Octopus Overlords

There's bound to be a lot of disagreement until the primaries settle where the D nominee will be on the progressive <---> moderate scale, and it's healthy for a big-tent party to hash that out in public. Coming out of the chute I'm on Team Warren, but there are a lot of candidates about whom I know little to nothing, so my opinion is subject to change as the cast of characters gets defined.

The biggest trap the Dems need to avoid is assuming that Trump will be the Rep candidate and defining themselves strictly in opposition to him. Sure, it will *probably* be Trump, but there's a growing chance that he will cut a pardon deal and resign to avoid prison, in which case the Republicans might nominate somebody who can win. If being anti-Trump is the only thing uniting all the Dem factions, then taking him out of the picture could prove to be a serious pitfall.

Please Christ not Hillary!

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:47 pm 3 announced in the last day or two. Are we going to have a Democratic clown car? It makes sense to a degree since there isn't a clear heir apparent. However, a bruising primary fight isn't what the nation needs when you look to the right and see Trump there still.

I hope Bernie runs again.

Wiki

• Elizabeth Warren, Sen-MA
• John Delaney, Rep-MD
• Richard Ojeda, State Sen-MN
• Michael E. Arth, artist
• Ken Nwadike Jr., documentary filmmaker
• Robby Wells, Savannah State football, coach, 3rd presidential run
• Andrew Yang, founder of Venture for America

One big change is that California has moved its primary from very late to very early in the process--Super Tuesday IIRC.

This is probably a good thing, in that California looks a lot more like the actual Democratic Party than, say, Iowa or New Hampshire. But it also means that the primary fight could be effectively over in March 2020. It will hard for candidates trailing behind to stay in the game after all those California delegates get allocated.

It also looks like a very significant advantage for Harris.

Kraken wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:29 pm The biggest trap the Dems need to avoid is assuming that Trump will be the Rep candidate and defining themselves strictly in opposition to him. Sure, it will *probably* be Trump, but there's a growing chance that he will cut a pardon deal and resign to avoid prison, in which case the Republicans might nominate somebody who can win. If being anti-Trump is the only thing uniting all the Dem factions, then taking him out of the picture could prove to be a serious pitfall.

I think that's a real long shot. I can't imagine that the Republicans would be able to get a new (R) President elected in the year that follows a scandal such as you describe.
Trump is pardoned of any liablity, but was clearly guilty - and the Republican machine that supported him is given another shot at taking the helm? I mean, I know we've learned to expect the most shitty of all possible worlds, but I need to push back a little here. Trump can't resign in the middle of this and some how the Republicans manage to keep his base on board AND the independents that took a chance on Trump. What ever new Republican Party rose from those ashes would need to cater to one or the other. I would think.

If the donkeys put up an extremist like Sanders, the elephants will still have Trump's adoring swine and pick up some independents and moderates, especially if they put up someone more palatable among their ilk such as Is such as Kasich.

Sanders will be 79 years old by Inauguration Day.

Reagan was 77 when he left office.

A successful presidency is possibly the most cognitively demanding job in the world.

That's another reason I'd rather not see Sanders or Biden. Reagan clearly was being manipulated shortly into his presidency, the same would happen with these geezers.

I'd rather see Trump get a second term then the pro corporate duo of Hillary and who ever Hillary adds to her ticket to make her look hooman (prolly Warren) slither her way into office.

At least when our cities are aflame and whoever our Dear leader at the times bloated corpse is hung upside down like Mussolini from a lamp post. I can look down (or up) and cackle "I told ya so!"

That may be one of the most ignorant things that you have ever said. SMHS

PSA: SMHS - Shaking my head sadly.

TheMix wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:14 pm That may be one of the most ignorant things that you have ever said. SMHS

I've just given up thinking that anyone who works for a living actually has a say in *anything* that happens in our country. I mean look at the last 16 years. W prolly stole the election from Gore, our supposedly transformational leader from the left Obama turned into the TARP touting moderate conservative Chamberlinesque third and fourth terms of Bush who governed by executive order. Now Drumph is in office thanks to *spoiler alert* Putin and the ignorasses in the flyover states, who by the way are still waiting for the orange one to rework NAFTA, which was passed by... wait for it... CLINTON.

So yeah, feeling a little sore, a and just praying for the chickens to come home to roost before the US manages to steer the world into oblivion.

Sorry to ruffle feathers here but goddamn, if you arent miserable about how our government destroys lives of its own citizens on a daily basis in the name of mammon the maybe I'm not the one who's crazy here.

