It's today then ... (Trump thread)

[Carbomb]

8 minutes ago, Sergio Mendacious said:

Aye, you're right, they used the system that was in place to have the more popular candidate win. Bernie was never going to win, but he brought a lot of energy and great policy to the table, and if he'd fucked off at the opportune moment, he'd have a lot more goodwill.

I must admit that it's been difficult keeping track with all the different angles being published, not to mention the morass that is social media, but I'd genuinely been given the impression he was considered to have a realistic, fighting chance, and that the Democratic executive had connived to defy popular opinion and get Clinton in. But if you're saying otherwise, I'll defer to your knowledge on this.

[Sergio Mendacious]

He did pull in a lot of younger voters, which was fantastic early doors, but despite a few history-rewriting attempts I've seen since, he was absolutely dirt-awful with larger minority groups.  Was one of those situations where watching social media would lead you to believe that Bernie was just romping it, but doing that is like Peggy Noonan predicting a Romney victory based on the yard signs she saw around her neighborhood. She was giving an inappropriate weighting to the evidence of her particular milieu, just as Bernie's online army was making him seem like more of a winning prospect.

Bernie managed to pull the party much farther to the left, which is evidenced in the progressive policies coming from the less-progressive mouths of Harris, Booker, and even fucking Gillibrand. If you want to see a proper "Centrist mum," take a look at Amy Klobuchar, who is mugging herself off early sternly decrying progress. 

I've no hope that he's got a shot, and for this reason I'd like him to stay out and keep hold of his Ohio seat, but Sherrod Brown is a much better midwestern senator that may be a bit too beholden to his locals, but is a good solid working mans' dem.

[Carbomb]

28 minutes ago, Sergio Mendacious said:

He did pull in a lot of younger voters, which was fantastic early doors, but despite a few history-rewriting attempts I've seen since, he was absolutely dirt-awful with larger minority groups.  Was one of those situations where watching social media would lead you to believe that Bernie was just romping it, but doing that is like Peggy Noonan predicting a Romney victory based on the yard signs she saw around her neighborhood. She was giving an inappropriate weighting to the evidence of her particular milieu, just as Bernie's online army was making him seem like more of a winning prospect.

Interesting! Like Corbyn, he may have already achieved the biggest thing he ever will in politics, which is to get the door opened for something resembling socialist politics in the American mainstream, and given the nature of American politics, that's probably a bigger achievement than Corbyn's. He's got people talking, and that's definitely important: the more people talk about things, the more the discourses around the ideas they expound grow and become more detailed, until they achieve a critical mass that makes it very difficult to put them back in the box.

28 minutes ago, Sergio Mendacious said:

Sherrod Brown...is a good solid working mans' dem.

From Tottenham ends, bruv?

[BomberPat]

I'm not keen on Sanders running again, because it feels like a rehash of 2016, and I don't think that's useful. I also, for all the alleged popularity of his policies, can't see him getting past a constant news cycle of, "he just wants to raise your taxes".

I've also never bought the narrative that he'd have beaten Trump anyway. I can't see how anyone can look at a country that elected a corrupt billionaire fascist on a Republican ticket and think, "if only we'd had a Socialist Jew, we'd have nailed this one!".

[Factotum]

Quote

I've also never bought the narrative that he'd have beaten Trump anyway. I can't see how anyone can look at a country that elected a corrupt billionaire fascist on a Republican ticket and think, "if only we'd had a Socialist Jew, we'd have nailed this one!".

I disagree. Elections fall into two categories. You have the 'Keep it the same' and the 'Radical Change' ones. This is especially true in American politics. The 2016 election was one in which change was craved by those who had felt they had been left behind. Trump was essentially an outsider independent who was taking on all. Bernie was the same on the left.

In those areas like Michigan etc. that felt ignored, Bernie would have had a helluva better chance than Clinton. You have to remember that the American electoral college really means you only have to win certain states. These were the states that could have gone to Bernie due to his policies and for him not being part of the 'establishment'. Places like Texas etc. who might hate Sanders the 'leftie jew' would not really have an impact on the election.

[BomberPat]

But how does the "anti-establishment" angle work when both candidates are playing that card? And it doesn't matter if Sanders had a better chance than Clinton - did he have a better chance than Trump?

The "left behind" narrative is largely myth-making anyway. By and large, poorer Americans voted Clinton, not Trump. People earning more than $50,000 a year voted Trump over Clinton. The average income of a Trump voter in 2016 was $72,000. How "left behind" and unrepresented does someone earning more than 70k feel?

[Factotum]

Quote

But how does the "anti-establishment" angle work when both candidates are playing that card? And it doesn't matter if Sanders had a better chance than Clinton - did he have a better chance than Trump?

