Octopus Overlords

Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:28 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

This is a weird flex...at best. An examination about how extremists take power typically still ends up at the end with some version of authoritarianism. Whether the government is toppled or subsumed is hardly important.

To expand, I also don't see Bernie toppling a government. Trump is actively, currently subsuming the current one in plain view. Bernie isn't going to be able to pass a single major change absent some massive shift in Senate and Judicial power.

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:36 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:28 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

This is a weird flex...at best. An examination about how extremists take power typically still ends up at the end with some version of authoritarianism. Whether the government is toppled or subsumed is hardly important.

To expand, I also don't see Bernie toppling a government. Trump is actively, currently subsuming the current one in plain view. Bernie isn't going to be able to pass a single major change absent some massive shift in Senate and Judicial power.

Well, it's not about reality. It's about what that 5% of influential voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida feel.

Bernie isn't close to extreme left; in fact, he would be considered only moderate left in European politics for instance. The leftwing extremists that have toppled governments are orders of magnitude left of Bernie.

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:46 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:36 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:28 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

This is a weird flex...at best. An examination about how extremists take power typically still ends up at the end with some version of authoritarianism. Whether the government is toppled or subsumed is hardly important.

To expand, I also don't see Bernie toppling a government. Trump is actively, currently subsuming the current one in plain view. Bernie isn't going to be able to pass a single major change absent some massive shift in Senate and Judicial power.

Well, it's not about reality. It's about what that 5% of influential voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida feel.

Fair enough and the misinformation and bullshit they'll be targeted with is going to be off the chart.

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:55 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:46 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:36 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:28 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

This is a weird flex...at best. An examination about how extremists take power typically still ends up at the end with some version of authoritarianism. Whether the government is toppled or subsumed is hardly important.

To expand, I also don't see Bernie toppling a government. Trump is actively, currently subsuming the current one in plain view. Bernie isn't going to be able to pass a single major change absent some massive shift in Senate and Judicial power.

Well, it's not about reality. It's about what that 5% of influential voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida feel.

Fair enough and the misinformation and bullshit they'll be targeted with is going to be off the chart.

Indeed.

However, he's shown no indication that he will be constrained, and climate change is as passionate an issue as immigration and just as easy to make bad decisions. Especially when conspiracy theory is in play.

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:18 pm I'm talking about conservative folks who will vote for almost anyone over Trump. I'd put myself in that category, but there's zero chance of me voting for a Republican without a complete revamp of the party and platform. I'd wager George Conway, for example, would not be able to vote for Sanders. Call it educated conservatives with scruples?

NeverTrumper standard-bearer Tom Nichols, who hates everything about Bernie's politics, has said that he will vote for Bernie if necessary. His reasoning is that Bernie's extreme plans are DOA legislatively anyway.

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:32 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:27 pm Plus Trump was just FULLY EXONERATED by the Senate which means Hunter Biden is a criminal and Joe Biden is a corrupt, invalid candidate.

Funny enough the Treasury just sent 'records' on Hunter Biden to the Senate Judiciary committee. Let me guess...tax returns. Fucking hypocrites.

Seems like a good time for Nadler to demand Ivanka's, Junior's, and Eric's.

Considering that Eric Trump's brother in law was hired as chief of staff of the Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis a while back, let's get him in there as well.

But he has to have been qualified, right?

Nope.

His alumni page from college doesn't mention anything about energy or energy policy. Instead, it lists: "Team Building, Strategy, Management, Entrepreneurship, Project Planning, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Office, PowerPoint, Budgets, Public Speaking, Strategic Planning, Business Strategy, Microsoft Word, Customer Service, Event Planning, Data Analysis, Social Media, Community Outreach, Research, Analysis, Customer Satisfaction, Account Management."

His LinkedIn page also made no mention of experience in the energy industry.

Holman wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:46 pmNeverTrumper standard-bearer Tom Nichols, who hates everything about Bernie's politics, has said that he will vote for Bernie if necessary. His reasoning is that Bernie's extreme plans are DOA legislatively anyway.

