What is this election missing? Empathy for Trump voters. - WaPo

349 posts / 0 new
Last post
Misfit Misfit's picture

Why not just get rid of the electoral college? The EC is as dumb as our unelected Senate, imo.

Rev Pesky

If you're looking for an undemocratic institution in the USA, by far the best example is the Senate.

For instance, a California Senator represents nearly 20 million voters. A Senator from Wyoming represents just over 290,000 voters. They have equal power in the Senate. So a Senator from California represents almost 70 times the number of voters as the Senator from Wyoming, yet has precisely the same power. That makes the electoral college look like perfect PR.

The Senate has real power, unlike the House of Representatives or the White House. They also have longer terms than both the House and the President (six year terms). I would say it was the most undemocratic of government institutions in the democratic world.

swallow swallow's picture

JKR wrote:
swallow wrote:

Maryland has apparently voted to give its electoral college votes in future to the winner of the popular vote - but only if all the other 49 states do the same. That would be one way to change things without constitutional amendments and so forth. 

The plan Maryland has joined does not require all 49 states, just enough states to make up more than half the electoral college. The 9 most populace states in the U.S.make up more than half their population so if just these 9 states states agreed to this plan the electoral college would then be decided by majority vote. So it is possible for a minority of the states to get together to implement this idea, anywhere between 9 and 25 states that make up more than half of the U.S. Population.

Interesting. So that would be: 

California

Texas

New York

Florida

Illinois

Pennsylvania

Ohio

Georgia

Michigan

It's hard to imagine some of those states coming on board - Ohio and FLorida seem to enjoy all the attention, and Texas and Georgia probably would not want to make a change that would tend to favour Demcoratic-leaning voters in California. But not much smaller are Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington, so perhaps some hope there. 

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:
Why not just get rid of the electoral college? The EC is as dumb as our unelected Senate, imo.

This thread explains those with an interest in keeping it:

States with smaller populations;

States with disproportionately high EC votes to their population;

The Republican Party;

White people;

Conservatives.

When the above group agree on something they get their way. The system is rigged to protect them. This is the point.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Why understanding Trump voters is not the problem: http://forsetti.tumblr.com/post/153181757500/on-rural-america-understand....

(Edited to add quote)

Quote:
In deep red, white America, the white Christian God is king, figuratively and literally.  Religious fundamentalism is what has shaped most of their belief systems.  Systems built on a fundamentalist framework are not conducive for introspection, questioning, learning, change.  When you have a belief system that is built on fundamentalism, it isn’t open to outside criticism, especially by anyone not a member of your tribe and in a position of power.  The problem isn’t “coastal elites don’t understand rural Americans.”  The problem is rural America doesn’t understand itself and will NEVER listen to anyone outside their bubble.  It doesn’t matter how “understanding” you are, how well you listen, what language you use…if you are viewed as an outsider, your views are automatically discounted.  I’ve had hundreds of discussions with rural white Americans and whenever I present them any information that contradicts their entrenched beliefs, no matter how sound, how unquestionable, how obvious, they WILL NOT even entertain the possibility it might be true.  Their refusal is a result of the nature of their fundamentalist belief system and the fact I’m the enemy because I’m an educated liberal.  At some point during the discussion, “That’s your education talking,” will be said, derogatorily, as a general dismissal of everything I said.  They truly believe this is a legitimate response because to them education is not to be trusted.  Education is the enemy of fundamentalism because fundamentalism, by its very nature, is not built on facts. The fundamentalists I grew up around aren’t anti-education.  They want their kids to know how to read and write.  They are anti-quality, in-depth, broad, specialized education.  Learning is only valued up to the certain point.  Once it reaches the level where what you learn contradicts doctrine and fundamentalist arguments, it becomes dangerous.  I watched a lot of my fellow students who were smart, stop their education the day they graduated high school.  For most of the young ladies, getting married and having kids was more important than continuing their learning.  For many of the young men, getting a college education was seen as unnecessary and a waste of time.  For the few who did go to college, what they learned was still filtered through their fundamentalist belief system.  If something they were taught didn’t support a preconception, it would be ignored and forgotten the second it was no longer need to pass an exam. 

 

Sean in Ottawa

ygtbk wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

josh wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

It wasn't?

People voted for who they wanted to be elected. How is that not democracy?  Are you saying if Clinton would have won then it wouldn't have been democracy either?

 

It was democracy and Clinton got the most votes.  But the system was rigged against her.

She lost according to the pre-established rules of the election. Now complaining about the rules of the system is meaningless because the entire campaign, and even the primaries, would have been run differently under a different system. People who two weeks ago boasted about a "blue wall" and now decry the electoral college are hypocrites who want to change the rules because they don't like the outcome, not because of a principled opposition to the system.

I don't like FPTP and I don't like the electoral college, but the election was fought with all parties understanding exactly the rules of engagement. Post hoc complaints that the system is flawed ring hollow.

Not a single Clinton supporter currently complaining about the electoral college would be protesting if she won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. Of course if roles were reversed Trump's supporters would be protesting and their protests would be equally opportunistic.

False equivilency. Imagine two kids: you give one 3/4 of a candy bar and the other one 1/4. The kid with 1/4 whines. So you say well if I gave the kid that got the 3/4 just half he would whine so it is all equal and fair.

The issue is not that the Clinton side lost -- it is that they did not lose in an unbiased and fair context.

You can say she was not good enough to not only win a fair election but to win one biased against her -- but that is not the half of it. The system was rigged such that only someone like her could be a candidate for her party. The kind of money and privilege to get that far rigged the field such that the population had to choose between two rich and unsavoury people. It was rigged again such that the most unsavoury won in the end even though he got fewer votes.

Bernie probably would have won vs. Trump. And based on leaked emails the DNC was fine with trying to sabotage both Bernie and the more moderate Republicans. It is really hard to not say anything inflammatory about that.

I keep saying I disagree that we have anything to say he probably would have won I keep explaining why. And people keep asserting he would have and I keep asking for explanations. I think it would be great to have more of a conversation than yes-no-yes-no.

Where is the evidence?

