy. I'm not sure he wants this burden on top of that.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Ultimately I suspect The Anglosphere will prove an initially "self organizing" and long term resilient empire. On the other hand, I do agree that the depths of atomization have yet to be reached. We need to hit rock bottom before The Anglosphere realizes the things that bind us outweigh the things that give us diversity.On the subject of electoral reforms, I had a whimsical notion today. So, I was finishing up reading The Accidental Superpower by Peter Zeihan, who used to work for Stratfor. Like Stratfor's George Friedman, the book was about predictions based upon geopolitics, which is basically the role of geography in determining whether and how states function. It's rather a mediocre book, and if you're interested in that sort of thing George Friedman's stuff is better, replete with geographic errors both minor and major, which is not really something you should see in a book about the determining power of geography in human affairs. For instance, it lists the Aegean Sea as being to the South East of the Sea of Marmara, control of Bulgaria and Romania as consolidating the Eastern half of the Black Sea, Baton Rouge as being on the Gulf Coast, and so on. These are annoying, but relatively minor. On the other hand, he was also making points about the inherent poverty of the North China Plain versus that of the states on the North European Plain on account of the former being dependent on rice agriculture versus wheat, which is complete nonsense, they don't grow much rice there at all. Or how Japan is an inherently insecure industrial power because of its dependence of foreign supplies of raw materials, which is accurate enough, but then mentions that Japan requires foreign supplies of rice as well, despite mentioning in the previous sentence that it is largely self-sufficient in rice as opposed to other grains. So, like I said, interesting topics, mediocre book.
But one of the things that was intriguing was his point on the growing demographic and financial mismatch versus oil producing Alberta versus the other provinces, and the resulting political tensions. He lists several facts and figures on the subject, which I will not bother reproducing here, and uses these as well as geographic arguments (which were reasonably cogent) to postulate a successful separatist movement in Alberta in the near future. He then goes on to show how this state would not be viable as an independent country, but would be well served by joining the US. The loss of Alberta would in turn cripple Canada by reducing the major contributor to Canadian government finances, as well as severing the main east-west link (the territories having little infrastructure to speak of) between BC and the rest of Canada, leading the country to break apart.
Now, like I said, a lot of his stuff was quite questionable, and I doubt whether this is really all that plausible. OTOH, in the spirit of the parallels of today to the Glorious Revolution that many on this board are fond of, it is entertaining to consider a scenario where Canada did break apart in the 20s due to the secession of a province like Alberta or Quebec (which would sever the Maritime provinces from the rest of the country), and all or at least many of the provinces applied to join the US. Particularly when you consider that Puerto Rico is about to default on its debts, more Puerto Ricans live on the mainland than the island, and sentiment has recently shifted towards applying for statehood versus independence. In this scenario, the addition of Puerto Rico sets the precedent that the US can still expand, and the ensuing Constitutional questions* surrounding representation and the like with the accession of the Canadian provinces, as well as the shift in voting power as these places become first territories than states, causes a radical reform in US governance. In effect, by breaking apart, the Canadians would remake the US in their image.
Made me laugh.
EDIT: Since I have made idiosyncratic references to the Glorious Revolution that have not been readily apparent to be people here before, the idea is that just as England finally took over from Holland after it was effectively conquered by the Dutch ruler (yes, yes, it's a little more complicated than that), Canada could effectively "conquer" the United States by falling apart. Don't think about it too hard.
*Which apparently don't exist because I went back and checked and the apportionment amendment was never passed and the present size is fixed by congressional acts. I can't fucking win tonight.
Jacobin Magazine featured an article, "What Bernie Must Do," which underscores his Achilles heel in his campaign, namely his need to connect better with progressives of color if he is to have any hope of defeating Hillary Clinton. The author recommends that Sanders nail ten theses to the door of his campaign headquarters, an obvious allusion to Martin Luther. See this link for the full article: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/07/bernie-sanders-race-netroots-black-lives-matter-clinton/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=email_this&ut m_source=email
Sanders has rightfully framed his presidential campaign as a crusade of the 99 percent against the 1 percent; but to expand his coalition, and build a real movement for change, he and his campaign staff must gain the trust of progressive activists of color by bringing them into the heart of the campaign. Bernie will not get a hearing in communities of color based on issues alone; he must develop partnerships with black and Latino activists in communities to which the longtime resident of Vermont (a state where 95 percent of the population is white) has few organic ties.
Bernie’s July 25 speech to the Southern Christian Leadership Council demonstrates that he is more than capable of making an informed, passionate analysis of how institutional racism creates mass incarceration, police brutality, and voter suppression. He also just added much-needed statements on structural racism and immigration reform to the invitations for his July 29 fundraising house parties.