#NeverTrumpers are typically elite former Republicans - they get the risk. The hoi polloi are going to be susceptible to misinformation. You have to factor it in. The 2nd part was what I was getting at but the GOP will boogie man scenarios endlessly at folks in battleground states. It is going to be nasty.

Is it too late to convince Merkley to throw his hat in the race?

This country's election process is a FFFu..Fiasco , Farce , and Fuck up. Iowa proves it.

"This country" doesn't have an election process. 50 states do.

And each county/parish/etc has its own procedures underneath that.

I’m reading that Buttigieg is surging in NH polls. Now almost tied with Sanders in a state everyone predicted Sanders would win in a landslide. More than what this says about Mayor Pete’s campaign, I think it does not bode well for Biden. I could be wrong, but my guess is the additional votes for Buttigieg are not coming from Warren or Sanders. They’re coming from Biden, and that’s not good news for Joe.

Long term, though, if Biden’s votes lose faith in his ability to win and the bulk of them flock to Buttigieg, he could gain some real momentum quickly.

Kurth wrote:I’m reading that Buttigieg is surging in NH polls. Now almost tied with Sanders in a state everyone predicted Sanders would win in a landslide. More than what this says about Mayor Pete’s campaign, I think it does not bode well for Biden. I could be wrong, but my guess is the additional votes for Buttigieg are not coming from Warren or Sanders. They’re coming from Biden, and that’s not good news for Joe.

Long term, though, if Biden’s votes lose faith in his ability to win and the bulk of them flock to Buttigieg, he could gain some real momentum quickly.

Warren is still my tepid #1
I am ready and willing to jump to Butigieg/Abrams (rising star) (Harris yup yup but has a little baggage and a strategic job already) (Booker In a second but he strikes me as a rising senator)


Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Kurth wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:35 am I’m reading that Buttigieg is surging in NH polls. Now almost tied with Sanders in a state everyone predicted Sanders would win in a landslide. More than what this says about Mayor Pete’s campaign, I think it does not bode well for Biden. I could be wrong, but my guess is the additional votes for Buttigieg are not coming from Warren or Sanders. They’re coming from Biden, and that’s not good news for Joe.

Long term, though, if Biden’s votes lose faith in his ability to win and the bulk of them flock to Buttigieg, he could gain some real momentum quickly.

I agree. That is why the Republicans are ramping up attacks on Biden's family. They want to dirty up Biden and finish him off. They must have modeled him as the greatest risk.

You have to figure next steps will be attacks on Buttigieg and Sanders. They are being formulated at the moment. Expect stories/investigations about Pete to undermine his military experience, his consulting background, and watch for Trump to step up attempts to separate African Americans from Pete's column. Sanders is socialism and they'll revive the investigation against his wife. They are going to divide and conquer via the clear fractures in the Democratic party combined with misinformation and investigations. It is hard to predict the timing but I expect they won't begin in earnest until it is clear that Biden is out.

Combustible Lemur wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:20 am (Booker In a second but he strikes me as a rising senator)

Wait. Didn't Booker bow out?

LordMortis wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:55 am

Combustible Lemur wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:20 am (Booker In a second but he strikes me as a rising senator)

Wait. Didn't Booker bow out?

I think he was talking about them being on the bottom of the ticket, since Harris dropped out and Abrams isn't even a candidate.

Defiant wrote:

LordMortis wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:55 am

Combustible Lemur wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:20 am (Booker In a second but he strikes me as a rising senator)

Wait. Didn't Booker bow out?

I think he was talking about them being on the bottom of the ticket, since Harris dropped out and Abrams isn't even a candidate.

Accurate.
Buttigieg doesn't look good unless he can reconcile his weakness with African Americans and more broadly people of color. Abrams is probably his best bet but she may have ambitions for 2024 and being VP is not necessarily helpful. Harris could be president except she doesn't inspire much excitement despite being very inspirational. Booker is so likeable, but something keeps him from breaking through. Plus like Harris, he is a well known and rising senator.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Kurth wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:35 am I’m reading that Buttigieg is surging in NH polls. Now almost tied with Sanders in a state everyone predicted Sanders would win in a landslide. More than what this says about Mayor Pete’s campaign, I think it does not bode well for Biden. I could be wrong, but my guess is the additional votes for Buttigieg are not coming from Warren or Sanders. They’re coming from Biden, and that’s not good news for Joe.