I think he would have increased the popular vote margin the Dems would have had by piling up the votes in friendly states. I also think Republicans might have been able to get even more out with the kind of campaign they woudl have mounted against him. He would ahve increased voter participation rates. I think he would have lost a couple states he did badly in the primaries. I think Independents in key states would have supported him but those were mostly the ones the Dems won. He would have beaten the campaign that ran against Clinton but he would not have faced that campaign. It would have been a paranoid red-baiting campaign and looked nothing like the personal attack-focused campaign Clinton lost. Frankly, Sanders would have exposed the farce that the Electoral College is even more than Clinton did. And while Sanders might have done better in the popular vote this is limited by the problems of getting out the vote. Too many of his supporters come from demographics that cannot be relied on to vote. His links to minorities were understated often but still not enough to bring them out.

It is hardly credible to claim that the Democrat primaries would have been more rigged against him than the general election. There would have been paranoia that those on the left never quite understand that is a mainstay of the US political system.

Is it possible for someone who disagrees with this to actually answer these points or shall we just ignore them all?

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
swallow wrote:

Maryland has apparently voted to give its electoral college votes in future to the winner of the popular vote - but only if all the other 49 states do the same. That would be one way to change things without constitutional amendments and so forth. 

The plan Maryland has joined does not require all 49 states, just enough states to make up more than half the electoral college. The 9 most populace states in the U.S.make up more than half their population so if just these 9 states states agreed to this plan the electoral college would then be decided by majority vote. So it is possible for a minority of the states to get together to implement this idea, anywhere between 9 and 25 states that make up more than half of the U.S. Population.

I think this is much more complicated. The decision to give up that State choice to the national popular vote is much more of an ask than you might think:

States look at themselves before the nation -- it is part of the way they see themselves. Nationalism does trickle down. Few would really want to give up that clout -- to vote against their local popular vote. I think some states would agree easily -- they tend to go that direction anyway. But States that could have a majority republican locally to agree to ignore that would create a crisis in the state even if it is the right thing to do. I don't see it.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I keep saying I disagree that we have anything to say he probably would have won I keep explaining why.

We had a bunch of polls saying he would have won against Trump. So that's something. Not enough (my opinion on the validity of U.S. election polls ought to be well-known by now) but something.

Quote:
And people keep asserting he would have and I keep asking for explanations. I think it would be great to have more of a conversation than yes-no-yes-no.

Okay, I'm not exactly arguing that Sanders would for sure have won against Trump. What I will do is list a number of individual points that I think are reasonable and unlikely to be disputed. The sheer weight of the balance sheet of these points will indicate that Sanders could have been reasonably expected to do better against Trump than Clinton did and was a better candidate for nomination. At the end, I will argue what I feel is the most important reason why even if Sanders was only expected to perform the same he still would have been a better candidate.

These assume that the primary process was not heavily weighted in Clinton's favour (DNC/media pushing her, superdelegates going 90%+ for her before anyone voted, debate schedule set up to favour her and minimize her exposure, and anything else we don't know about) and perceived to be fair.

Points that, relative to the actual outcome, would have benefitted Sanders vs. Trump/indicates he would have done better (maybe not better enough to win):

  1. Sanders was far more popular than both Clinton and Trump, who are roughly equally hated.
  2. Trump's greatest strength was and continues to be his anti-globalist, anti-establishment, anti-trade deal stance. Clinton is a globalist, establishment hack who had a huge hand in negotiating the TPP, which isn't popular anywhere and common people are desperate to stop. This was for many Trump voters the single greatest difference between Trump and Clinton and if it had been Trump vs. Sanders that advantage would have completely disappeared.
  3. This is similar to number 1, but Sanders' supporters both in person and online were even more enthusiastic than the portion of Trump supporters who actually like Trump (as opposed to just hated Clinton). Bernie Sanders was pulling 30k rallies in the primaries, this is roughly the size of Trump's biggest rallies and Clinton only pulled a number like that just before the general election with two huge pop stars performing. Otherwise her rallies tended to be a fraction the size. Online, take reddit for example, the Sanders for president subreddit had around 250k subscribers in the middle of the primaries until the sub got taken over by Clinton plants (can't make this shit up...), meanwhile the Trump for president subreddit didn't hit that number until late October. The Hillary Clinton subreddit had some 25k-30k subscribers, less than half the "Hillary for Prison" subreddit. Sanders and Trump were both dominant in social media while Clinton had no presence.
  4. One of the major reasons why Trump has appeal is his appeal to change. Most people do not know what change they want they just know they want change. Specifically I'm saying that most voters do not even pretend to know what the best foreign, economic, or social policies are. This is why policy often matters so little and one of the best indicators for who the most successful candidate will be is "cares about people like me." In absence of knowing who has the best economic policies (both candidates saying "my policy is the best and the other is lying that it will cost $5 trillion dollars) and no way to know who is right (probably both are wrong), people skip that debate entirely and go with the one who they believe will at least try to do right by them. The Democrats offered no outlet for change with Clinton while Trump did. If your number one issue was making a change to try something different and cross your fingers it works, you had only one choice. With Sanders there would have been two, and I'll come back to this at the very end.
  5. Speaking of "who cares about people like me," the Democrats nominated the one person who could make a less compelling case than Donald "Mexicans are rapists" Trump. Sanders would have probably split with male voters who identify as American first (before white, black, hispanic etc) which is mostly white men, but would have destroyed Trump with all minorities as well as women.
  6. With respect to character, both Trump and Clinton are seen to be of dubious moral character and with good reason I might add. Clinton was the one possible candidate who might have been even more reprehensible than Trump, many attacks against Trump were easily parried with "Sure, Trump says mean things. Look at this 100 point list of worse things Clinton has done." No similar case could have been made about Sanders. This will be referenced at the end.

The overall point here is that Sanders was strong in the same areas that Trump was strong, while Clinton was uniquely weak in areas where Trump was strong. Further, in the areas where Trump was weak, specifically moral character and recurring comments about women, Clinton was also weak and therefore provided Trump and his supporters cover to create collateral damage so both candidates would get smeared equally. Sanders would have had a much stronger position to attack from without being a hypocrite.

