DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
Smedley said:
But I can argue for incrementalism and win an election.
Look I know you are Bernie or bust, and to you pretty much every other Dem candidate is Trump lite. But a platform of radical change is not going to win an election when the economy is strong. So give me Mayor Pete, or Biden (though I´m kinda souring on him to be honest), or Klobuchar, or whoever else can increment a win next November. Put Bernie out to pasture where he can breathe in the cow farts.
I am not Bernie or Bust. I have two other candidates in my list and I would vote for whatever Dem creature managed to get the nomination if I felt the process was legit (i.e. Nancy/Chuck calling for unity while meeting in secret to undermine Bernie-not looking good). I don't think the other candidates are Trump lite, but I don't feel they can beat him either because they offer little to inspire people to vote for them other than empty inspirational words or ready to compromise Day 1 promises. I guess if they fool enough Dems to vote for them they can fool the country, but I really can't see the centrists doing well with Trump--he will just make fun of their platitudes and accuse them of being fakes. His supporters will eat it up. Bernie standing there with a grassroots campaign and talking about covering the entire country with Medicare for All, and free college is going to deflect him the best--he will have nothing to brag about. He will probably just keep saying "socilism" but that can only get you so far.
Sounds like Krugman was mainly criticizing that Bernie isn't a democrat.
Not sure why Glen is going after Krugman instead of Waldman since that's who Krugman was merely quoting. weird.
Smedley said:
But I can argue for incrementalism and win an election.
Look I know you are Bernie or bust, and to you pretty much every other Dem candidate is Trump lite. But a platform of radical change is not going to win an election when the economy is strong. So give me Mayor Pete, or Biden (though I´m kinda souring on him to be honest), or Klobuchar, or whoever else can increment a win next November. Put Bernie out to pasture where he can breathe in the cow farts.
Great idea.
jamie said:
Sounds like Krugman was mainly criticizing that Bernie isn't a democrat.
Not sure why Glen is going after Krugman instead of Waldman since that's who Krugman was merely quoting. weird.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/17/how-worrisome-are-divisions-among-democrats/?utm_term=.2e70c3e8d63f
No, Krugman was agreeing with Waldman's smear, as usual. During 2016, Krugman was a one-man anti-Sanders propaganda machine with his head so far up HRC's butt you could not see his neck. Looks like he's going for similar this time, except it's the establishment, not HRC.
Again with the butts.
Nan, it's obvious that you are laying the groundwork to blame the DNC when Bernie the Millionaire doesn't get the nomination. You might as well let it all out now so that we can focus our energy on electing Mayor Pete or Amy Klobuchar.
Hey look at the bright side, Bernie the Millionaire can write another book and make even more Imperialist Yankee Dollars!
Thanks in advance.
Mayor Pete 2020!
sbenois said:
Again with the butts.
Nan, it's obvious that you are laying the groundwork to blame the DNC when Bernie the Millionaire doesn't get the nomination. You might as well let it all out now so that we can focus our energy on electing Mayor Pete or Amy Klobuchar.
Hey look at the bright side, Bernie the Millionaire can write another book and make even more Imperialist Yankee Dollars!
Thanks in advance.
Mayor Pete 2020!
I will blame the DNC if I have the evidence to blame the DNC. Based on yesterday's New York Times article, I can use FACTS to blame the DNC. Looks like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were calling for unity while actually plotting against a Dem candidate. Hopefully this secret group can be disbanded and Mayor Pete needs to account for his participation also. Can't keep reinforcing bad behavior by just falling in line and voting for the establishment anointed candidate, after cheating the frontrunner. Hopefully it does not come to that.
Here's part of Waldman's piece (thanks for drawing our attention to it):
jamie said:
Here's part of Waldman's piece (thanks for drawing our attention to it):
Where is the whole thing? LInk? I see your response to a Bernie smear is to post another longer Bernie smear. Did you even read this? It's beyond pathetic. The guy makes crazy statements pretending to read Bernie's mind and to evaluate his "DNA." He says there is nothing the DNC could do to please him, but even a child knows that if they stopped taking corporate money and adopted a platform like his he would be thrilled with them. It's that easy. Then Waldman says he's not popular with Democrats, not mentioning that he's currently the front runner.
