Originally Posted by TnT

There is this mind-set among Americans, that is surprisingly prevalent ... that one person, the President, somehow has the ability to turn the country on a dime. I just don't get it.

There are literally thousands of people involved in the day-to-day governing of the country that supply more than enough momentum, obstructionism and stubborness to make the Titanic look as maneuverable as a speedboat.

Americans really are that dumbed down. We ... are ... sooooooooo ... screwed!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My 85-year-old Mom, who "has the Bern", is counting on Sanders to do just what you anticipate. I certainly hope that you both are right.

I suspect a good number of "Pete Seeger" Democrats from The Silent Gen feel the Bern.

I think the popularity of Trump and Sanders shows that the population has finally turned against the establishment and really shows that this Turning is going to be a revolutionary one even if the two parties do use their super-delegates to get the candidates they want on the ballot.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

I think the popularity of Trump and Sanders shows that the population has finally turned against the establishment and really shows that this Turning is going to be a revolutionary one even if the two parties do use their super-delegates to get the candidates they want on the ballot.

And ,if the establishment turns on Trump. the GOP will essentially implode.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

I think the popularity of Trump and Sanders shows that the population has finally turned against the establishment and really shows that this Turning is going to be a revolutionary one even if the two parties do use their super-delegates to get the candidates they want on the ballot.

Do the republicans have superdelegates?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My 85-year-old Mom, who "has the Bern", is counting on Sanders to do just what you anticipate. I certainly hope that you both are right.

I wish my 1922 cohort grandmother were still alive, she would LOVE Bernie.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm sure this comical meme is going to be one of the desperate attempts by the Right to hold onto the angry White working class vote. But fortunately, the ones in that cohort with brains are already Sanders supporters and your horse pucky isn't going to square with Bernie's eventual endorsement of Clinton and his turning his well-honed economic hammering rhetoric on the vastly easier target of Trump and what the Right actually has to offer.

Don't count Bernie out yet. Not when the Vice Chair of the DNC just resigned her position to endorse Bernie. Polls have been showing Bernie more electable against Trump for the last 3 months or more and doubts about Hillary's electability are penetrating within Democratic circles.

The problem with all the protectionist arguments is that even if we build all those protectionist walls, and it miraculously doesn't come with all the negative consequences for our own exports and prices paid, it would come nowhere near the quantity AND QUALITY of job creation of the federal government just spending more money on infrastructure, education, research and development, environmental protection. Just a serious effort to develop and build out the infrastructure for electric driverless cars on a computerized grid would make this country's economy boom - worrying about tariffs and protectionism would be some other nations' problem.

We actually need both protectionism AND investment in infrastructure. China has been careful to protect it's internal market while it has built up its infrastructure. So did postwar Japan--and South Korea, until it got both it's infrastructure and it's chaebol conglomerates in place and able to compete with Western and Japanese business. The history of the last 100 years has shown that nations that do not protect their internal markets lose those markets to more organised foreign competition.
And as for driverless cars and trucks, some way will have to be found to find new or other jobs for displaced drivers. Already Uber is displacing more traditional cab drivers with well established benefits. Protectionism is definitely NOT obsolete.

Originally Posted by Odin

I wish my 1922 cohort grandmother were still alive, she would LOVE Bernie.

My mother of the same vintage loves Bernie.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Do the republicans have superdelegates?

Yes they do, but not nearly as many as the Democrats do.

[QUOTE=MordecaiK;550887]

Don't count Bernie out yet. Not when the Vice Chair of the DNC just resigned her position to endorse Bernie. Polls have been showing Bernie more electable against Trump for the last 3 months or more and doubts about Hillary's electability are penetrating within Democratic circles.

The election schedule is favoring Hillary and giving her momentum. Bernie's not out, but will have to play catch up. He will try to win a few states tomorrow, such as Massachusetts and Oklahoma (vote Rags!). But most of The South will be a sweep for Hillary. Bernie will have a chance to do better in the next round of states., but then there's a group after that which will favor Hillary again. He won't be able to catch up until the last round in June. So he'll have to hang in there, and it's an uphill battle. And he'll have to win a majority of elected delegates to convince the "supers" to join them.

We actually need both protectionism AND investment in infrastructure. China has been careful to protect it's internal market while it has built up its infrastructure. So did postwar Japan--and South Korea, until it got both it's infrastructure and it's chaebol conglomerates in place and able to compete with Western and Japanese business. The history of the last 100 years has shown that nations that do not protect their internal markets lose those markets to more organised foreign competition.
And as for driverless cars and trucks, some way will have to be found to find new or other jobs for displaced drivers. Already Uber is displacing more traditional cab drivers with well established benefits. Protectionism is definitely NOT obsolete.