Points that, relative to the actual outcome, would have worked against Sanders vs. Trump:

  1. The corporate media was heavily biased against Trump. Some of this was due to certain outlets being more generally left-leaning, but much of it had to do with Clinton's personal connections to several of the networks (as exposed by DNC) and the threat that Trump poses to the corporate media as an anti-establishment figure. It seems reasonable that a Sanders vs. Trump match (two outsiders) would have reduced the relative threat of Trump to the corporate media, especially Fox. This means that the media might have not worked as hard for Sanders as they did for Clinton (or not worked so hard against Trump). That being said, the overwhelming media bias also had the unintended consequence of turning some people to Trump so this might not have had a huge impact.
  2. Similarly, some of the GOP elite that backed Clinton did so because she was an establishment, pro-war friendly and Trump was hostile to the establishment and interventionist policies. Trump would have had relatively more support from the GOP and #NeverTrumpers against Bernie because, in probability, elite Republicans would overall prefer candidates in this order: Jeb! = Rubio = Kasich >> Cruz > Clinton >> Trump > Bernie. That being said, it doesn't appear that most Republicans cared about what the GOP elite had to think, and again Trump was able to weaponize the behaviour of the GOP elite to advance his anti-establishment narrative. So again, this is probably not as big a benefit as it looks.
  3. Feel free to add more?

Sanders vs. Trump: How would the campaigns have been different?

Clinton's entire campaign was "I've been steeped in corruption and scandals for decades, I'm obviously bought and paid for, and I offer nothing new other than a different face on the same old establishment. But I'm not Trump. Trump is literally Hitler." Trump's campaign was essentially "I say a bunch of stupid stuff, don't think things through, might be racist and sexist, and am totally unprepared for the job, but I'm not Clinton, I can't be bought, and I love America."

Just before the election, some conservative hack made a video arguing that if the election was Clinton vs. a turnip, the turnip would be the clear favourite to win the election. Of course it would have been equally easy to make a Trump vs. a carrot video in the same style. Say what you will about Sanders, unlike the other two his history and accomplishments compare favorably to literal vegetables.

So if the election was Sanders vs Trump, not only would Sanders have taken the wind out of Trump's appeal in many ways (anti-establishment, anti-trade deals etc) by holding the same (good) positions, and not only would he have scored better on metrics that people actually vote based on ("cares about people like me"), but Sanders would also have been able to attack Trump's moral bankruptcy and generally scumminess, something Clinton couldn't credibly do. Even assuming Sanders had no more appeal/support than Clinton, take all the support that Trump would have lost from the points above (losing the anti-establishment vote, losing the "Clinton will start WW3" vote, losing the "Clinton is even worse than Trump" vote, etc), and Trump would have had to regain that support against Sanders in some different way.

There is no chance in hell that Trump would have been able to challenge Sanders on moral, ethical, or character-based grounds. Trump would have had to debate Sanders on policy.

Now, like I said before, the lay voter doesn't know if socialism is a better system than capitalism. They don't know how to defeat ISIS, or if they even should when it could be left to Russia. They don't know these things. Policy almost never moves votes beyond what sounds good. Trump can make massive tax cuts sound good and Sanders can make single payer healthcare and education sound good. So since both candidate are offering change, people will choose which they believe based on arbitrary assessments of who they deem to be more trustworthy. Obviously this would overwhelmingly be Sanders. Or even a carrot. Literally anyone besides Clinton.

But, here is the last point that I alluded to before. Saying Sanders wouldn't win because America isn't ready for a socialist president is an admission that you don't believe in a debate of ideas socialism can win against capitalism. Never mind that on a character level the deck would have been hugely stilted in favour of Sanders from the get go. You're saying socialism can't beat capitalism. Trump could never have won in any way except by calling Sanders a socialist and hoping that scared enough voters. Voters who desperately want to change the system. Hmmm...

Maybe you're right. Maybe people would have been more afraid of "Sanders the socialist" than "Trump the sexist, racist, xenophobe with no experience, class, or moral compass." But even if that's the case, it sure would have been nice to actually have the debate about policy rather than spend 4 months debating which of the candidates is Hitler and which is only Stalin.

Sean in Ottawa

Thank you Cody for your well written and well thought out response. I think many of your points are correct. I still think Sanders would have raked up huge majorities in the bluest states vs Trump. I think he would have done well among democrats n wing states but I think an anti-socialist flavored campaign would have defeated him.

Still I agree with you this is the campaign I would rather have seen.

Byt the way here is an article from the Washington Post that supports your position more than mine:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/10/hillary-clin...

I just feel that we under-estimate the type of campaign you woudl have seen against Sanders and over-estimate the importance of the Clinton specific issues.

In your favour is the fact that Sanders was the change candidate as you said. The problem is this was felt more by those who do not vote.

In the end the difference between my opinion and yours may not even be about support levels but the ability to get those to the polls. This is a long term issue and we face it in Canada as well.

Unfortunbately, we will never know.

I have a great deal of respect for your opinion on this since you ahve take the time to back it up with very good logic and argument -- again -- thank you.

This is the type of exchange I really come here hoping for. You really made my day on that.

Sean in Ottawa

I should add-- wouldn't it have been great to have seen an anti-globalist left candidate like Sanders challenging Trump, pointing out the hypocrisy of his adopted positions. Clinton, who supports Trade in rhetoric could not really go after Trump who opposes it in rhetoric but supports it in practice.

The value of that campaign would have been significant even if Sanders woudl have lost.

As I say I think he would not have won but the mere possibility of a campaign where right capitalist presumptions were challenged would have been so valuable in the long term.

sherpa-finn

On why empathy for the marginalised white working class that voted for Trump is misplaced if not misguided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehBYOeEJhQY

 

 

bekayne

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim...

A prominent supporter of Donald J. Trump drew concern and condemnation from advocates for Muslims’ rights on Wednesday after he cited World War II-era Japanese-American internment camps as a “precedent” for an immigrant registry suggested by a member of the president-elect’s transition team.

The supporter, Carl Higbie, a former spokesman for Great America PAC, an independent fund-raising committee, made the comments in an appearance on “The Kelly File” on Fox News.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Those Trump supporters are such gracious winners, too.

NDPP

Lenin Comes to the White House  -  by Pepe Escobar

http://thesaker.is/lenin-comes-to-the-white-house/

"Good bye Fidel Castro. welcome Prince Trump (with Leninist Machiavelli attached). Brace for impact. Politics is war - what else? And 'revolution' is still the biggest show in town."

Aristotleded24

How to win in Trump country:

Quote:
Grooters was elected to the Pleasant Hill City Council as a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America, having run on an openly left-wing platform.

Grooters’ victory this year came in a town that in 2016 voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton by a five-point margin, showing that even in a Republican-leaning area, socialists can win elections.

...

