The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Electoral Politics Page 13 of 30

Why Buttigieg Beats Harris and Beto to Be the DNC’s Champion

A lot of the candidates are running to the left in one way or the other, but the party itself is uneasy about that. Party insiders, (which 538 mislabels “activists”), dislike Harris most. Many people thought it would be Beto; charismatic, but policy- and conviction-empty.

But the best centrist candidate is like Obama: Comes from a minority, is charismatic, is not in any way actually left-wing, and is empty enough for people to project their hopes onto. Beto makes three of four; Harris has the problem that she has a terrible record as a prosecutor–i.e. she’s not empty enough for people to project their hopes onto.

Only Buttigiegg checks all four boxes: minority (gay), charismatic, not left-wing and empty enough for people to see what they want in him.

To defeat actual left-wingers the best play is to find someone with a non-white male identity, who wants to win badly and has no radical bones or record at all.

Hail, Buttigiegg, saviour, and soon-to-be favoured son of the DNC.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

If Non Sanders Democratic Nominees Can’t Convince Voters To Vote For Them Isn’t That Bad?

 

Sanders-021507-18335- 0004

 In 2008 15% of Clinton primary voters for McCain. They united under the term PUMAs (Party Unity, My Ass.)

Because people seem to have no memory, the nastiness of the 2008 primary has been forgotten. At one point Clinton was pilloried for supposedly suggesting that Obama should be assassinated, for example. (No, she didn’t say anything close to that.)

Anyway, in 2016, 12% of Sanders primary voters voted for Trump, which is, well, less than the 15% of PUMAs voting for McCain.

Now there’s a poll showing that 26% of voters considering Bernie might not vote Democrat if Bernie isn’t the nominee.

This is apparently a bad thing, according to the screeching.

Except, of course, it isn’t.

What it indicates is that Sanders is able to motivate people who wouldn’t necessarily vote Democrat otherwise. In the 2016 primaries the pattern was that, in fact, Sanders tended to win Independents, and Clinton won Democrats.

And all polling showed that Sanders, had he been the nominee, would outperform Clinton against Trump.

Makes sense, doesn’t it, if he’s able to convince non Democrats to vote for him?

On an ethical level, no one owes the Democrats or Republicans or any candidate their vote automatically.

Represent their interests, convince them you do so.

EARN their vote. If non-Bernie candidates can’t do that, perhaps they shouldn’t be the nominee?


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Joe Biden’s Touching Problem

So, Biden has someone accusing him of inappropriate touching.

Biden, as a perusal of news photos will show, has always been very, errr, touchy, with women.

Though he hasn’t said he’ll run for President in 2020, Biden is regularly included in the polling and generally runs just slightly ahead of Sanders, with the two of them well ahead of the other contenders. (Polling at this time is largely a matter of name recognition.)

This isn’t a problem which will go away. If Biden runs, more and more women will make these accusations, because Biden has been free with his hands. It may well be that he meant nothing offensive by it, but the fact is that he does it.

How much this matters is unclear. Trump did far worse things, we have tape, and it didn’t matter.

On the other hand Biden is running as a Democrat, not a Republican.

I suspect the wisest course of action for Biden would be not to run. But he’s reportedly upset he didn’t run last time, after seeing Clinton lose.

If he does run, however, this will be a persistent, open sore throughout his campaign, and probably into his Presidency.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Are Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Harbingers of the Turning of the Tide

Ilhan Omar

The two most media-savvy new House members from the last election were undoubtedly Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). AOC has single-handedly made the Green New Deal a topic of discussion, and Omar has broken the Washington consensus that one can’t say bad things about Israel without being destroyed by the Israeli lobby as an anti-semite.

Along the way, they’ve also shifted–or started shifting–the Overton window on topics like Reagan being a racist (AOC) and on Obama being a mass murderer (Omar).

They’re a bit less radical than they seem: Omar, for example, is for the two-state solution in Palestine, but compared to what was allowed to be said previously, what was allowed to be supported previously, they are radical.

Meanwhile, the Democratic presidential field has as its norm support for Medicare for All, breaking up the big tech monopolies, and so on.

What it’s possible to talk about and espouse has changed.

On the other side of the ledger, the simple fact is that most of the new Democratic house members who were elected in 2018 are “moderates” and they have also received, overall, better committee assignments than the left-wingers.

Nancy Pelosi, who’s in charge of House Democrats, openly mocked the idea of the Green New Deal.

The Democratic Party establishment is still run by moderates; and those moderates still respect the right and despise the left.

Nor have Omar and AOCs’ voting records been as radical as their rhetoric.

So, are they, and the Presidential candidates, the harbingers of the turning of the tide?

Yes. But not that it will definitely be as left-wing as we might like. There is a demographic turn that is certain. Pelosi and other baby boomers are old. This is the end for them. They have another four to eight years at most, and then most of them will be replaced. The Millenials (who are no longer young) are coming of political age. Unlike GenX, which was not numerous enough to replace the Boomers wholesale, they will be the new majority in politics.

How radical they will be remains to be seen. The trends are optimistic, but Millenials have an authoritarian streak as well as a radical one. Certainly we can expect them to take climate change, for example, more seriously: They will have to live with the results, while the Boomers always knew they’d be dead before it really mattered.

We will know by the end of 2024 approximately how this is going to play out. That’s when the demographic edge will simply require that Millenials take over.

That’s not long from now. To put into perspective, it’s only three house elections away.