...If Bernie is to build the broad rainbow needed to win the Democratic nomination, he is going to have to work harder to demonstrate his empathy with black, Latino, LGBTQ, and feminist activists who experience racism, sexism, homophobia, nativism, exclusion, and violence on a daily basis. His critique of corporate power simply doesn’t encompass these experiences.
If Bernie is to build the broad rainbow needed to win the Democratic nomination, he is going to have to work harder to demonstrate his empathy with black, Latino, LGBTQ, and feminist activists who experience racism, sexism, homophobia, nativism, exclusion, and violence on a daily basis. His critique of corporate power simply doesn’t encompass these experiences.
While national polls remain fairly imprecise at this point in a presidential run, none show Sanders doing better than 9 percent among likely Democratic primary voters of color — and, at best, he only polls at 5 percent among African Americans.
In contrast, he hovers in the low to mid-20s among likely white Democratic primary voters and approaches 50 percent support among likely primary voters who are white and self-define as liberal or progressive. Clinton polls well over 60 percent support among likely Democratic primary voters of color. A low overall level of voter recognition is a factor for Sanders, but doesn’t explain everything.
Given the above realities, it’s time for Bernie supporters to nail the following ten theses to the door of Sanders’s national headquarters and demand they be addressed. Not only is it good strategy for the electoral campaign, it’ll put Sanders supporters on a better footing to build diverse, powerful movements after it’s all over.
I don't know why Bernie has to demonstrate anything. His record is clear, and he has articulated it. Progressives of color need only be concerned about the policies he supports and acts on. If they do that, they will favor him. Anything else is nonsense.
The Midwest matters, too. The Northeast? Paul LePage (ME), Kelly Ayotte (NH), and Pat Toomey (PA) are nowhere near being moderate, let alone liberal. The West Coast? The Republican Party has become about as relevant in California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington as the Democratic Party is relevant in Texas.PB,
It is difficult to answer line by line on a mobile. So, I see where the confusion lies. I meant more the sorts of Republicans who exist in the NE or the Coastal West. Sorry, I forgot how provincial some of my audience was.
The Republican Party has become almost as rigid as a Communist Party in ideology. Maybe at a local level an elected Republican may not have the hooks of Koch fronts attached....but go further up the hierarchy of elected pols and one sees that.
Of course. But nobody yet knows how rough the transition could be. This is a 4T, the time in which unprecedented events in American history (even a military coup) are most possible. Think of what happened in Germany and Spain in the 1930s -- in their 4Ts.I fully expect a rough transition, and I still anticipate the liberals to be in the drivers seat for the rest of the turning. We were discussing what the party system would look like going into the next couple of turnings.
A Hitler-like leader taking over America? Extremely unlikely. Hitler needed a country whose political institutions broke down in a time of economic distress and in which there was only one significant minority to exploit as pariahs. Blacks and Asians may have little in common except distrust of right-wing demagogues. Spanish Civil War? We have huge polarization and severe weaknesses in our political system -- most notably the inability of the system to allow compromise. That is far more likely than a Hitler-like leader.
Wishful thinking on the part of many. A parliamentary system? The Presidency would have to breakdown for such to be attractive. President Obama is far more respected than is Congress.As for changes to the Constitutional order, I've already stated that I find them extremely unlikely this turning and am confused why they keep coming up. Try and keep up.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Blah, blah, Hitler, blah, blah. You're a broken record.
And yet both parties exist in all of those states. Likewise, even an America that becomes more "blue" in the future will continue to have two parties.The Republican Party has become about as relevant in California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington as the Democratic Party is relevant in Texas.
I'm not necessarily a huge fan, but do you you actually know what policies those people support (in reality, not in your Handmaiden's Tale fantasies of Christocapitalistfascistmarxist what have you)? THey're no more or less sinister than George Soros or any of the other big bankrollers of the Democrats.The Republican Party has become almost as rigid as a Communist Party in ideology. Maybe at a local level an elected Republican may not have the hooks of Koch fronts attached....but go further up the hierarchy of elected pols and one sees that.
I'm going to glaze over your continued and fetishistic WWII wankery and merely point out that yes, the transition could be very rough. And, since the progressives look like they are in the dominant position for the turning (judging by the math in the electoral college and the shape that the "cultural cleansing" predicted in T4T is taking), you better hope that they are not the ones who end up holding the bag if things don't turn out alright.Of course. But nobody yet knows how rough the transition could be. This is a 4T, the time in which unprecedented events in American history (even a military coup) are most possible. Think of what happened in Germany and Spain in the 1930s -- in their 4Ts.