Grooters is careful to steer people away from the idea that just because he won a local election in Trump country, he has mastered the art of getting Trump voters to elect an unabashed socialist. The turnout in the November 2017 election, he notes, was a fraction of the turnout in the presidential election a year earlier. Nonetheless, he believes his success offers lessons for other progressive and left candidates who find themselves in seemingly unfriendly political terrain.

...

Grooter’s bottom-line advice for progressive and left candidates running on a bold people-centered platform in traditionally Republican districts? “I would say don’t be afraid to run as what you are and what you believe in. Find a way to connect those issues to what everybody in the community is feeling, and I think you will do just fine.”

Aristotleded24

The Spiritual Crisis Of The Modern Economy:

Quote:
The modern economy privileges the well-educated and highly-skilled, while giving them an excuse to denigrate the people at the bottom (both white and nonwhite) as lazy, untalented, uneducated, and unsophisticated. In a society focused on meritocratic, materialistic success, many well-off Americans from across the political spectrum scorn the white working class in particular for holding onto religious superstitions and politically incorrect views, and pity them for working lousy jobs at dollar stores and fast-food restaurants that the better-off rarely set foot in. And when other sources of meaning are hard to come by, those who struggle in the modern economy can lose their sense of self-worth.

This system of categorizing Americans—the logical extension of life in what can be called an extreme meritocracy—can be pernicious: The culture holds up those who succeed as examples, however anecdotal, that everyone can make it in America. Meanwhile, those who fail attract disdain and indifference from the better-off, their low status all the more painful because it is regarded as deserved. As research has shown, well-educated white-collar workers also sink into despair if they cannot find a new job, but among the working class, the shame of low status afflicts not just the unemployed, but also the underemployed. Their days are no longer filled with the dignified, if exhausting, work of making real things. Rather, the economy requires—as a white former factory worker I talked to described it—“throwing on a goofy hat,” dealing with surly customers who are themselves just scraping by, and enduring a precarious working life of arbitrary rules and dead-end prospects.

...

One explanation for why so many come to that conclusion in the first place has to do with the widening of the gulf between America’s coasts and the region in between them. Cities that can entice well-educated professionals are booming, even as “flyover” communities have largely seen good-paying factory work automated or shipped overseas, replaced to a large extent with insecure jobs: Walmart greeters, independent-contractor truck drivers, and the like. It is easy to see why white voters from hard-hit rural areas and hollowed-out industrial towns have turned away from a Democratic Party that has offered them little in the way of hope and inspiration and much in the way of disdain and blame.

It should here be emphasized that misogyny, racism, and xenophobia played a major role in the election, helping whip up more support for Trump—as well as suppress support for Clinton—among the white working class. To be sure, those traits are well represented among other groups, however savvier they are about not admitting it to journalists and pollsters (or to themselves). But the white working class that emerged in the 19th century—stitched together from long-combative European ethnic groups—strived to set themselves apart from African Americans, Chinese, and other vilified “indispensable enemies,” and build, by contrast (at least in their view), a sense of workingman pride. Even if it’s unfair to wholly dismiss the white working class’s cultural politics as reactionary and bigoted, this last election was a reminder that white male resentment of “nasty” women and “uppity” racial and other minorities remains strong.

That said, many Americans with more stable, better-paid jobs have blind spots of their own. For all of their professed open-mindedness in other areas, millions of the well-educated and well-off who live in or near big cities tend to endorse the notion, explicitly or implicitly, that education determines a person’s value. More so than in other rich nations, like Germany and Japan, which have prioritized vocational training to a greater degree, a college degree has become the true mark of individual success in America—the sort of white-picket-fence fantasy that drives people well into their elder years to head back to school. But such a fervent belief in the transformative power of education also implies that a lack of it amounts to personal failure—being a “stupid” person, as one of the white Michigan workers I talked to put it. In today’s labor market, it is no longer enough to work hard, another worker, who was black, told me: “It used to be you come up and say, ‘Okay, I’ve got a strong back,’ and all that,” but nowadays a “strong back don’t mean shit. You gotta have dedication and you’ve gotta have some kind of smartness, or something.”

...

One possible answer to the question Harrington posed about how to ease his own generation’s populist rage is the notion of grace—a stance that puts forward values that go beyond the “negatives” of the narrow secular creed and connect with individuals of diverse political viewpoints, including those hungry for more in the way of meaning than the meritocratic race affords. It moves people past the hectoring that so alienates the white working class—and, to be sure, other groups as well—who would otherwise benefit from policies that favor greater equality and opportunity.

The concept of grace comes from the Christian teaching that everyone, not just the deserving, is saved by God’s grace. Grace in the broader sense that I (an agnostic) am using, however, can be both secular and religious. In the simplest terms, it is about refusing to divide the world into camps of deserving and undeserving, as those on both the right and left are wont to do. It rejects an obsession with excusing nothing, with measuring and judging the worth of people based on everything from a spotty résumé to an offensive comment.

While it has its roots in Christianity, grace is prized by many other religions—from Buddhism’s call to accept suffering with equanimity, to the Tao Te Ching’s admonishment to treat the good and bad alike with kindness, to the Upanishads’ focus on the eternal and infinite nature of reality. Grace can thrive outside religious faith, too: not just in the abstract theories of philosophers such as Martin Heidegger, but also in the humanism of scientists like Carl Sagan, who, inspired by Voyager 1’s photograph of Earth as a tiny speck, wrote that this “pale blue dot” underscored the “folly of human conceits” and humans’ responsibility to “deal more kindly with one another.” Unlike an egalitarian viewpoint focused on measuring and leveling inequalities, grace rejects categories of right and wrong, just and unjust, and offers neither retribution nor restitution, but forgiveness.

With a perspective of grace, it becomes clearer that America, the wealthiest of nations, possesses enough prosperity to provide adequately for all. It becomes easier to part with one’s hard-won treasure in order to pull others up, even if those being helped seem “undeserving”—a label that today serves as a justification for opposing the sharing of wealth on the grounds that it is a greedy plea from the resentful, idle, and envious.

At the same time, grace reminds the well-educated and well-off to be less self-righteous and less hostile toward other people’s values.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The WORST administration in American history.

And as disusting,despical,vile and offensive this sack of dog shit in a suit wearing a Chinese made  tie,  after 4 or 5 years of  this 'man' how can one possibly still support this prick and his sycophants they still look at this 'man' and say. ; 'Yeah! That's my President and if you get rid of him EVEN democratically, I will get out my .357 and start a civil war ' , YOU are a bigger piece of shit than your Dear Leader.