Long term, though, if Biden’s votes lose faith in his ability to win and the bulk of them flock to Buttigieg, he could gain some real momentum quickly.

Yup.

https://twitter.com/wbz/status/1225634437485887488

I don't even understand how this works with voters. Why should the Iowa results matter so much to individual voters one way or another? Is Buttigieg any different today than he was last week? The only way this makes sense to me is I guess there must have been a bunch of voters who don't care much about Biden, but just want a center-left type (and/or dislike Sanders in particular), so once there's some indication by a few people in Iowa that maybe that center-left guy will be Buttigieg, then ok let's all go support Buttigieg instead.

El Guapo wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:42 am I don't even understand how this works with voters. Why should the Iowa results matter so much to individual voters one way or another? Is Buttigieg any different today than he was last week? The only way this makes sense to me is I guess there must have been a bunch of voters who don't care much about Biden, but just want a center-left type (and/or dislike Sanders in particular), so once there's some indication by a few people in Iowa that maybe that center-left guy will be Buttigieg, then ok let's all go support Buttigieg instead.

I think this primary (at least while so many candidates remain) is way more about electability than ideology or policy. Pete’s surprisingly good Iowa performance makes him look like a winner, i.e. more electable than before.

I'm not thrilled with Buttigieg, but I do prefer him to Biden. Young, dynamic candidates generally do well.

Regarding electability (always a slippery subject): Biden's ace in the hole is said to be his popularity with black voters, thanks to Obama's aura. Butti, OTOH, is polling near 0 with blacks. This isn't a factor in IA or NH, but Biden's going to get that turbo boost in SC and later states. Democrats need solid black turnout to win, and Butti is probably not going to get it.

At the same time, I read that although Trump's been using black props at his rallies and bragging about how much he's done for them, they aren't fooled; he's still in the single digits (he only took 6% of the black vote in 2016). It's not like a Butti candidacy would send them into Trump's openly racist arms. Rather, the danger is that they'll sit this one out. So where am I going with this? I suppose I'm wondering just how much the D candidate needs their approval, or if their disgust with Trump will bring them out anyway. That is, they're going to be important for Biden in the primaries, but how big a factor is that in the general?

Reminder: There's another D debate tonight at 8 pm ET. I'm not going to give it its own thread this time, because debate fatigue, but I plan to watch. (If someone else wants to make a thread, go nuts.)

Kraken wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:08 pm debate fatigue,

Heh, I haven't watched any of them yet and now it's about time I start. It's a hard sell on Friday night, but if I remember, I think I will turn off whatever it is I'm doing and watch.

Holman wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:53 am

El Guapo wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:42 am I don't even understand how this works with voters. Why should the Iowa results matter so much to individual voters one way or another? Is Buttigieg any different today than he was last week? The only way this makes sense to me is I guess there must have been a bunch of voters who don't care much about Biden, but just want a center-left type (and/or dislike Sanders in particular), so once there's some indication by a few people in Iowa that maybe that center-left guy will be Buttigieg, then ok let's all go support Buttigieg instead.

I think this primary (at least while so many candidates remain) is way more about electability than ideology or policy. Pete’s surprisingly good Iowa performance makes him look like a winner, i.e. more electable than before.

I guess. Also weird to me that the winner of an electability-based contest would be the 37-year old gay former mayor of a small city.

Pete's surge since Iowa may also be due to simple increased name recognition. A lot of people probably don't start paying much attention until the primaries start and so they may just be really learning about Pete.

It's also possible that Buttigieg is gaining some of his support at the cost of Warren, not just Biden.



It's possible they were turned off by Sanders supporters, but there's other reasons why they might have switched that way. The demographics of Buttigieg and Warren supporters are similar. And there was some polling a while back that showed that Warren's supporters overall aren't ideologically as far left as she is (maybe they're just looking for more technocratic candidates?)