A Hitler-like leader taking over America? Extremely unlikely. Hitler needed a country whose political institutions broke down in a time of economic distress and in which there was only one significant minority to exploit as pariahs. Blacks and Asians may have little in common except distrust of right-wing demagogues. Spanish Civil War? We have huge polarization and severe weaknesses in our political system -- most notably the inability of the system to allow compromise. That is far more likely than a Hitler-like leader.
The office is not the man, but otherwise, pretty much. Since I have already said so repeatedly, I don't know why you are continuing to direct these speeches my way.Wishful thinking on the part of many. A parliamentary system? The Presidency would have to breakdown for such to be attractive. President Obama is far more respected than is Congress.
There are "blue" towns in Oklahoma and "red" towns in Massachusetts. So what?
Technically speaking, the People's Republic of China has and the (late and unlamented) German Democratic Republic had multi-Party systems. The weak opposition was allowed to win a limited number of legislative seats -- but we all know where the real power was -- the Communist Party boss. Yes, Republicans can win Congressional seats in some still-favorable places in California and Democrats can win some Congressional seats in still-favorable places in Texas.
I would not trust any Koch puppet with my civil liberties, let alone with democracy itself.I'm not necessarily a huge fan, but do you you actually know what policies those people support (in reality, not in your Handmaiden's Tale fantasies of Christocapitalistfascistmarxist what have you)? They're no more or less sinister than George Soros or any of the other big bankrollers of the Democrats.
Does anyone know what American fascism would look like? It would be, first of all, 100% American... of course with a very narrow and exclusive definition of what constitutes "American-ness".
The Right has gerrymandered the House of Representatives enough to get away with a very right-wing agenda. It has the money for buying ad time; if the 2014 pattern in which the Republican pol gets to run as a 'nice guy' and Koch fronts such as Americans for Prosperity do the dirty work of demonizing the Democrat while keeping the 'nice-guy' Republican's hands clean... then there might not be any Progressive ascendancy.I'm going to glaze over your continued and fetishistic WWII wankery and merely point out that yes, the transition could be very rough. And, since the progressives look like they are in the dominant position for the turning (judging by the math in the electoral college and the shape that the "cultural cleansing" predicted in T4T is taking), you better hope that they are not the ones who end up holding the bag if things don't turn out alright.
So far the electoral math for the Presidency favors the Democrats. For the House? The Koch syndicate. Such practically ensures political gridlock. Maybe that will stop some rash behavior -- but it will also defer problems until they become catastrophes. That situation is most likely to be caught holding the bag when things go bad.
God help us -- and the world -- in view of American military force, should some clique decide that a command system that respects none of the politicians that the clique deems culpable for the mess -- with that clique tolerating no dissent -- is the political solution. "Dirty (domestic) War" is one scary prospect until it gets ruled out by historical fact.
Democrats got the majority of votes for Congress in 2012 yet could not win the House majority. Such says much about how pathological contemporary politics have become due to well-tuned gerrymandering. Our democratic process is badly warped.The (Presidency) is not the man, but otherwise
pretty much.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 07-31-2015 at 06:24 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
the only polls I believe in are the ones taken on Tues in Nov, & certain Tues in other months but hopefully this will come to pass-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-go...ushpmg00000063
Remember that Hillary squandered a huge lead to Obama in 2008 too.
It could be that Hillary is the political equivalent of what in sports is known as a "choke artist" - and a parallel between her and another female Democratic politician, Massachusetts' Martha Coakley, could prove highly instructive: Coakley was the "moderate" Democrat (once praised effusively by John Walsh of the, to understate it, center-right TV show America's Most Wanted) who lost to Scott Brown in the 2010 special election for the Senate seat vacated by the deceased Ted Kennedy, then did the unthinkable and lost to Republican Charlie Baker for governor last year.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.
Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!
Another Bernie Sanders event disrupted. He does not have the hang of this whole identity politics thing. Too much time in Vermont, I guess.
https://youtu.be/6BnbwUT7lBg
Do they not have security?
Oh well, at least they were prepared to give a speech.
https://youtu.be/BWOuCfdJYMM
Bernie is still essentially a rabble rouser, and his success is probably far beyond what he expected. Because he's mostly invested in the economic plight of the many, issues raised by groups like Black Lives Matter are simply outside his window. The sad part is, if he shifts to the social issues, his main message will be lost in the noise. If he doesn't, he'll be trashed as insensitive. The only politician who had the skills needed to blunt the social issues stampede was Bill Clinton, and we don't need more from him at this juncture either.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
The political atmosphere today has a bad case of "my issue is the Most Important Thing and of you don't focus on it you are The Problem" syndrome. The Left has trouble doing protests that stay on message, you inevitably get the "FREE MUMIA" people and similar types trying to change the topic.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Black Lives Matter is not quite the same as a "social issue" like abortion; it's just a matter of black and hispanic folks becoming more familiar with Bernie's record on racial issues. Then he'll get more support. In any case, "the economic plight of the many" certainly includes them.