Empathy? Are you kidding me?  These people in 2020 still chant ' LOCK HER/HIM UP!! when that authoritarian tyrant mentions Clinton or Pelosi or any woman with power or if your name is Biden.

These 'patriots' are racist,bigoted dull minded xenophobes and right wing zealots.

Empathy for these people? GTFO, brother. Not a chance.

Oh, I forgot to mention a couple things. Trump is a misogynist despot and the Republican Party is the most corrupt gang of deluded but efficient crooks on the planet.

What he did with Roger Stone should have been the straw that broke the camel's back. The military should have intervened and arrested this blatant criminal.

That would be a real coup but I now support it. Looks like American Conservatives find themselves on the other end of regime change.

Paladin1

Calling Trump supporters names seemed to do wonders for Clinton and her 99% chance of victory.

voice of the damned

Paladin1 wrote:

Calling Trump supporters names seemed to do wonders for Clinton and her 99% chance of victory.

I wonder, though, how many of the people described as "a basket of deplorables" were ever thinking of voting Democratic anyway. I'm guessing that it would be about as many as the percentage of people described as "champagne socialists" would ever consider voting for Doug Ford.

That said, while insults based on voting choice might do little harm(since most of the insultees weren't on your side to begin with), mocking people for demographics or lifestyle choices is idiotic. Stuff like "The Cons get support from white-trash who think baseball caps are high fashion" is seriously self-defeating.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Calling Trump supporters names seemed to do wonders for Clinton and her 99% chance of victory.

What evidence do you have that this was a factor? I have seen nothing to suggest that. sure it pissed off core Trump supporters but did it change a single vote?

Paladin1

Change even a single vote? Probably not.

Piss people off enough so ones who weren't going to bother voting decided to go vote? Maybe.

Can't just be the Russians responsible for upsetting a 99% lead.

JKR

FBI Director James Comey's very late intervention in the election may have also tipped the balance away from Hillary and toward Trump. 99% doesn't mean much when people think the FBI is on your trail.

voice of the damned

Just for clarification, 99% was the odds that she was given of winning, sccording to that Sound And Echo(or whatever it was called) firm, run by that statistician whose name eludes me right now. It wasn't the actual percentage of people who said they would vote for her.

Paladin1

Ipos came in at 90%. Most places at a quick random search seem between 75% and 99%

 

There's also this

 

 

 

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
FBI Director James Comey's very late intervention in the election may have also tipped the balance away from Hillary and toward Trump. 99% doesn't mean much when people think the FBI is on your trail.

When you run a candidate who is the subject of an FBI investigation, as Clinton was, that's just a risk you end up taking.

Paladin1

I remeber reading a published conversation between FBI agents that, to paraphrase,  said "should we really be investigating her too deeply? She's going to be the new president and we don't want to piss her off".

Super ethical.

voice of the damned

Ipos came in at 90%. Most places at a quick random search seem between 75% and 99%

Those refer to chances of winning, right? Not percentages planning to vote for her.

And the statistician I was thinking of was Nate Silver, whose book was called The Signal And The Noise. I associate him with the tendency of media in the 2016 race to talk about chances of winning, rather than number of voters.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Ipos came in at 90%. Most places at a quick random search seem between 75% and 99%

Those refer to chances of winning, right? Not percentages planning to vote for her.

And the statistician I was thinking of was Nate Silver, whose book was called The Signal And The Noise. I associate him with the tendency of media in the 2016 race to talk about chances of winning, rather than number of voters.

Yes, this is correct. Silver and his colleagues used a (rather old and crude) computational technique known as "Monte Carlo simulation". The idea is that you use the odds you have for the individual states, based on your polls, to generate a large number (usually thousands) of outcomes, all consistent with the data, but varying by random amounts from the average. 99% in this context means that in 99% of such simulations the overall outcome was a win for Clinton.

voice of the damned

deleted, wrong thread

voice of the damned

Michael Moriarity wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Ipos came in at 90%. Most places at a quick random search seem between 75% and 99%

Those refer to chances of winning, right? Not percentages planning to vote for her.

And the statistician I was thinking of was Nate Silver, whose book was called The Signal And The Noise. I associate him with the tendency of media in the 2016 race to talk about chances of winning, rather than number of voters.

Yes, this is correct. Silver and his colleagues used a (rather old and crude) computational technique known as "Monte Carlo simulation". The idea is that you use the odds you have for the individual states, based on your polls, to generate a large number (usually thousands) of outcomes, all consistent with the data, but varying by random amounts from the average. 99% in this context means that in 99% of such simulations the overall outcome was a win for Clinton.

Thanks. I never knew about how that worked until now. And I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people quoting Silver's numbers didn't know how the process worked either.

Sean in Ottawa

What is shocking to me is that the ongoing normalization of the Trump attack on democracy is largely going without protest or comment -- or very, very little.

Since the impeachment hearings, there has been very little protest over the purging of witnesses who did nothing but tell the truth as they knew it. None of them were proven to lie. Most Senators agreed with the evidence but claimed that it was no big deal (at least not enough to remove a President). The majority of Republicans did not claim the evidence was wrong -- just not enough. In a country that actually was interested in democracy people would flood the streets.

That the Republicans ignored any evidence and refused to hear more was a breakdown of the legislative check on Trump. But not the onyl breakdown we have seen.

The Barr scandal shows the breakdown in the distance between the President and law enforcement. This comes at the same time as the breakdown between the judiciary (the courts) and the Executive has further broken down (and it was very fragile to start with given Administration appointments and the politicization of judges.

The breakdown in what existed of US democracy is particularly serious when you consider what was preventing previous Presidents and what is left now. Previous Presidents have done some outragious things. They were constrained only by the limits to how far public opinion would let them go. What has happened with Trump is that this public opinion did not prevent him from doing all he has done to break down the few norms and rules that constrain a President of the US. Now that Trump has effectively brought the Senate to heal, taken away powers from Congress by ignoring it and compromised any distance between media and the White House, completely undermined any limited independence of the Judiciary and law enforcement, claimed that the President is above the law, endorsed widespread cheating in elections and vote suppression, claimed that the President can interfere in any process -- what exactly is left preventing the US to become a dictatorship? You might have guessed the only thing left is the public opinion that failed to prevent the rise of Trump or provide any effective opposition to him so far. 