PS: My mom had a stroke under the care of a facility which was the only one who will take Medi-Cal in the area. They over cathedarized her leading to her yeast infection becoming a stroke when bacteria attacked her brain. I can't sue because before she had the stroke, but before I found out that that facility was owned by a penny pinching elder abuser, whose other facilities are bein shut down, I signed an arbitration agreement.

And I'm not even the worst case out there. My whole fucking cohort is being devoured. by the finance industry and the prison industrial complex, and the warehouses that pay 10 dollars an hour, lacking in healthcare and decent paying jobs and a way out of curcumstances that get worse by the day!

And the media pretends that at best this is unavoidable or at worst it isint fucking happening! FUCK THAT!!

Drazzil wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:10 pm I'd rather see Trump get a second term then the pro corporate duo of Hillary and who ever Hillary adds to her ticket to make her look hooman (prolly Warren) slither her way into office.

At least when our cities are aflame and whoever our Dear leader at the times bloated corpse is hung upside down like Mussolini from a lamp post. I can look down (or up) and cackle "I told ya so!"

There is no possibility of HRC running again. The "former Clinton advisor" who floated the prediction a few weeks back is Mark Penn, who basically abandoned the Dems for the FOX circuit after breaking with Clinton in 2008.

Incidentally, the "Bernie or Bust" attitude that led many of his supporters to refuse Clinton in November 2016 was significantly boosted by the Russian influence campaign. Consider the company you're keeping.

If you're planning to turn the same thinking against Harris/Warren/Booker/Brown/whoever this time, you should probably go ahead and buy a MAGA hat now.

TheMix wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:14 pm That may be one of the most ignorant things that you have ever said. SMHS

I think you might be right, and that's a pretty high bar.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:35 pm

TheMix wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:14 pm That may be one of the most ignorant things that you have ever said. SMHS

I've just given up thinking

FTFY

Please no Sanders. Stop feeling the Bern.

The LAST thing we need in the White House is the left's version of the angry old white guy.

I think I need to stop posting in this political board for a while all. I'm not in a good frame of mind. Ignore me and sorry for the inconvenience.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:53 pm Please no Sanders. Stop feeling the Bern.

The LAST thing we need in the White House is the left's version of the angry old white guy.

*snicker snicker* okay off to relax!!

Drazzil wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:38 pm Sorry to ruffle feathers here but goddamn, if you arent miserable about how our government destroys lives of its own citizens on a daily basis in the name of mammon the maybe I'm not the one who's crazy here.

Maybe you should stop using all those government programs that you like so much. Medi-Cal? Yeah, lucky you, you happen to live in a state that actually has a government-run healthcare system. You should just drop them, so your government would stop destroying your life!

Or maybe you were looking to switch to a plan under Covered California? If Republicans got their way and truly repealed Obama's ACA, CC would go bye-bye. You know who would actually promote healthcare coverage for all? Hillary.

DoR programs to look for a job? You should boycott them, they got over $60 million from Obama's stimulus package, how dare they benefit from evil...corporate...something...whatever!

Drazzil will be shocked to learn that FDR, in fighting the Depression and then WW2, employed all the tools in the liberal toolkit for the express purpose of saving capitalism from collapse. The results were better in more ways and for more people than anyone else could possibly have managed.

Sometimes you have to be a least a little "corporate."

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:18 pm PSA: SMHS - Shaking my head sadly.

Thank you.

Sanders almost single-handedly defined the progressive agenda that the D Party will be grappling with during this campaign season: the $15 minimum wage, Medicare-for-all, free public university education, the beleaguered middle class, and more. When he runs again, the mainstream party will have to confront those ideas. That's a Good Thing. I doubt that he will be the nominee (although it could happen; he was the most popular politician in the US in 2017 and 2018, and Democrats ignore that at their peril), but he will certainly shape the platform. The eventual nominee will need his blessing. But he's too old for the job, and he must be self-aware enough to know that.

Warren is his most natural heir, with the same focus on inequality and advocating all the same policies, but she's pro-capitalist and so she lacks Bernie's socialist credibility or handicap, depending on how you see that. She is a smart woman and an authentic populist. I find her charismatic, but many people do not, and the GOP hate machine has already put great effort into saddling her with the Massachusetts liberal, Pocahontas labels. We shall see if she can seize control of her public identity, or if it is already hopelessly tainted -- her last attempt to put it to rest with the genetic testing blew up in her face. Age is not her friend, either; she would be 71 at inauguration. Also, being white doesn't help when many Democrats are fixated on identity politics.