That an award winning economist can agree with this nonsense, make clear that there is an agreement on how the Progressives will be screwed over.
And look what we have here? The establishment "grassroots campaigns" are not so rootsy after all.
DEMOCRATIC 2020 CANDIDATES PROMISED TO REJECT LOBBYIST DONATIONS, BUT MANY ACCEPTED THE CASH ANYWAY
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/17/democratic-candidates-lobbyist-donations/
ALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC presidential candidates have committed to rejecting the influence of special interests. To demonstrate their resolve, several of the candidates have promised to power their White House ambitions without a single dollar of lobbyist money.
In the waves of small-dollar donations reported on Monday — the first financial disclosure reporting period of the 2020 presidential race — lobbyist money had made its way into the coffers of major candidates’ campaigns.
Beto O’Rourke is one of the candidates who had pledge to run a campaign financed only by regular people — “not PACs, not lobbyists, not corporations, and not special interests.” His latest filing, however, shows that he accepted donations from a federal utility-company lobbyist and a top Chevron lobbyist in New Mexico.
"Some lobbyist cash comes from individuals who are clearly lobbyists but have chosen not to register with a federal system rife with loopholes."
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., has also collected donations from registered corporate lobbyists in South Carolina, New York, and California. Several technology lobbyists from San Francisco have given to her campaign. Another Harris donor, Robert Crowe, from the firm, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, is a federal lobbyist who has worked to influence Congress on behalf of pipeline firm EQT Corporation and Alphabet, the parent company of Google.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., similarly announced that he would eschew campaign donations from federal lobbyists, and his campaign appears to be making most of the caveat about “federal” lobbyists. Though he has returned donations from lobbyists registered under the federal government’s system, Booker has taken half a dozen donations from lobbyists registered under state and municipal lobbyist registration laws, but who do not appear in federal disclosures.
The pledge to reject lobbyist cash is completely voluntary and self-defined. O’Rourke has made blanket statements that he will reject all donations from lobbyists. Harris has made promises in emails to her supporters to reject all lobbyist donations and, in other emails, to only reject donations from federal lobbyists. Booker’s campaign website only specifies that he will not accept money from federal lobbyists.
The flow of lobby cash comes in many forms. Some comes from registered lobbyists, others from individuals who are clearly lobbyists but have chosen not to register with a federal system rife with loopholes.
The Lobbying Disclosure Act, which governs the criteria over federal lobbyist registration, is notoriously easy to evade and historically poorly enforced. Many professional corporate influence peddlers — well-aware of the porous definitions set out in the statute — simply choose not to register.
Take, for instance, Jay Carney, the former White House press secretary under President Barack Obama, who took a job as the vice president for worldwide corporate affairs at Amazon in 2015. Carney, the new campaign disclosures show, donated to Booker, O’Rourke, Harris, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. The Carney donations, however, would not technically violate the lobbyist money ban, depending on how it is read, because he is not a registered lobbyist.
The registration distinction makes little difference in the real world of professional public affairs. Amazon’s chief lobbyist reports to Carney, and Carney has been deeply involved in many of Amazon’s most high-profile efforts to sway public officials, including the bidding war over the company’s planned “HQ2″ expansion project. He also oversees Amazon’s lobbying office in Washington, D.C., which employs some 28 in-house lobbyists working on policy issues ranging from taxes to labor to artificial intelligence.
Since Carney is not personally registered, does his donation count as lobbyist money?
THE DONATION DISCLOSURES released this week by the Federal Election Commission highlight a number of murky areas where candidates take special-interest cash despite pledges not to. John Buckley, chief executive officer of Subject Matter, a sprawling lobbying firm that represents corporate clients, such as health insurance giant UnitedHealth and oil giant BP, is an O’Rourke donor. Buckley, however, is not himself a registered lobbyist.