The truth of this is laid bare when you start to consider that extreme measures such as canceling the election (for an excuse that nobody would believe) allowing increased electoral interference, further  powers taken for the President -- are actually smaller leaps than the ones that have already been done. Once the President has consolodated these powers, the more controversial uses of them are actually smaller steps than the taking of them was in the first place.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
FBI Director James Comey's very late intervention in the election may have also tipped the balance away from Hillary and toward Trump. 99% doesn't mean much when people think the FBI is on your trail.

When you run a candidate who is the subject of an FBI investigation, as Clinton was, that's just a risk you end up taking.

Luckily for Trump, a few Republicans working for the FBI were able to throw the election to Trump. The investigation itself never went anywhere because there never was anything there. Trump is the quintessential example of the privileged rich heterosexual Christian white racist male. It's disturbing that he has so much support in America and elsewhere.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
What is shocking to me is that the ongoing normalization of the Trump attack on democracy is largely going without protest or comment -- or very, very little.

Since the impeachment hearings, there has been very little protest over the purging of witnesses who did nothing but tell the truth as they knew it. None of them were proven to lie. Most Senators agreed with the evidence but claimed that it was no big deal (at least not enough to remove a President). The majority of Republicans did not claim the evidence was wrong -- just not enough. In a country that actually was interested in democracy people would flood the streets.

Impeachment has always been a political process, not a legal one. Basically, whichever side has enough numbers on their side wins. Anyone who paid attention would have understood that the Republican-controlled Senate would not only never vote to remove Trump but would stack the process in the President's favour. The Democrats would have done the exact same thing. While wrong on voting "present," Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was absolutely correct about the hyper-partsian nature of the whole process. Plus, they went after Trump on the craziest thing. Phone calls and e-mails? People don't have time to follow and gain an understanding, and there is enough dirt on the Bidens that Trump was able to turn it around. This was the same Speaker who refused to impeach Bush over his handling of the Iraq war, which would have been a slam-dunk PR move that would have sunk the Republican brand for decades. As for people taking to the streets? These are the same blue state people who threw temper tantrums in the streets when Trump was elected. Not only were these people silent as Obama continued and expanded the militaristic foreign policy and government spying, but I wonder how many of these people involved themselves in their state's contest to vote for Bernie Sanders, the one candidate who could have defeated Trump.

The Democratic establishment agrees with Trump on matters of economic and foreign policy. The efforts at impeachment were not seriously aimed at removing him from office but an attempt to make their base of supporters believe that they are trying to stop him. They are not. As the Sanders campaign gains momentum, we are seeing so many establishment figures within the Democratic party openly scared and trying to stop him. This is because their corporate and financial interests are threatened by a potential Sanders presidency. These people are willing to defend their power and priviledge at all costs, even at the expense of another four years of President Trump. You cannot have this conversation about how things got so bad without acknowledging the convergence of interests between the Democrat and Republican establishments, or how the Democrats have repeatedly sold out the common good (and their own base) to preserve power at the top.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The truth of this is laid bare when you start to consider that extreme measures such as canceling the election (for an excuse that nobody would believe) allowing increased electoral interference, further  powers taken for the President -- are actually smaller leaps than the ones that have already been done. Once the President has consolodated these powers, the more controversial uses of them are actually smaller steps than the taking of them was in the first place.

The level of cynicism with politics is what got us to this point in the first place. So Trump is bad? People think that politicians are bad by definition, so why care? I'm struggling way to hard to keep my own head above water anyways, is what they think. The neo-liberal policies of the Clinton and Obama Administrations helped pave the way. Remember in 2016 when then-candidate Trump railed against the Clinton and Obama free trade deals, went after Jeb Bush for his brother's handling of the Iraq war, and wanted to not be involved in the Siryan conflict because it would possibly entangle the US in a nuclear war with Russia? Or when he said that Clinton was trigger happy?

As long as we are so scared of Trump that we need to stop him at all costs (even at the cost of electing Bloomberg) he has control over us. That's why Bernie Sanders is the best placed candidate to stop Trump, because Sanders' platform is strong and solid on its own.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
What is shocking to me is that the ongoing normalization of the Trump attack on democracy is largely going without protest or comment -- or very, very little.

Since the impeachment hearings, there has been very little protest over the purging of witnesses who did nothing but tell the truth as they knew it. None of them were proven to lie. Most Senators agreed with the evidence but claimed that it was no big deal (at least not enough to remove a President). The majority of Republicans did not claim the evidence was wrong -- just not enough. In a country that actually was interested in democracy people would flood the streets.

Impeachment has always been a political process, not a legal one. Basically, whichever side has enough numbers on their side wins. Anyone who paid attention would have understood that the Republican-controlled Senate would not only never vote to remove Trump but would stack the process in the President's favour. The Democrats would have done the exact same thing. While wrong on voting "present," Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was absolutely correct about the hyper-partsian nature of the whole process. Plus, they went after Trump on the craziest thing. Phone calls and e-mails? People don't have time to follow and gain an understanding, and there is enough dirt on the Bidens that Trump was able to turn it around. This was the same Speaker who refused to impeach Bush over his handling of the Iraq war, which would have been a slam-dunk PR move that would have sunk the Republican brand for decades. As for people taking to the streets? These are the same blue state people who threw temper tantrums in the streets when Trump was elected. Not only were these people silent as Obama continued and expanded the militaristic foreign policy and government spying, but I wonder how many of these people involved themselves in their state's contest to vote for Bernie Sanders, the one candidate who could have defeated Trump.

The Democratic establishment agrees with Trump on matters of economic and foreign policy. The efforts at impeachment were not seriously aimed at removing him from office but an attempt to make their base of supporters believe that they are trying to stop him. They are not. As the Sanders campaign gains momentum, we are seeing so many establishment figures within the Democratic party openly scared and trying to stop him. This is because their corporate and financial interests are threatened by a potential Sanders presidency. These people are willing to defend their power and priviledge at all costs, even at the expense of another four years of President Trump. You cannot have this conversation about how things got so bad without acknowledging the convergence of interests between the Democrat and Republican establishments, or how the Democrats have repeatedly sold out the common good (and their own base) to preserve power at the top.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The truth of this is laid bare when you start to consider that extreme measures such as canceling the election (for an excuse that nobody would believe) allowing increased electoral interference, further  powers taken for the President -- are actually smaller leaps than the ones that have already been done. Once the President has consolodated these powers, the more controversial uses of them are actually smaller steps than the taking of them was in the first place.