If the future is to be better, we will, in the old and tired blogosphere saw, need better democrats than the ones we are electing now. AOC and Omar are outliers, even among their own generation, within Congress.

I’m actually somewhat optimistic. I think that as the Overton window turns, and given just how much pain both the young and the old are in America (with soaring suicide rates, drug addiction, and declining life spans among key constituencies) that there’s a good chance of positive change.

There remains a strong chance of negative change as well. In 2010, I stated that the next President after Obama would be a right-wing populist or authoritarian. It was obvious, because Obama was fucking up and had decided to favor the rich and screw the middle class and poor.

When people are in pain they will choose the disruptive alternative. In 2016, that disruptive alternative was Trump (if Sanders had been the Presidential candidate for the Democrats, I agree with the polling that says he would have won, as he was also disruptive and, unlike Trump, not clearly a cruel lunatic).

So we have cycles: The Democrats get their chance. The Republicans get their chance.

When one of them actually succeeds and makes enough Americans clearly better off in ways that Americans can feel, they’ll lock down politics for the next 30 years or so, in the same way that FDR did and that Reagan and Thatcher did.

If they fail, they will simply pass the ball to the other party.

So far Democrats have been satisfied–more than satisfied–with just passing the ball back and forth. They liked Republicans, basically agreed with neoliberalism and wealth concentration (why not, Democratic leaders personally benefited), and didn’t want to upset the status quo.

AOC, and in particular Omar, are not okay with the status quo. Neither are most of the serious Democratic candidates for President.

If these candidates actually go on to govern in ways change the status quo in a way that is win for a clear voting majority of Americans (and non-voters can become voters), then they will succeed at turning the tide. If they don’t, they won’t.

What individuals do often does matter. It goes against the grain of our society with its “wisdom of crowds” consensus to admit this. A few individuals, chosen by large numbers of people, will likely decide if the US has a turn for another Golden (or more likely, Silver) Age, or not.

Choose wisely.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

The Day the World Ended

A small point:


The Supreme Court stole the US election of 2000 AD for the Republicans. For George Bush, Jr. It stole it from Albert Gore.

My friend Stirling Newberry was the only person at the Supreme Court protesting.

Afterwards, he said to me and some others (paraphrased): “That was our last chance. We are going to ride this bucket all the way down to hell.”

Turns out he was right.

(Whatever you may think of Gore, and I think he’s a coward, he was, ummmm, serious about climate change.)

We aren’t going to hold global warming at two degrees Celcius. We aren’t even going to come close.

We all know this. More on some specific consequences, in only one country, which will cost hundreds of millions of lives, later.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

The Simple Reason I’ll Probably Support Bernie

Sanders

It’s the policy, stupid. Bernie isn’t perfect, especially on foreign affairs, but he’s better than anyone else I see in the field in terms of what he wants to do. Moreover, he’s credible, since he’s been for most of the same things all his life.

A lot of voters are very good at saying they support certain policies, then finding an excuse to vote for a politician who doesn’t actually want those policies. This is particularly endemic in Democratic primary voters, who never saw a left-winger they didn’t want to spit on while claiming to agree with.

Yes, he’s 79, but in good in shape for 79. All that really means is that he needs a VP candidate who shares his politics and is younger, rather than a “balance VP.”

As for the fact that he’s a white male, I’ve seen too many women and people of color turn into centrist or even right wing disasters. I understand the symbolism of a woman President, but Obama was a disaster, and I remember how much I got told how important it was that he was black.

Yeah, no. I’ll stick with “good policy” as my determinant, not genitals or quantity of melanin in the skin.

Bernie it is.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Dems Take the House: What It Means

Nancy Pelosi

Ok, this is good news–

but–

back in 2006, the Democrats took the House under an unpopular Republican President.

The Democratic leader was, as today, Nancy Pelosi.

She did very very little.

Some things did not get passed that would have if Republicans held the House. She did not go after Bush or try to block him in any significant way.

This is what, I expect, she will do this time. This is who she is and what she believes in. She has already said she will not go after Republicans the way they went after Democrats.

So, good news, but please don’t expect very much. Pelosi is a centrist, leading a centrist party, who finds Trump’s policies distasteful, but finds vigorous opposition even more distasteful. She does not believe in fighting right-wingers.

Unrequited good news: The re-enfranchisement of Florida felons. That will likely put Florida solidly Dem in the next election.

(Also, in popular vote terms, this was a wave election, but gerrymandering and the “great sort” mean the seats don’t translate.)


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

The Mid-Terms

So, the polls suggest the Democrats stand a good chance of winning the House and a small chance of winning the Senate.

Let us hope they win at least one of the two, as a divided government, in the face of Trump, will be a good thing. Trump’s been doing a lot of mean, stupid things, the latest of which are his imposing sanctions on Iran, even though Iran has kept up their end of the nuclear deal, for which sanctions were removed.

I didn’t support Clinton in 2016 because of her anti-Russian hawkism and insane Syria policy (and didn’t support Trump either because he’s an evil douchebag). But Trump is moving towards war with Iran, which would be insanity. Even if war doesn’t happen, the sanctions will hurt and kill a lot of Iranians, are actually hurting their relatively moderate current government, and strengthening Iran’s more conservative forces.

Trump’s a very effective guy in certain ways, but he’s also a moron in a lot of other ways, and a cruel and rather petty man.

Let’s hope Americans put a brake on him.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 13 of 30

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén