View Full Version : 2020 Presidential Candidates
I hadn't realized it was Thomas Friedman that coined the term "Green New Deal" (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/opinion/19friedman.html?module=inline)twelve years ago. Today, the NYT linked to the original op-ed piece where he outlined what he felt needs to be done--and like the current GND concept, it involves a systemic approach--no shorter showers by well-intentioned individuals, but strong government incentives such as the ones the GNDers are proposing.
And he points out:
High standards force innovation, and innovation leads to conservation at scale.
And here we are, 12 years later, still duffing around, still short-sightedly trying to ignore, deny, defend, and blame our way out of addressing this issue.
On a related note, I read yesterday that all the healthcare industry lobbyists are lining up ready to attack "Medicare for all." And what are they using as their best argument? "Obamacare is flawed, but it's working for most people so if it ain't broke, why fix it." All of a sudden Obamacare is their best friend.
The GND proposal is like Obamacare. No one expects it to be perfect but it's better than what we've got--which is an administration that is setting us back relentlessly in our previous efforts. I'm hoping that in 12, or 15, or 20 years when we are putting the final stake through the heart of the fossil fuel industry, that the energy lobbyists will be acknowledging our new, sound environmental policies to be as entrenched as Social Security and Obamacare are now.
I would be much less skeptical with a climate crusade that wasn’t larded with a social agenda.
I assume this is in there because they realize that a change in policy on this magnitude will result in some people having difficulty transitioning to the new economic reality.
I assume this is in there because they realize that a change in policy on this magnitude will result in some people having difficulty transitioning to the new economic reality.
The resolution goes way beyond a dislocated worker problem. It promises “all Americans” a laundry list of entitlements from “economic security” to “access to nature”. It promises a trade protection regime and protecting all businesses from “unfair competition”. Plenty of pro-union language too.
This thing is a Trojan Horse for a hundred years of left wing daydreaming come expensively to life.
I'm glad to hear about the pro-union stance. (Is it Germany that mandates unions? Good for them.) A decline in unions is why Americans are so easily underpaid and let go for reasons like age, and why safety violations and whistle-blowing are so easily ignored. I belonged to unions for most of my work years, and my life is much better for it.
I suppose I'm not surprised that republicans would come out in favor of unfair competition.
catherine
2-24-19, 12:18pm
The resolution goes way beyond a dislocated worker problem. It promises “all Americans” a laundry list of entitlements from “economic security” to “access to nature”.
Kind of like some wording I heard somewhere about people being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is that a Trojan horse, too? The GND resolution is a proposal or a manifesto, just like the Declaration of Independence. And in order to put yourself in a position to negotiate, you have to submit your highest and best offer.
Kind of like some wording I heard somewhere about people being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is that a Trojan horse, too? No, the Declaration envisions an empowering society free from undue governmental oversight. The GND resolution envisions the opposite.
Kind of like some wording I heard somewhere about people being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is that a Trojan horse, too? The GND resolution is a proposal or a manifesto, just like the Declaration of Independence. And in order to put yourself in a position to negotiate, you have to submit your highest and best offer.
The Declaration refers to rights as something government is not allowed to interfere with. The GND refers to rights as things government must provide at the cost of a great deal of interference. The first seeks to limit government’s power over the individual. The second not so much.
I suppose I'm not surprised that republicans would come out in favor of unfair competition.
Republicans are suspicious of what progressives think of as “fair”.
It's going to be difficult to have life or pursue happiness if the planet becomes uninhabitable. But, hey, at least we'll have the liberty to all be dead.
On a related note, I read yesterday that all the healthcare industry lobbyists are lining up ready to attack "Medicare for all." And what are they using as their best argument? "Obamacare is flawed, but it's working for most people so if it ain't broke, why fix it." All of a sudden Obamacare is their best friend.
They should like Obamacare. It forced everyone to buy their insurance and didn't do anything to contain their costs.
It's going to be difficult to have life or pursue happiness if the planet becomes uninhabitable. But, hey, at least we'll have the liberty to all be dead.
People relying on the threat of destruction to advance an agenda and gain power is hardly new in history. “Eliminate right to work laws or the planet is toast” doesn’t impress me as either manifesto or bargaining position.
ApatheticNoMore
2-24-19, 1:07pm
It's going to be difficult to have life or pursue happiness if the planet becomes uninhabitable. But, hey, at least we'll have the liberty to all be dead.
but 200+ years ago when the population of the earth was what and there was little ecological collapse is really where we should be getting our ideas, not modern science. A new dark ages, well you tell me.