Because they were coming at it from different angles. Trump was America First economics and trade, Sanders was promoting socialism and healthcare. They were both outside the conventional centre which both parties occupied. I do think he had a better chance at beating Trump, as Trump couldn't stand there and smear him with what he and the 'establishment' had been doing whilst in government the last 8 years.

Quote

The "left behind" narrative is largely myth-making anyway. By and large, poorer Americans voted Clinton, not Trump. People earning more than $50,000 a year voted Trump over Clinton. The average income of a Trump voter in 2016 was $72,000. How "left behind" and unrepresented does someone earning more than 70k feel?

The electoral college system is one which a fact like you just quoted doesn't really matter. It was those areas that switched to Trump in the midwest that were important. He only needed to win those states. Most states would stick with how they usually voted. So of course Florida, which is made up of older,white and wealthier people will vote Republican. Its also a bigger state than Ohio, so the average is going to skewer towards more wealthy people voting for Trump. But in the states that mattered, those who saw the arse fall out of their industries and seemed to be in no better position, voted for a change candidate.

 

[BomberPat]

27 minutes ago, Factotum said:

But in the states that mattered, those who saw the arse fall out of their industries and seemed to be in no better position, voted for a change candidate.

 

Even in those states, it was the wealthier who voted Trump. Wealthy people in poor states voted Trump, poor people in poor states were more likely to vote Clinton.

The "left behind" narrative just doesn't add up. The only reason it works is if you look at poor white voters as the only working class demographic that counts, ignoring that the majority of the poorer people in America (who, by and large, did not vote Trump) are ethnic minorities. But no one asks the black and hispanic voters if they feel "left behind" or cheated by the system.

Quote

Trump couldn't stand there and smear him with what he and the 'establishment' had been doing whilst in government the last 8 years.

No, but he could do what every other Republican and half the Democrats do to the likes of Bernie Sanders and say, "how are you paying for it all?", shout about "free stuff" and "YOUR TAX DOLLARS", rant and rave about welfare recipients, freeloaders and immigrants, or just plain make shit up. Trump's smears not having any foundation certainly hasn't got in his way so far, I can't see why it would have been any different where Bernie was concerned.

Part of the reason Trump won is because the rules of the relationship between politician and journalist simply didn't exist. Everyone tried to fact-check him, to call him out on his lies, to point out why everything he was saying was wrong, and it didn't matter. Because he was so unapologetically bullshitting that there was no integrity to question, and at no point was he ever going to stop to defend himself and get caught out, he'd just keep blustering on. Bernie wasn't going to combat that, because I don't think anyone had any idea how to begin doing so - and I still don't.

[Drfunke]

1 hour ago, BomberPat said:

 

Part of the reason Trump won is because the rules of the relationship between politician and journalist simply didn't exist. Everyone tried to fact-check him, to call him out on his lies, to point out why everything he was saying was wrong, and it didn't matter. Because he was so unapologetically bullshitting that there was no integrity to question, and at no point was he ever going to stop to defend himself and get caught out, he'd just keep blustering on. Bernie wasn't going to combat that, because I don't think anyone had any idea how to begin doing so - and I still don't.

This is a fantastic point, incredibly well made. Never thought of it that way... He went so far into the "just fucking lie..." side of it that you cant call out his lies because there was nothing but lies.

[Pinc]

And yet he still lost the popular vote and his approval ratings seldom rise above historic lows for a modern President, with the 2018 mid-term elections showing significant movement towards the Democrats.

His victory seems inevitable in hindsight but he isn't some unbeatable juggernaut, electorally. Bernie would've had a hell of a chance in 2016 and would again in 2018, partly as a result of the dominance of their main two parties where voters can only break one of two ways (without even mentioning the fact that there's evidence that the Russians would've been just as pleased with a Bernie victory as a Trump victory, and so Donald may not have had the same leg up from them via Wikileaks).

Edit: toned down the adjective describing the Blue Wave in 2018.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Pinc

[MrK]

On 2/20/2019 at 4:52 PM, Factotum said:

Plus he can have a cool running slogan:

[MrK]

Idiot. 

Edited February 23, 2019 by MrK
Fat fingers.

[PJ Power]

Cohen has published what will be his opening statement at his public appearance today in front of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight & Reform (pdf doc)

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000169-2d31-dc75-affd-bfb99a790001

I think by the time Cohen is finished in front of the committee later today, the excrement is going to be hitting the fast rotating blades in large quantities.

[Brewster McCloud]

It will be dismissed as fake news from a man with an axe to grind. I'd be shitting bricks if I were Roger Stone, though.

[Sergio Mendacious]

7 hours ago, PJ Power said:

Cohen has published what will be his opening statement at his public appearance today in front of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight & Reform (pdf doc)

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000169-2d31-dc75-affd-bfb99a790001

I think by the time Cohen is finished in front of the committee later today, the excrement is going to be hitting the fast rotating blades in large quantities.

This is an immense shitshow already — I hate congressional hearings. Mark Meadows is a nob.