I would like to see someone younger with the same politics emerge (personally, I don't care about their race or gender). IDK who fits that bill. I might be persuaded to support a sufficiently charismatic centrist. I still don't have a good sense of where the electorate is -- do voters really think we can just go back to the status quo ante Trump? Even if we could, is that really what most Americans yearn for? I doubt both propositions. My hunch says that a middle of the road candidate will be roadkill. But that's still just a hunch, not a conviction.

Oh, and: Drazzil has a strong persecution complex. I'll just leave it at that.

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:15 pm
Sanders almost single-handedly defined the progressive agenda that the D Party will be grappling with during this campaign season: the $15 minimum wage, Medicare-for-all, free public university education, the beleaguered middle class, and more.

He hasn't defined the issues, what he's defined are how far left the solutions he's pushing are. Raising the minimum wage to $12 was on the Democratic agenda, what, four or five years ago (ironically, with inflation that would probably be $14 by 2020, anyway)? Universal healthcare and public option have been on the Democratic agenda, even if single payer wasn't. Affordable college education was on the agenda, even if free education wasn't.

In regards to Warren, given the she looks to me to have more substance than the typical candidate (and a lot more than Sanders) given the policy proposals she's released. And pretty much all the top tier Democratic candidates look to have more ability to work with others than Sanders.

OK then, "shaped the conversation" rather than "defined the issues." However you want to phrase it, he's already had a big effect on the party, and he will continue to do so.

There's no question in my mind that Warren would make a fine president. She's a hard worker and pragmatic, she's guided by sincere beliefs, and she's tough and articulate. My reservations are about her electability. The mud they keep slinging at her sticks more than it should.

Somebody said that Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love. I don't know if Betsy is lovable enough.

Who knows how far it would go, but someone in the RNC wants to change the rules to protect Trump from any 2020 primary challenge after Romney's scathing oped about Trump that ran yesterday.

I like Warren and would be happy to have her as President. My main worry is that she's not especially charismatic (and in that sense I do get Hillary flashbacks from her as a very capable woman who lacks natural political charisma). I think she's in a reasonably good position to bridge the centrist / progressive divide in the Democratic Party, and her proposals are generally sound - most famously the CFPB is her brainchild, and I liked her proposal to compel corporations to have labor representatives on their boards (not that that's likely to pass the Senate in 2020 - 2024, but still better than having bad proposals).

We'll see. Her polling hasn't been great so far.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:01 am Who knows how far it would go, but someone in the RNC wants to change the rules to protect Trump from any 2020 primary challenge after Romney's scathing oped about Trump that ran yesterday.

There were efforts like this by the South Carolina GOP the other week. Nate Silver made the good point that in a situation where Trump is actually vulnerable to a primary challenge (the unlikely scenario where he loses majority support *within the GOP primary electorate*) efforts like this are more likely to backfire than to help.

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:39 am Somebody said that Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love. I don't know if Betsy is lovable enough.

Took me far too long to realize that Betsy was referring to Warren. I was starting to think you were referring to Beto.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:19 am One big change is that California has moved its primary from very late to very early in the process--Super Tuesday IIRC.

This is probably a good thing, in that California looks a lot more like the actual Democratic Party than, say, Iowa or New Hampshire. But it also means that the primary fight could be effectively over in March 2020. It will hard for candidates trailing behind to stay in the game after all those California delegates get allocated.

It also looks like a very significant advantage for Harris.

I'm not sure that the primary fight is likely to be over in March 2020, because Democrats also widely allocate primary delegates proportionately by vote. Harris is the heavy favorite in California, but that will still leave plenty of delegates to go to the second, third, fourth place finishers. I think the field will be significantly lowered after California (may weed a field of up to a couple dozen candidates down to, say, 5 or 6), but I think the fight between the top few candidates could go on for a long time.

And really, the proportional allocation of delegates (combined with the superdelegate restrictions) vastly boost the chances that there's no official nominee before the convention.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:06 am

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:01 am Who knows how far it would go, but someone in the RNC wants to change the rules to protect Trump from any 2020 primary challenge after Romney's scathing oped about Trump that ran yesterday.

There were efforts like this by the South Carolina GOP the other week. Nate Silver made the good point that in a situation where Trump is actually vulnerable to a primary challenge (the unlikely scenario where he loses majority support *within the GOP primary electorate*) efforts like this are more likely to backfire than to help.