I would be much less skeptical with a climate crusade that wasn’t larded with a social agenda.
I don't believe it. However there is HR 763 which is a carbon tax with dividend program one could push for if their real problem was the GND social programs. HR 763 does actually seem to be serious legislation in some ways MORE serious in addressing climate change than the GND, it doesn't appear to be industry nonsense crafted by polluting industries (anything of course could be corrupted). If almost anyone opposed to the GND starts really fighting for this I will take them seriously, but I really doubt many will, and until then I won't because I don't think they really care about addressing these issues. Of course the two (HR 763 and GND) probably should both be passed and even linked (there's no reason not to run on and support both. GND is less fleshed out at this point though.).
About HR 763:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/
ApatheticNoMore
2-24-19, 1:10pm
They should like Obamacare. It forced everyone to buy their insurance and didn't do anything to contain their costs.
they were in the room negotiating it. Yes, they like the ACA especially as originally passed, Trump changes have not helped any (nor have the helped people needing healthcare needless to say).
People relying on the threat of destruction to advance an agenda and gain power is hardly new in history. “Eliminate right to work laws or the planet is toast” doesn’t impress me as either manifesto or bargaining position.
Or, as some wag said "right to work for less." Corporations want all the financial benefits of others' labor, but none of the pesky regulations.
Or, as some wag said "right to work for less." Corporations want all the financial benefits of others' labor, but none of the pesky regulations.
But what has that got to do with pernicious gasses in the atmosphere?
But what has that got to do with pernicious gasses in the atmosphere?
Regulations? I understand the Trump administration is busily rolling back all the safeguards for our air and water as fast as they can.
ApatheticNoMore
2-24-19, 1:51pm
I assume this is in there because they realize that a change in policy on this magnitude will result in some people having difficulty transitioning to the new economic reality.
that for sure, but more importantly it's trying to address climate change while giving the bottom 70-80% of the population what they actually want, which isn't more of the current economics (which is killing the planet to be sure, but is often killing them in the meantime or life expectancy wouldn't be falling). So there is that. It's a selling point.
but from a more elitist perspective (which that surely isn't), there is no reason addressing climate change should leave the poor suffering more. I mean, I'd be happy with almost any seroius attempt to address climate change but both the GND and HR 763 seriously address the impact on the poor, as they should, as is sane and right.
I'm not as familiar with California's laws as I probably should be. but I'm encouraged that their elected officials are at least trying to effect changes that are good for the planet and its inhabitants.
Regulations? I understand the Trump administration is busily rolling back all the safeguards for our air and water as fast as they can.
Then why Velcro on all the extraneous agenda items to the environmental stuff? If it truly is the life and death proposition they claim it to be, aren’t they diluting their argument with all the sideshows?
Then why Velcro on all the extraneous agenda items to the environmental stuff? If it truly is the life and death proposition they claim it to be, aren’t they diluting their argument with all the sideshows?
I don't know if I understand the question enough to give an opinion, but many of the European countries are ahead of the U.S. in taking climate change more seriously and reducing fossil fuel use. I can only assume the politics are different there.
From what I can tell this early it looks like the dems will be running on a platform of medicare for all and to a lessor degree, the new green deal. Or at least a more active approach to climate change. As much as I like both of these, I'm not seeing this as a strategy to beat Trump's apparently strong economy. It seems like he's missing an opportunity to promote what Americans seem to treasure the most, their wallet. Assuming he is still president in 2020.
ApatheticNoMore
2-25-19, 12:47pm
Then why Velcro on all the extraneous agenda items to the environmental stuff? If it truly is the life and death proposition they claim it to be, aren’t they diluting their argument with all the sideshows?
it's hard to get people to care about life and death issues sometimes. Or else people's main concern in this thread wouldn't be with the sideshows, but whether it would at least tackle the main problem somewhat or not, and how it compares to other proposals like I have presented in likely effectiveness, that would be the WHOLE of the debate if it was easy to get people to care about life and death issues.
So they can make a proposal with the potential for very broad popular support like the GND or one intended to win over conservatives who would support Pruitt at EPA, but that's impossible anyway, they won't support anything.
I see some of the candidates are taking on slavery reparations as a campaign issue. This is really shaping up as a hormone-free, free range chicken in every pot sort of election. Senator Warren is even offering a child care program that will put the “nanny” in “nanny state”.