The level of cynicism with politics is what got us to this point in the first place. So Trump is bad? People think that politicians are bad by definition, so why care? I'm struggling way to hard to keep my own head above water anyways, is what they think. The neo-liberal policies of the Clinton and Obama Administrations helped pave the way. Remember in 2016 when then-candidate Trump railed against the Clinton and Obama free trade deals, went after Jeb Bush for his brother's handling of the Iraq war, and wanted to not be involved in the Siryan conflict because it would possibly entangle the US in a nuclear war with Russia? Or when he said that Clinton was trigger happy?

As long as we are so scared of Trump that we need to stop him at all costs (even at the cost of electing Bloomberg) he has control over us. That's why Bernie Sanders is the best placed candidate to stop Trump, because Sanders' platform is strong and solid on its own.

I am interpreting the power grab rather than the individual use of those powers. This is an important distinction. You are focussing on what parties have done and would do which is not the point of my post. I am looking at the centralization on increased power into one man in a system that already weighted a lot of power to the President. 

In many respects I think Trump's power grabs have been more about setting precidence of the power than the individual decision people focus on. At some point we have to recognize that this President is centralizing more power and removing the few checks on it that existed and the GOP is enabling him. This is without precident when you consider the degree of it and how across the board the pattern is. So sure you can point to individual things having been done by the parties before but this is different. Presidents have reached pretty far in the past and this is why this scale may be easier but this is reaching further.

It remains to be seen what Sanders would do if he can get there. It also remains to be seen what future presidents will do. The fear here is that the additional centralization and normalization is not going to go away but remain as all steps in this direction have in the past. The fact that this is a gigantic reach in an already compromised balance is worrying -- or should be.

The idea of norm-smashing and autocratic statements from Trump is shifting not only the legal basis but also the political culture of what is acceptable. Things that may have been done quietly before becuase they were scandelous and illegal are now open. That is a change and is consolidates and extends this power. It is easier to use a power if you no longer have to politically and legally hide it. When the people do not react to the power grab and only the content of the subject, you have a dangerous escalation in this shift in power.

Sean in Ottawa

The distraction of the content (kids in cages and other nasty things) has meant people react to individual things and do not see the consolidation of power this represents over a period. On the opposition side the exaggerations also lead to the passive response -- if you say that the US has always been a dictatorship it becomes cover for it to become more of one than in fact it was.

The reality here is that there is a difference and it does not just relate to the extremes o an ideology or the individual inhuman things. It realtes to a normalization of extensions to power that over time are quite scary.

Look at how Trump reacts: each time he is accused of extending power he always says-- well I could do that but that is not what I am doing. In other words some of these decisions may in fact be more about power grabbing than even the other objectives people notice. There is this constant drip drip of propaganda lifting the President above the law and giving the President new powers or abilities to ignore other power structures in the country. In this sense you have to see them together. This includes interference in municipal and state decisions Trump does not like. When you listen to him, he really does believe he is above the law and has jurisdiction to override every other part of the US. No other President has claimed and tried to normalize this. Most when they overstep deny it and claim not to be trying to extend powers that Trump routinely defends as his right.

contrarianna

Returning to the opening post, Chomsky yesterday favourably refers to Hochschild in an interview:

"The Democrats abandoned the working class decades ago"
In an interview with Wallace Shawn, Noam Chomsky explains how elitism and atomization have created political rifts

....
Republicans may take a populist line, but they are much more opposed to working people than even the Democrats in policies. Working-class males are — we are supposed to call them "middle class" in the United States, the phrase "working class" is a four-letter word here — but working-class males who are supporting Trump are actually supporting policies which are going to devastate them.
....
There is a very interesting book that just came out by Arlie Hochschild, a sociologist, who went to a pretty terribly impoverished area in Louisiana and lived there for six years and studied the people sympathetically. This is deep Trump country, and her results are quite interesting. For example, these are people who are being devastated by chemical and other pollution from the petrochemical industry, but they are strongly opposed to the Environmental Protection Agency. When she asks why, they have reasons. They say, "Look, what is the Environmental Protection Agency? It's some guy from the city with a Ph.D. who comes out here and tells me I can't fish but he doesn't go after the petrochemical industries. So, who wants them? I don't want them taking away my job and telling me what I can do and speaking to me with the cultivated accents meanwhile I'm under attack by all this stuff."

These attitudes are serious. They are significant. They deserve respect and not ridicule, and I think they can be addressed. For example, I think that say in the 1930s, I'm old enough to remember, in many ways, it was kind of like now; poverty was much greater. The depression was much worse than the current recession. In fact, it was a much poorer country than it is now....

https://www.salon.com/2020/02/22/noam-chomsky-the-democrats-abandoned-th...

Many Trump voters are not married to the fascistic predilections of Trump and given a real choice of candidate that actually means what she/he says regarding economic reform, infrastructure, and people over corporate interest, could have a chance at beating Trump, even with the biased electoral system.

Insults from Democrat supporters against Trump voters, (eg the charming Clinton's "basket of deplorables"shot) is obviously not the way to win the necessary votes over, duh. The number of Obama voters, especially in the rust belt, who switched to Trump was big enough to give the election to Trump.

NYT: The Obama-Trump Voters Are Real. Here’s What They Think.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-rea...

They Voted Democratic. Now They Support Trump.

Two-thirds of battleground state voters who chose Trump in 2016 but selected Democrats in the midterms say they will return to the president next year.

The story of the 2016 presidential election is simple. Donald J. Trump made huge gains among white voters without a college degree. His gains were large enough to cancel out considerable losses among well-educated white voters and a decade of demographic shifts.

There are questions and details still up for debate: whether Democrats can win back these voters, and how to think about and frame the decline in black turnout. But postelection surveys, pre-election surveys, voter file data and the actual results all support the main story: The voters who switched from President Obama to Mr. Trump were decisive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/upshot/democratic-trump-voters-2020.html

Related to the media stoked fury of personality over policy, I'll plug the excellent Matt Taibbi book,

Hate Inc.: Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another
 "In this characteristically turbocharged new book, celebrated Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi provides an insider's guide to the variety of ways today's mainstream media tells us lies. Part tirade, part confessional, it reveals that what most people think of as "the news" is, in fact, a twisted wing of the entertainment business."