Truthfully, I am hoping a decent GOP option (Romney, Kasich, et al.) primary Trump. Especially to see more RNC types go apeshit over it. Like, say, Romney's own niece.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:12 am

did she just say "MSM media"

Kasich,

I was almost willing to bite my pride and vote Kasich in 2016... Almost... Today, with the current R held senate, no R candidate is viable. If Rs can't get someone like me to consider a Kasich vote, why would they bother?

"MSM media"

From the GOP chair. Something about who runs the asylum...

It's of course way too early, but this poll seems to point to Biden or "someone entirely new" as the front runners among Democrats and Independents for 2020. Sanders and Warren both have more people against them running than for them running (that's probably especially prominent for Sanders, as pretty much everyone has heard of him, so he wouldn't be able to gain much support by just campaigning and getting his name out there).

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:07 am

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:39 am Somebody said that Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love. I don't know if Betsy is lovable enough.

Took me far too long to realize that Betsy was referring to Warren. I was starting to think you were referring to Beto.

She hates it when I call her Betsy. I just like to tease her.

I don't think Romney will primary Trump. Although he still very much fancies himself a president, he is not one to tilt at windmills, and the Republican Party has been reduced to Trumpsters and Fox News. He could wound Trump, but he couldn't take him down unless Trump is a dead man walking after Mueller is done with him. Rather, Romney is positioning himself to fill the void if/when Trump resigns or dies or is removed. The odds of that happening are still low, but they're not unthinkable, and Romney is a man who covers his bases.

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:51 pm

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:07 am

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:39 am Somebody said that Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love. I don't know if Betsy is lovable enough.

Took me far too long to realize that Betsy was referring to Warren. I was starting to think you were referring to Beto.

She hates it when I call her Betsy. I just like to tease her.

I don't think Romney will primary Trump. Although he still very much fancies himself a president, he is not one to tilt at windmills, and the Republican Party has been reduced to Trumpsters and Fox News. He could wound Trump, but he couldn't take him down unless Trump is a dead man walking after Mueller is done with him. Rather, Romney is positioning himself to fill the void if/when Trump resigns or dies or is removed. The odds of that happening are still low, but they're not unthinkable, and Romney is a man who covers his bases.

Also the risk for Romney for being a visibly anti-Trump (or Trump skeptical) Republican is pretty low, since: (1) Romney's largely untouchable in Utah; and (2) Utah is possibly the only state with a significant constituency for anti-Trump Republicanism.

So, if Trump falls apart, Romney is well positioned to swoop in and pick up the pieces. If he doesn't, then Romney waits for 2024.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:35 pm

TheMix wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:14 pm That may be one of the most ignorant things that you have ever said. SMHS

I've just given up thinking that anyone who works for a living actually has a say in *anything* that happens in our country. I mean look at the last 16 years. W prolly stole the election from Gore, our supposedly transformational leader from the left Obama turned into the TARP touting moderate conservative Chamberlinesque third and fourth terms of Bush who governed by executive order.

This is such an absurdly inaccurate description of Obama's presidency that it's impossible to take you seriously.

However, just in case anyone does — TARP was a good thing. We had to stop the banking industry from completely collapsing. Also, TARP was a *LOAN* program. The money given out to banks to prevent mass defaults, which would have resulted in the closing of thousands of businesses and the eradication of the retirement savings of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans, was paid back — with interest.

Pro Publica

Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $632B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $390B has been returned.

The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $338B. When those revenues are taken into account, the government has realized a $96.6B profit as of Dec. 4, 2018.

Yeah, I'm not sure that most people realize how close we came to a second Great Depression. Things were bad, but they could have been a *lot* worse, and almost certainly would have been but for TARP and other government responses.

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:15 pm Sanders almost single-handedly defined the progressive agenda that the D Party will be grappling with during this campaign season: the $15 minimum wage, Medicare-for-all, free public university education, the beleaguered middle class, and more.

Sanders is trying to start a Tea Party of the Left, it often seems. He identifies real problems, but then demands the most extreme, often most unworkable solutions to those problems. And he castigates anyone who doesn't seek similar levels of "purity" in their responses. His proposals lean on very suspect math, and he refuses to really grapple with the racial, gender, and other non-economic factors that are at play in many of the situations he wants to address.

If he is the nominee, I would vote for him. But not happily.

Fortunately, I think he's a spent force. Warren is a better choice than Sanders, and she's just the first to announce. I expect Biden, Booker, Brown, Gillibrand and Harris to all run interesting campaigns that raise interesting solutions to seemingly vexing problems.