And the bidding has just begun.
I support reparations. We should be mitigating the damage we did in this country first, before we offer social services to non-citizens. Yes, I still have my immigrant envy.
Take the value of 40 acres and a mule in 1865, adjust for inflation, and assign the amount to each person identified as Black or Mulatto in the 1870 census. Hire certified genealogists to trace their descendants. Divide the money by the number of descendants. Say it is $100,000 and you have 2 descendants on average each generation, a generation lasting roughly 20 years.
1890 = 2
1910 = 2 + 4
1930 = 2 + 4 + 8
1950 = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16
1970 = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32
1990 = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64
2010 = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128
2030 = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128 + 256 = 510
So $100,000/roughly 500 = $200 per person
But people would likely have more than one enslaved ancestor. And the present day value of 40 acres of rural land and a mule is probably well over $100K. But I think economists can come up with a figure. And I don't think it would be a bank breaking figure compared to some other costs like decades of war in Afghanistan, the war on drugs, border wall, etc.
Let's be honest there is not enough money on planet earth for sufficient reparations for something as evil as slavery. But a token amount, as fulfillment of that 40 acres and a mule promise, would be a good, healing gesture.
There's even something in it for Republican Utah where genealogists abound.
And we absolutely should lock up the modern day slave masters along with Robert Kraft and throw away the key.
ETA: Companies like Aetna, which insured slaves and thus profited from them, could be asked to contribute as well.
I see Gov Inslee is now in with a planetary salvation platform.
Joe Biden referred to Mike Pence as a decent man. Fortunately, alert social justice warriors sounded the alarm and he was forced to withdraw the courtesy.
I see Gov Inslee is now in with a planetary salvation platform.
Joe Biden referred to Mike Pence as a decent man. Fortunately, alert social justice warriors sounded the alarm and he was forced to withdraw the courtesy.
And the far left wing of the Democratic Party has threatened to primary anyone deemed to be too moderate. If the Democratic Presidential hopefuls are paying attention, 2020 is shaping up to be a good year for Republicans.
Usually when a topic about the 'rabid left' comes up here I've already read about it on my Facebook feed. Somehow none of my friends found Biden's unforced error noteworthy enough to mention. Even on google news I had to specifically search for Biden to find out what the story was. personally I still think Biden' a decent guy but he and I clearly have a different definition of decent. But this won't have any effect on my vote 12 months from now. I wasn't even considering voting Biden in the primary before this happened, and I'm still not considering him now.
"Far left wing," as characterized by the right usually indicates someone with a philosophy similar to mine--IOW a European centrist.
Joe Biden has never been a contender for my vote, either.
"Far left wing," as characterized by the right usually indicates someone with a philosophy similar to mine--IOW a European centrist.
Exactly.
Jane, since the republicans don't actually have any policy ideas their best hope besides racism is to keep shouting 'THEY'RE GOING TO FORCE YOU TO DO SOCIALISM!!!SOCIALISM!!!" and hope that the word is as scary as the word liberal used to be.
Teacher Terry
3-3-19, 12:35pm
I have not watched any news for 11 days since we were on vacation. I will start catching up today.
Jane, since the republicans don't actually have any policy ideas their best hope besides racism is to keep shouting 'THEY'RE GOING TO FORCE YOU TO DO SOCIALISM!!!SOCIALISM!!!" and hope that the word is as scary as the word liberal used to be.
The GOP often falls short of the conservative party I would like it to be. Especially recently. But I have to believe that if half the country actually fit your caricature of fearful, ignorant racists unable to appreciate their enlightened betters, we would long since have descended into chaos.
I don't particularly fear a socialism nobody in this country seems able to define. I don't tremble when a first term congressperson stamps her feet and announces "I'm the boss, how about that?". I don't think her brand of Starbucks Stalinism will catch on, at least in my lifetime. Charges of racism have become so overused that they've become merely pro forma. Sort of like "have a nice day". I'm not even all that worried when politicians view Catholicism as a potential disqualifier for judicial appointments. Such thinking reveals more about the questioner than the questioned.
I would be more worried if I thought the current crop of "ideas" on offer by the Democratic Party contenders was taken seriously by rank and file Democrats, much less the country at large. The more extreme positions they need to take to get through the primaries, the more difficult it will be for them to attract general election votes, even in the Trump era.