“In a smart and scathing freewheeling analysis, the Rolling Stone journalist analyzes political campaign coverage and other media powder kegs.” ―The New York Times

“Taibbi aims a cannon, blistering an American media industry he accuses of taking sides and manipulating the audience for profit―‘different news’ elevated to a business model.” ―The Washington Post

“Reporters have often become unwitting props in the amped-up, WWE brand of politics practiced by Donald Trump, even as their organizations have profited mightily from it.” ―Booklist (starred review)

“An invigorating polemic against tactics the news media use to manipulate and divide their audiences.” ―Kirkus Reviews

“A smart dissection of a grim media landscape.” ―Publishers Weekly

“Taibbi is a delight to read. He’s a figure of large courage and considerable brio.” ―Paste

“Brilliantly captures the current circus atmosphere and explores its roots in the political, economic and technological transformations of the last half century.” ―CounterPunch

A review here: https://intpolicydigest.org/2020/02/19/review-matt-taibbi-s-hate-inc/

 

Cody87

I was surprised to see this thread again, what a delightful trip down memory lane.

In post #309 I argued why I believe Sanders would likely have beaten Trump in 2016. For the record, I stand by that analysis. 

That said, it appears Bernie Sanders will most likely win the Dem nomination this time around, despite (or, perhaps, assisted by) the transparent mobilization against him by the DNC and corporate media. Obviously, the situation has changed in significant ways, thus my conclusions in post #309 no longer apply.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Cody87 wrote:

I was surprised to see this thread again, what a delightful trip down memory lane.

In post #309 I argued why I believe Sanders would likely have beaten Trump in 2016. For the record, I stand by that analysis. 

That said, it appears Bernie Sanders will most likely win the Dem nomination this time around, despite (or, perhaps, assisted by) the transparent mobilization against him by the DNC and corporate media. Obviously, the situation has changed in significant ways, thus my conclusions in post #309 no longer apply.

I look forward to reading your prediction for this time. I am already on record as believing that Sanders will beat Trump handily if he wins the Dem nomination.

NDPP

Yes, I too think that if nominated Sanders can beat Trump.

kropotkin1951

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

I was surprised to see this thread again, what a delightful trip down memory lane.

In post #309 I argued why I believe Sanders would likely have beaten Trump in 2016. For the record, I stand by that analysis. 

That said, it appears Bernie Sanders will most likely win the Dem nomination this time around, despite (or, perhaps, assisted by) the transparent mobilization against him by the DNC and corporate media. Obviously, the situation has changed in significant ways, thus my conclusions in post #309 no longer apply.

I look forward to reading your prediction for this time. I am already on record as believing that Sanders will beat Trump handily if he wins the Dem nomination.

I also think that he has the best change of beating Trump. The important point for me is who will be his VP. Bernie is not young and more than one POTUS has bit the dust to an assassin's bullet.

Of course there is the problem that even if he wants to present a good legislative package it needs to make it through Congress and the Senate.

Sean in Ottawa

While I think Sanders has the best chance to beat Trump, this does not mean he will beat Trump handily or that the election will not be close. 

I agree choice of VP candidate will be critical in part becuase it will be close and where the wins may have to come from.

The Democrats have to guess correctly about where the resources must be spent this time and that may be difficult.

JKR

NDPP wrote:

Yes, I too think that if nominated Sanders can beat Trump.

I think everyone here on Babble probably agrees with this and everyone here is rooting for Sanders. 

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Yes, I too think that if nominated Sanders can beat Trump.

I think everyone here on Babble probably agrees with this and everyone here is rooting for Sanders. 

A few think Trump is unbeatable but most of the dispute is over whether this is a certainty.

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

I was surprised to see this thread again, what a delightful trip down memory lane.

In post #309 I argued why I believe Sanders would likely have beaten Trump in 2016. For the record, I stand by that analysis. 

That said, it appears Bernie Sanders will most likely win the Dem nomination this time around, despite (or, perhaps, assisted by) the transparent mobilization against him by the DNC and corporate media. Obviously, the situation has changed in significant ways, thus my conclusions in post #309 no longer apply.

I look forward to reading your prediction for this time. I am already on record as believing that Sanders will beat Trump handily if he wins the Dem nomination.

I also think that he has the best change of beating Trump. The important point for me is who will be his VP. Bernie is not young and more than one POTUS has bit the dust to an assassin's bullet.

I'm split between whether Nina Turner or Tulsi Gabbard would be the best choice. Nina has unflinchingly stood by Bernie for the last 4  years, and as a black woman, her being on the ticket would be an effective response to this "woke" BS that the Establishment is throwing around. Tulsi, on the other hand, did the heavy lifting that Bernie would not in the early stages by taking on estsblishment candidates like Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigeg. She also centred her campaign around anti-interventionism, is very well respected by Trump voters, and I believe she would eviscerate Mike Pence in the VP debate. It's true that aspects of her domestic agenda, such as single payer health care and a Green New Deal are problematic, however there is a good chance that both processes will be well underway before she has to take on that role.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Of course there is the problem that even if he wants to present a good legislative package it needs to make it through Congress and the Senate.

Not when President Sanders is in the home districts and states of these Congressmen and Senators rallying the people behind what he's proposing.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

[comment deleted]

NorthReport

Maybe the current stock market is beginning to reflect the insanities of the current President.

Cody87

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

I was surprised to see this thread again, what a delightful trip down memory lane.

In post #309 I argued why I believe Sanders would likely have beaten Trump in 2016. For the record, I stand by that analysis. 

That said, it appears Bernie Sanders will most likely win the Dem nomination this time around, despite (or, perhaps, assisted by) the transparent mobilization against him by the DNC and corporate media. Obviously, the situation has changed in significant ways, thus my conclusions in post #309 no longer apply.

I look forward to reading your prediction for this time. I am already on record as believing that Sanders will beat Trump handily if he wins the Dem nomination.

How things can change in a week! Implicit in me explicitly stating that my prediction of Sanders beating Trump last time doesn't necessarily apply this time is the suggestion that I think Sanders might well not win against Trump this time.

With that said, there's now evidence that COVID-19 is going to be a prolonged issue on a global scale and, in brief, I think anyone could win in November. There's simply too much we don't know about what's going to happen this year to (at this time) predict how people will vote at the end of it.

Pondering

W5 starting in minutes, Trump and evangelicals.

Pages