Right.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

My mother of the same vintage loves Bernie.

My 1920 cohort mother loves Hillary.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Not when the Vice Chair of the DNC just resigned her position to endorse Bernie.

It is important to note that this Tulsi Gabbard is actually pretty conservative, a conservative Dem endorsing Bernie is a Big Fucking Deal.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If the election turns out to be Trump vs. Clinton, it will be a referendum on the "globalization" that began after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and is personified by the Clintons.

Donald Trump has recruited foreign workers through visa programs that ensure that those workers are terribly exploited here. But unlike the illegal aliens that less powerful entrepreneurs use to undercut the market, Trump uses a visa program that his 'elevated' segment of the economic elite has gtotten through Congress through lobbying. Trump's alien workers don't look so alien.

This could be a dramatic realignment. If you were a supporter of Bernie Sanders, or part of the dwindling middle or working class base of the Democratic Party, given the choice between Trump and Clinton, would you not be tempted to vote for Trump? And would the left-leaning members of the Republican elite not be tempted to vote for Clinton (some have publicly said they are)?

It is the white middle class which is still largely Republican-voting that is dwindling. The black, Asian, and Latino middle classes are growing -- and they are going more solidly Democratic because the Republican Party is so anti-intellectual that it scares so many educated people.

This is the choice that will be offered: "protectionism" vs. an economy where a handful of super rich, "progressive" elites fund welfare subsistence for "the masses" (many imported from foreign countries) to buy cheap Chinese goods at Wal Mart.

Have you been to a Wal*Mart lately? Practically everything that it sells is of 'commodity' quality. You get what you pay for there.

The Democratic Party will then have completed its transition from the party of the working class to the party of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and Washington, the party of "gentry liberals", college professors, and those with post-graduate degrees, and welfare recipients. The Republicans will become (at least as long as Trump is around) a new form of the FDR coalition, in support of a different set of policies.

You show a redundancy: today, practically all college-level professors have post-graduate degrees. The Republican Party has been picking up the white ignoramus vote, which hardly merits internal pride or trust from outside the Party. Donald Trump is just another crony capitalist who has exploited the political system for his own purposes many times.

I have frequently shown an electoral map showing that the states that went for Obama in 2012 all went to Eisenhower in both 1952 and 1956. To be sure, any winner of any election will have an electoral map showing that almost all states that went to the winner of any one election won largely states that FDR won in 1936, Nixon won in 1972, and Reagan won in 1984. Thus Barack Obama won only two states that FDR lost in 1936 (Maine and Vermont), the one that Nixon lost in 1972 (Massachusetts), and the one that Reagan lost in 1984 (Minnesota) -- but both Eisenhower and Obama won all four of those states.

Trump would make us more like other developed countries on trade and immigration, while Clinton would take us one step closer to permanently becoming Venezuela.

I'd rather have Bernie Sanders, who more likely would make America resemble some Scandinavian country if he were elected.

Venezuela is even nastier than the US for political polarization. There are practically no political moderates in influence in either the USA or Venezuela. But that is not a particularly good model. Donald Trump would make America more like Russia, where crony capitalists control everything and reward the Leader well.

All of the other issues that people care about are being subsumed into that division.

Hey! Someone must have given you a thesaurus for Christmas!

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Don't count Bernie out yet. Not when the Vice Chair of the DNC just resigned her position to endorse Bernie. Polls have been showing Bernie more electable against Trump for the last 3 months or more and doubts about Hillary's electability are penetrating within Democratic circles.

The probability of counting him out did go up with the NV result and certainly with him getting trounced in SC, but I'm going to stick with my earlier prognosis that only his losing MA today would be the knockout and even with that he'll be a zombie candidate through at least March 15. If he takes MA, then he has to keep it close on March 8 in Michigan. I'll have to await today and March 8 results for my next prediction of a knockout, if needed.

As to the DNC Vice Chair, if you had to google to find her name, I don't think Clinton's team is too worried about the news. On the other hand, I know Debbie Wasserman Schultz; I'm not a big fan, but I certainly would not have gone out of my way to piss her off. Check in on Gabbard this time next year and see how well she's doing.

Electability? - there's that old joke, as modified - Clinton doesn't have to outrun the bear, she only has to outrun Trump.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

We actually need both protectionism AND investment in infrastructure. China has been careful to protect it's internal market while it has built up its infrastructure. So did postwar Japan--and South Korea, until it got both it's infrastructure and it's chaebol conglomerates in place and able to compete with Western and Japanese business. The history of the last 100 years has shown that nations that do not protect their internal markets lose those markets to more organised foreign competition.