Some donations clearly cross the threshold. The FEC disclosures show that O’Rourke also received money from Amy Thomas, a federal lobbyist for the American Public Power Association, as well as from Patrick Killen, a registered state lobbyist for Chevron in New Mexico.
Booker appears to have closely followed his no federal lobbyist rule. The campaign revealed on Monday that it had returned a $1,000 from Kristen Ludecke, a federal lobbyist for PSEG, the largest utility company in New Jersey. But the Booker campaign continues to embrace corporate lobbyists that register under state and municipal registration guidelines. His campaign received campaign funds from multiple lobbyists working at Mercury Public Affairs; Dennis Marco, a local health care and pharmaceutical lobbyist; and from Dennis Culnan, a New Jersey lobbyist closely tied to the Norcross family political machine.
The Harris campaign received the most registered lobbyist donations of any Democratic presidential campaign that has said it would not take the cash.
The long list of state- and municipal-registered lobbyists giving to the Harris campaign includes Leecia Eve, a Verizon lobbyist in New York; Alex Tourk, an Airbnb lobbyist in San Francisco; Alexander Clemons, who represents AT&T; Cliff Berg, registered to lobby on behalf of Novartis, Cemex, and Visa; Darrell Campbell, a South Carolina lobbyist for Pfizer, Juul, HCA health care and Duke Energy; Emily Giske, a former Democratic National Committee superdelegate who lobbies for Cigna, IBM, and Google; Jennifer Wada, a charter school lobbyist; and Justin Ross, a Maryland construction and real estate lobbyist.
Other lobbyists who gave to Harris fall into the gray area of unregistered influence peddlers. William Castleberry is not technically registered, but he is an influential Facebook lobbyist who oversees the Menlo Park, California, company’s expansive state-level government affairs operations; he gave $2,700 to Harris. Matthew Gerst, who gave $500, falls into similar territory: He leads the regulatory lobbying for CTIA, a trade group for wireless-telecom companies, such as Verizon and AT&T, but is not registered to lobby.
Democrats across the board have raised huge sums of grassroots money this cycle, in large part by promising that they will reject cash from Super PACs, corporate PACs, and lobbyists.
“Our campaign is not taking a dime from corporate PACs or lobbyists — and that was a very deliberate choice. Yes, it means we are leaving money on the table. But that’s ok with me,” Harris wrote in an email to supporters in February.
The Harris email made clear the purpose of the lobby donation ban: “I never want there to be any question about whether I’m listening to the people or corporate lobbyists. The answer will always be the people.
nan said:
Where is the whole thing? LInk?
Nan - I try not to post whole articles - it's not fair to the author and it take away from dialogue with our own thoughts - please try to post link and a critical paragraph. I know we've been through this many times.
jamie said:
Nan - I try not to post whole articles - it's not fair to the author and it take away from dialogue with our own thoughts - please try to post link and a critical paragraph. I know we've been through this many times.
Sorry about that. I usually don't do that--how come it did not shrink up?
nan said:
Sorry about that. I usually don't do that--how come it did not shrink up?
quote it if you're quoting from an article or someone else.
jamie said:
quote it if you're quoting from an article or someone else.
OK, I shrunk it. Thanks.
paulsurovell said:
It's not an "otherwise" worthless claim. It's a worthless claim, period.
So it is - but thought I'd give him a chance to try backing it up. Instead he scurried off, no surprise.
jamie said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/17/how-worrisome-are-divisions-among-democrats/?utm_term=.2e70c3e8d63f
And here must be the response to that one cause it's in the same paper:
The threat of Bernie Sanders
To be sure, all contested primaries see factions plotting to stop other factions’ candidate. But the sweep of the opposition named here is striking. The House speaker, the Senate minority leader, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the head of the most powerful liberal think tank, and the new darling of center-left Democrats — that’s a murderer’s row of eminences. When Barack Obama jumped in against Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election, for example, he had key party figures such as then-Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) in his corner. Sanders has no such allies.