Have we found this era's Gray Champion in Bernie Sanders? One who will be remembered long after the hippie and yuppie have been forgotten to all but the historian.
I think you still might get more of him, unless the Justice Department really throws Hillary under the bus. Who knows, you always have Joe.
Myopic idiocy strikes again, eh? A man unwilling to take his own side in an argument versus people willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
How in God's name is he going to stand up for the American people if he can't even stand up to himself?
Actually, this isn't happening at Bernie's events - it's happening at events where he's a guest speaker. So it's not his security team to order around.
The really nasty thing about these disruptions is that they put him in a lose-lose situation. If he respects the protester's anger, he looks weak. If he tries to throw 'em off stage, he's not acknowledging the issues that brought 'em there.
But mostly, it's no surprise that a Soros-funded organization would target Hillary's top challenger.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.
'82 - Once & always independent
Is that a sheepshead reference?
Yes and a bigger share of the Republican base are haves too, particularly Tea party members.
What I think you are talking about is the movement of well-educated white professionals from the GOP to the Dems. But this has been more than offset by the migration of working class whites from the Dems to the GOP. I read in an post-2012 electoral analysis that Republicans have captured a rising share of white voters over the past few decades, including a majority of white millennials in 2012.The wedge social issues that the GOP used to peel off the white working class (with few exceptions) eventually drove off a big piece of the middle classes that used to be their core voters.
You seem to be using the "What's the matter with Kansas" analysis. Democrats would not have lost the white working class had then not abandoned them during the Carter administration. The economic well-being of working class Americans has already be closely tied to real wage levels. If you look back in history who see there were bursts of wage gains corresponding to the Wilson. FDR+Truman, and Kennedy-Johnson. These gains were associated with high or rising strike frequency. When Republicans were in office, strike frequency declined and wage growth was muted. But when Carter came in and the Dems controlled government strike frequency did not rise, and wages continued their downward trend. Clinton saw some weak wage gains, but labor was now moribund so it wasn't much. This wasn't just bad luck. Carter brought in Volcker to put the cost of restraining inflation entirely on the back of workers, instead of on capitalists as it have been by the New Dealers. And so the policy remains to this day.
Having been abandoned by their economic allies, the only issues remaining are non-economic. Nearly half of the Democratic party is non-white, and a comfortable majority are women. White men maybe make up 25-30%. In contrast the GOP is probably majority white men. It proclaims an ideology that is more accepting of white men's feelings. White men are an identity group just like any other sociopolitical group and Republicans practice identity politics as well as Democrats.
Yes, which would split the non-GOP vote leaving them dominant.With changing demographics and the loss of a common enemy there's room for the growth of a party or faction to the present Overton Window's left.
Last edited by Mikebert; 08-11-2015 at 07:49 AM.
Our difference is the bolded statement. It is wishful thinking. The Democrats and Republicans aren't going anywhere. Parties can and do change coats. Today's Republican and Democratic parties are totally different creatures than the entities that bore the same name in my youth. Look at my parent's presidential voting record: Eisenhower, Nixon. Goldwater, Nixon, Nixon/McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama. Note the change. They didn't really change, the parties did. Ronald Reagan made the same point, although for him it was some of both. So that was a coat change. There was another between 1910 and 1936. And there is the one Lincoln was talking about. And another one in the 1810's.
Coat changes mostly involve a reshuffling of voting blocs between the parties. They do not reflect changes in the parties fundamental purpose. The GOP and its precursors have changed coasts several times, but they have always been the party of the capitalist elite. In other words changing coats doesn't solve any problems of governance, it simply serves as a way for the parties to preserve themselves. And with 150 years of cultural evolution under their belt, both parties have gotten pretty good at that.
Last edited by Mikebert; 08-11-2015 at 08:44 AM.
Mikebert,
Still not seeing the disagreement. I've already stated on multiple times that I don't think the Republicans are going to disappear. Nor do I wish them to do so, as I am not a Democrat. Nor am I disagreeing that they will probably remain the party of the capitalist elite. I have simply stated that they have lost the culture war, are disadvantaged in the electoral college, and that in the longer term the present Democratic coalition will fracture, with white urban professionals the most likely to jump ship.
Out of curiosity, are you abandoning the idea of 2008 as a defining election?