China is actually trying to move away from being an export giant to an internal consumer oriented market, patterned after the US. It is the only way for it to continue to grow longer term, raise standards of living, and be more stable. That transition is at the heart of all the current turmoil there that is spreading to those that depend on China's markets particularly it commodity importation. It's very tough to achieve, but their aggressive pursuit should be a clue as to what is consider the superior type of economy - the US model. Protectionism, in regard to achieving fair trade, and doing so in a larger context of easing transitions for all, is certainly an aspect in running a vibrant economy for all, BUT like any purely defensive scheme, it can only go so far. It becomes comical when it is regarded as being more promising than internal investments such as infrastructure build out and improvements.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

And as for driverless cars and trucks, some way will have to be found to find new or other jobs for displaced drivers. Already Uber is displacing more traditional cab drivers with well established benefits. Protectionism is definitely NOT obsolete.

I don't think Uber drivers are going to be controlled by protectionist measures.

But yes, automation in general (more expert software than robotics) is going to create a lot of job displacement. Trying to stop the automation would be like trying to stop the ocean tides; it's going to happen. The question is how best to prepare for it. The Uber displacement may be the needed precursor that helps at least the transportation sector get better ready for what is coming; what we have to do is support an alternative - much of that could be the infrastructure build out for driverless cars on a computerized grid.

Amid Trump surge, nearly 20,000 Mass. voters quit Democratic party

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Amid Trump surge, nearly 20,000 Mass. voters quit Democratic party

Wow .... twenty freaking thousand! Why, they could fill part of Fenway! Amazing, what a decline! / sarc

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Wow .... twenty freaking thousand! Why, they could fill part of Fenway! Amazing, what a decline! / sarc

"The 19,800 who left the Mass Dems represent about 1.3 percent of the 1.49 million enrolled in the party. And though the MassGOP gained several thousand voters, it actually lost more in the same time frame, when 5,911 quit the party to be unenrolled."


From JPT's link

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Amid Trump surge, nearly 20,000 Mass. voters quit Democratic party

How do you know that that much of it isn't to make protest votes against Donald Trump in the primary?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Fixed your statement.

-- yeah them too. But my point is Hillary is only offering more of the same, & we're already pretty much of a banana republic

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My 85-year-old Mom, who "has the Bern", is counting on Sanders to do just what you anticipate. I certainly hope that you both are right.

My parents are also in their 80s, but unfortunately they have expressed that they would vote for Trump if it meant defeating Hillary, even though they don't like Trump. Very frustrating to their Gen X offspring, my brother and I, who both plan to vote for Sanders in our upcoming primary.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

My parents are also in their 80s, but unfortunately they have expressed that they would vote for Trump if it meant defeating Hillary, even though they don't like Trump. Very frustrating to their Gen X offspring, my brother and I, who both plan to vote for Sanders in our upcoming primary.

Continue to lobby your folks to the #NeverTrump cause.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- yeah them too. But my point is Hillary is only offering more of the same, & we're already pretty much of a banana republic

More Obama, yes. But that's not a trajectory toward a banana republic. Only the Republicans offer THAT inticing prospect: bananas, yum yum! (actually I haven't liked bananas since I was a baby). Although I agree we are already pretty much there. But I think Obama arrested that course, if not exactly reversed it. BUT, if he didn't reverse it, that's mainly due to millennials who haven't learned to vote in midterms yet. All that is perfectly clear as day.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I'd rather have Bernie Sanders, who more likely would make America resemble some Scandinavian country if he were elected.

Me too. Prospects look dim though right now.

Venezuela is even nastier than the US for political polarization. There are practically no political moderates in influence in either the USA or Venezuela. But that is not a particularly good model. Donald Trump would make America more like Russia, where crony capitalists control everything and reward the Leader well.

That's a good summary. Trump even spoke yesterday as if he already owns the country. It's a lot like Venezuela too. Imagine the USA with it's own Hugo Chavez. He even kinda looks like him. Or he and his buddy Putin can just sorta divide up the world between them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Me too. Prospects look dim though right now.

That's a good summary. Trump even spoke yesterday as if he already owns the country. It's a lot like Venezuela too. Imagine the USA with it's own Hugo Chavez. He even kinda looks like him. Or he and his buddy Putin can just sorta divide up the world between them.

Trump may imagine dividing up the world with Putin, but Putin only imagines dividing up the world with Xi. The US ain't part of that plan.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Trump may imagine dividing up the world with Putin, but Putin only imagines dividing up the world with Xi. The US ain't part of that plan.

I think Trump can make deals, and both he and Putin are for sale to the highest bidder. The SCO alliance is only a conspiracy theory at this point.