At the root of this is the power of the dollar. As The Post’s Dave Weigel pointed out, what scares Democrats most about a Sanders nomination is “the thing they can’t really say: Howard Schultz would charge in and hand the election to Trump.” Furthermore, while there’s little polling evidence to suggest Democratic voters would abandon the party if Sanders were the nominee — he polls as well or better against President Trump than any other contender aside from Biden — there’s plenty of reason to think that Democratic donors may do so. Martin reports on a gathering of “about 100 wealthy liberal donors in San Francisco last month” worried at the prospect of a Sanders nomination, for example, and it’s no coincidence that the series of “Stop Sanders" dinners reported in the Times’s story has been organized by a major donor to the party.
Beyond donor skepticism, there will also be attacks from business interests. On Tuesday, for example, UnitedHealthcare chief executive Steve Nelson pointedly attacked Sanders’s Medicare-for-all proposal, saying it would “destabilize the nation’s health system.” This follows The Post’s Jeff Stein’s report that the health insurance industry is lobbying Democrats intensely to reject more progressive health-care plans that “would effectively legislate many of the companies out of existence.” On this and other issues, a Sanders-led ticket would face more corporate spending against it in the general election than almost any Democratic nominee aside from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
So establishment Democrats are right that Sanders would face certain obstacles that most other potential nominees wouldn’t — namely, that more big paid-for megaphones will be turned against him. In the worst-case scenario, a billionaire would all but buy a campaign and likely hand Trump reelection. But rather than confront what that says about our political system, establishment Democrats are fanning the fears. They will tell you, of course, that they share the same goals: fixing health care, fighting inequality, taking on climate change, and so on. But as recent decades have showed, progress toward those goals will never be better than halting so long as moneyed interests are allowed to remain so powerful. Not actively fighting this broken system only helps perpetuate it.
Smedley said:
It's an inaccurate generalization to say Green New Deal is a program Americans want.
https://www.investors.com/politics/green-new-deal-ibd-tipp-poll/ "Among Republicans, 77% said they'd be less likely to vote for a Green New Deal supporter. Just 3% said it would make them more likely to vote for the candidate. Meanwhile, 56% of Democrats said they'd be more likely to vote for a GND supporter, versus just 7% who said they wouldn't. Among independents, who now make up more than a third of the electorate, 41% said they would be less likely to vote for a Green New Deal candidate, versus 35% that said they'd be more likely."
That poll specifically asks voters how a candidate's support for GND would affect their vote in 2020, rather than just asking about support for the GND in principle, as this one does:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/421765-poll-majorities-of-both-parties-support-green-new-deal
So while GND supporters trot out the 80% number over and over again, that should be used for academic discussions only rather than in any debate about GND's implications for the 2020 election. Because support clearly crumbles when the rubber hits the road.
The GND is what - two weeks out of the gate? There's time to see how support does or doesn't shape up.
Plus it's...a pretty rudimentary poll - for example, the vote question doesn't ask how much it would influence people's vote. A voting deal breaker for all but strong partisans? With environment pretty far down the list of voter concerns, questionable.
And btw - As it happens, I'm making a unit plan on global warming, so thought I'd get more info. Called TIPP yesterday and spoke w/the poll designer (a Mr. Nayor (sp?) - seems they get a lot of calls, he was quite pleasant: 201-986-1288) The engagement 'screen' question ruled out almost 50% of respondents, with about 20% engaged w/issue, 50% either 'somewhat' or 'not very' engaged, and a quarter ignorant...time enough to see how opinion shifts as it's argued and people learn about it.
But without a strong voice talking about the menace, and jobs, it won't advance any more than M4A would be on the table now if Sanders hadn't put it in the election spotlight and pounded the table for it in 2015-16.
Smedley said:
would almost assuredly get blown out of the water in 2020.
On the basis of weak evidence in last post? Naaaaaaaaaaaah.
Plus you need to put on your Machiavelli thinking cap - worst case scenario for me would be Sanders shifts global warming Overton Window, putting one of your dear right liberals in position to be the 'voice of moderation.' But you'd like that.