I got my mail-in ballot for California, and there are some crazy fringe candidates:

Moise Boyd
Mark Stewart Greenstein
Michal A. Ellinger
Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente III (should be in MMA)
Why do these people go through the time and money to get their name on the ballot? Vanity?

With me, Bernie has berned his bridges. If I had my pick of the litter I would go with Buttigieg, but I'm pretty sure the US is not ready for a gay President.

Much as I am tempted to vote for "Rocky" I can't resist the urge to vote for a "socialist" in 2020 Amerika, so I am going to do a Sophie's Choice and vote for Warren.

Jaymann wrote:I got my mail-in ballot for California, and there are some crazy fringe candidates:

Moise Boyd
Mark Stewart Greenstein
Michal A. Ellinger
Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente III (should be in MMA)
Why do these people go through the time and money to get their name on the ballot? Vanity?

With me, Bernie has berned his bridges. If I had my pick of the litter I would go with Buttigieg, but I'm pretty sure the US is not ready for a gay President.

Much as I am tempted to vote for "Rocky" I can't resist the urge to vote for a "socialist" in 2020 Amerika, so I am going to do a Sophie's Choice and vote for Warren.

To we're not ready for a gay president. Dude just tied in Iowa from behind. And is mayor in BF Indiana. You don't get much more heartland than Iowa and Southbend. See my above comments about his real weakness. And unfortunately, these two issues dovetail. Southern black communities aren't real receptive to gayness. Find the right VP though.....

On a daily basis I'm more ready to push the Boot to the edge edge.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

If this woman's right, it doesn't matter who the D nominee is; "her model tells her the Democrats are a near lock for the presidency in 2020, and are likely to gain House seats and have a decent shot at retaking the Senate."

What if everything you think you know about politics is wrong? What if there aren’t really American swing voters—or not enough, anyway, to pick the next president? What if it doesn’t matter much who the Democratic nominee is? What if there is no such thing as “the center,” and the party in power can govern however it wants for two years, because the results of that first midterm are going to be bad regardless? What if the Democrats' big 41-seat midterm victory in 2018 didn’t happen because candidates focused on health care and kitchen-table issues, but simply because they were running against the party in the White House? What if the outcome in 2020 is pretty much foreordained, too?

The story is worth reading.

El Guapo wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:12 pm

Holman wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:53 am

El Guapo wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:42 am I don't even understand how this works with voters. Why should the Iowa results matter so much to individual voters one way or another? Is Buttigieg any different today than he was last week? The only way this makes sense to me is I guess there must have been a bunch of voters who don't care much about Biden, but just want a center-left type (and/or dislike Sanders in particular), so once there's some indication by a few people in Iowa that maybe that center-left guy will be Buttigieg, then ok let's all go support Buttigieg instead.

I think this primary (at least while so many candidates remain) is way more about electability than ideology or policy. Pete’s surprisingly good Iowa performance makes him look like a winner, i.e. more electable than before.

I guess. Also weird to me that the winner of an electability-based contest would be the 37-year old gay former mayor of a small city.

Yep. Weird, but when you think of the serious competition - Sanders, Warren, Biden - it's not all that shocking. I'm exactly the voter you describe above. I like Buttigieg well enough, although I think I'd like him a hell of a lot more if he were 47 and had more experience on the national stage. I don't care all that much about Biden except for that I had thought he had the best chance to beat Trump. If the Iowa results suggest otherwise - which I think they do - I am 100% a Buttigieg backer.

There are more than a few reasons why the Iowa results are so bad for Biden. He's got nothing else to do but campaign right now, but he's got no money and what looks like a really poor ground game. His campaign's performance in Iowa was just dismal. I'm hearing that they had to fly people in from CA for a number of important precincts, and these people had very little familiarity with Iowa and its nutty caucuses. Despite the fact that this is the former VP of Obama with outstanding name recognition and generally high favorability, Biden got drubbed in Iowa. Not a good sign. If he rebounds in NH, maybe there's some life, but I'm doubtful.