Except that strategy failed in 2016 and is likely to again - whereas Sanders has crossover appeal: picked up pockets of right wing support in 2015-16, plus key conservative Democrats and Independents went from Sanders in the primaries to Trump in the general - in swing states no less: evidently, weak centrist rhetoric didn't do anything for them:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study
Smedley said:
A platform of radical change is not going to win an election when the economy is strong.
The economy is not strong for a lot of people, and healthcare is the top issue for most, an urgent issue for many.
An establishment right liberal spent almost twice as much in the campaign and still lost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/campaign-spending-donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html
Enough voters didn't buy the disgraced Democratic establishment brand:
nan said:
More attacks by those who call for Unity:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1118626674218807296
barf - way to go pissing off voters who've already watched the dem. establishment blow it once. they keep at it, I predict progressive third party votes this time around, vs. the minuscule Green vote last time.
gvico said:
[edited] And additionally on Sanders' ability to get key swing voters:
"Sanders picked up support in some unusual places...The self-described democratic socialist won states such as Oklahoma and Nebraska that are typically associated with right-of-center policy views. He also did surprisingly well with self-described conservative voters... picking up almost a third of their votes."
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-was-helped-by-the-ne...
gvico said:
Smedley said:The economy is not strong for a lot of people, and healthcare is the top issue for most, an urgent issue for many.
A platform of radical change is not going to win an election when the economy is strong.
An establishment right liberal spent almost twice as much in the campaign and still lost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/campaign-spending-donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html
Enough voters didn't buy the disgraced Democratic establishment brand:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/the-biggest-legacy-of-the-financial-crisis-is-the-trump-presidency
Well then Bernie should run hard on the weak economy and need for a Green New Deal. It'll be Mondale '84 all over again.
no one will run on a "weak economy." Democrats will run on a strong economy that isn't benefiting the bottom half of the earners, that is making the ultra wealthy even richer. It has the advantage of being true.
gvico said:
nan said:barf - way to go pissing off voters who've already watched the dem. establishment blow it once. they keep at it, I predict progressive third party votes this time around, vs. the minuscule Green vote last time.
More attacks by those who call for Unity:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1118626674218807296
There will be a big revolt of Bernie supporters if this happens, me included:
DNC Bosses Contemplating a Superdelegate Coup if Bernie Sanders Leads in Delegates
Smedley said:
Well then Bernie should run hard on the weak economy and need for a Green New Deal. It'll be Mondale '84 all over again.
He is going to run hard on Medicare for All and it's immensely popular, even on FOX News, much to the surprise of their hosts.
ml1 said:
no one will run on a "weak economy." Democrats will run on a strong economy that isn't benefiting the bottom half of the earners, that is making the ultra wealthy even richer. It has the advantage of being true.
Not necessarily. Workers at low end of pay scale finally are getting the most benefit from rising wages
nan said:
gvico said:There will be a big revolt of Bernie supporters if this happens, me included:
nan said:barf - way to go pissing off voters who've already watched the dem. establishment blow it once. they keep at it, I predict progressive third party votes this time around, vs. the minuscule Green vote last time.
More attacks by those who call for Unity:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1118626674218807296
DNC Bosses Contemplating a Superdelegate Coup if Bernie Sanders Leads in Delegates
https://gritpost.com/dnc-bosses-superdelegate-coup/?fbclid=IwAR2dDiOb1GRY2pUtj34kLn4X2wcrVao-uYXOxYRyIayViMXzA-m25tfsdmg
Nan laying the groundwork to not vote for Mayor Pete.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Garage Sales
-
House Contents Sale Sale Date: May 18, 2024
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
But I can argue for incrementalism and win an election.
Look I know you are Bernie or bust, and to you pretty much every other Dem candidate is Trump lite. But a platform of radical change is not going to win an election when the economy is strong. So give me Mayor Pete, or Biden (though I´m kinda souring on him to be honest), or Klobuchar, or whoever else can increment a win next November. Put Bernie out to pasture where he can breathe in the cow farts.