I'd like to report a murder.

https://mobile.twitter.com/iboudreau/st ... 3172846593

Sneak preview of how this year is going to go. I thought it'd just be DOJ/foreign influence but it certainly appears that the Senate under GOP control will be used to white wash the absolute lawlessness of the investigations and election interference we are about to witness.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1226538711623634947

So they really still feel Biden is the biggest threat to Trump's re-election? I mean, now that we established that a President can do anything to stay in power, having him focus on Biden isn't terrible (if we're to believe the polls). Is that the sliver lining for our slip into this new autocratic America?

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:45 pm So they really still feel Biden is the biggest threat to Trump's re-election? I mean, now that we established that a President can do anything to stay in power, having him focus on Biden isn't terrible (if we're to believe the polls). Is that the sliver lining for our slip into this new autocratic America?

There are a few things here that have little to do with Biden's position in the polls or true risk. That isn't the important thing here. One perspective is to look at the current situation and then down the board a little on this. The current situation is that the Senate just unleashed Trump and they feel exposed. They need to legitimize what they did in the Senate. That means they have to 'memory hole' what impeachment was about. They need the 'true villains' to be investigated/punished. They need impeachment to be the 'hoax' that Trump claims it to be. They are worried about Senate elections in November here.

Down the board, this opens the door to future investigations of Trump's opponents. Once they have the Senate/DOJ pipeline established and normalized they'll keep it well supplied with Democratic names/supposed crimes to investigate. This is only the beginning. It is going to get horrible.

Right, but as far as we can tell they're still visibly going after Biden. We don't know - but it's safe to assume similar folders are being prepared for Warren and Sanders, right? The question is, are they so focused on Biden that they're not going to be prepared for pivot to someone else in time when it's apparently Biden isn't happening. I think what will be a really scary moment is if/when Trump or the DOJ announces something against Hillary. I'm still half expecting it, but Biden seems like a target of benefit right now - in their minds going after him is indeed helping Trump's chances to get elected again. That's why I think if they go after Hillary somehow, they're trying to build on that momentum.

But yes, the whole thing is insane, frightening and ultimately depressing. It really does feel like the window of opportunity for pulling out of this fatal nose dive we're collectively locked into is closing.

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:59 pm Right, but as far as we can tell they're still visibly going after Biden. We don't know - but it's safe to assume similar folders are being prepared for Warren and Sanders, right?

Assumedly. Sanders has some land dealings back home that I'm sure will end up in the GOP investigation pipeline eventually. I'm sure there is something to gin up on Warren and any of the other candidates.

The question is, are they so focused on Biden that they're not going to be prepared for pivot to someone else in time when it's apparently Biden isn't happening. I think what will be a really scary moment is if/when Trump or the DOJ announces something against Hillary.

They could but I don't think Hillary is a big game target anymore. She is an add-on if this spins out of control.

I'm still half expecting it, but Biden seems like a target of benefit right now - in their minds going after him is indeed helping Trump's chances to get elected again.

Biden still could get the nomination so it is a consideration but it is more about impeachment IMO. They seek to undermine the Ukraine investigation. If they can say that Hunter was corrupt and Biden was protecting him then the Democrats impeached Trump to cover up for their own bad behavior. Therefore acquitting Trump was just. They are actively trying to re-write history. That it sets up further investigations is also a big feature.

That's why I think if they go after Hillary somehow, they're trying to build on that momentum.

That'd be an indicator but I worry more for any of the 11 candidates still in the running.

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:36 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:28 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm Replacing a right-wing populist with a left-wing populist isn't very appealing to people who think the nation is way off course. Though it comes down to dictatorship with policies we can't afford or just some policies we can't afford. However, a lot of these faux-centrist people don't want to face the current fiscal reality because...low taxes or other nonsense.

Left wing extremists are far more likely to topple governments than right wing ones in the last 150 years.

This is a weird flex...at best. An examination about how extremists take power typically still ends up at the end with some version of authoritarianism. Whether the government is toppled or subsumed is hardly important.

To expand, I also don't see Bernie toppling a government. Trump is actively, currently subsuming the current one in plain view. Bernie isn't going to be able to pass a single major change absent some massive shift in Senate and Judicial power.

I hope Bernie uses the newly expanded power of the presidency to thumb his nose at the house and the supremes. I hope the next president... Ermm. Picks it up.