You're probably right that half the country aren't raging racists. After all Trump didn't get anywhere near half the country to vote for him. But I also don't think half the country are the conservatives that republican politicians think they are. The ease with which they have abandoned what used to be conservative ideals, like fiscal responsibility, low or no trade barriers, law and order, have been done away with, and other then some pundit hand wringing I don't see any signs that the voters on the right care too much. The truth is that republican politician class ideas like tax cuts for the rich and undoing environmental protections for everyone else in order to help their buddies in the fossil fuel and other extractive businesses don't really have a large constituency. Certainly not enough of one to get close to being elected to national or statewide office. So the republicans made friends with the racists and the religious values voters in order to get enough votes together to win things. Trump isn't some strange new permutation. He just saw what the republicans had been doing all along and instead of using dog whistles he used megaphones.
Jane, since the republicans don't actually have any policy ideas their best hope besides racism is to keep shouting 'THEY'RE GOING TO FORCE YOU TO DO SOCIALISM!!!SOCIALISM!!!" and hope that the word is as scary as the word liberal used to be.
AT THE POINT OF A GUN!
OMG--IF WE DO AWAY WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, WHITE PEOPLE WILL LOSE CONTROL OF THE COUNTRY!
"What would happen if they do what they say they’re gonna do, white people will not have anything to say. It’s only going to be the minorities who would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida,” --Paul LePage, former governor of Maine, February 26, 2019
Florida can't be that bad since LePage went there this winter.
"What would happen if they do what they say they’re gonna do, white people will not have anything to say. It’s only going to be the minorities who would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida,” --Paul LePage, former governor of Maine, March 26, 2019
Is that what's known in financial circles as a 'forward looking statement'?
Is that what's known in financial circles as a 'forward looking statement'?
I'm looking forward to turning 67 on that very day.
And now John Hickenlooper has entered the race, apparently positioning himself in the pragmatic progressive market niche. I suspect that will be a hard sell in this angry year.
Pragmatic progressive. I guess that means he's in favor of fracking, but only if it's solar powered fracking.
Pragmatic progressive. I guess that means he's in favor of fracking, but only if it's solar powered fracking.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the threat he presents to the more radical wing of the party. No doubt they will dig into his background as a geologist and brewpub proprietor to accuse him of selling beer to miners.
Oops--That should read February. Fixed it. :|(
I wouldn’t worry too much about the threat he presents to the more radical wing of the party. No doubt they will dig into his background as a geologist and brewpub proprietor to accuse him of selling beer to miners.
You need to explore your future as a political consultant. You clearly have a bright future in it. In fact your future’s so bright i’d recommend that you wear shades.
All that I have heard about Pelosi is the possibility of trump and pence going down in one fell swoop and Nancy as trump calls her stepping into the Presidency.
You need to explore your future as a political consultant. You clearly have a bright future in it. In fact your future’s so bright i’d recommend that you wear shades.
I could sell stuff like this:
I ask you, my fellow Americans: is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth ? Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background -- no, not when you consider the other members of his family:
His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities
The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion
My opponent's second cousin is a Mormon
His uncle was a flagrant heterosexual
His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church
His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature
His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homosapien
His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease
His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine
His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers
And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian
Now what shall we say of the man himself ?
I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility, and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.
He perambulated his infant son on the street
He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin
He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately
He participated in a seance at a private residence where, among other odd goings-on, there was incense
He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses
He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company -- and has taken part in such gatherings himself
He has been deliberately averse to crime in our streets
He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes
Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the American flag
Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign "isms", he has coolly announced his belief in altruism -- and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic !
I beg you, my friends, to oppose this man whose life and work and ideas are so openly and avowedly compatible with our American way of life. A vote for him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear.
The facts are clear; the record speaks for itself.
I see Mrs Clinton has ruled out a 2020 run, but says “I’m not going anywhere”.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the threat he presents to the more radical wing of the party. No doubt they will dig into his background as a geologist and brewpub proprietor to accuse him of selling beer to miners.
He also is a bit of an environmentalist, so he may restrict beer access to coal miners.
I think Hick was well like as mayor and governor. I thought of him as a moderate liberal and he didn't rile up either side that much. The states economy seemed to do better than most through the financial crisis. In one of his campaigns he did a "clean" campaign and didn't delve into negative ads or opponent bashing. That was refreshing and almost unheard of. One of his ads featured him stepping out of the shower, illustrating a clean ad campaign.
Unfortunately I think he is behind the pack of other heavy weight dems. My guess is that he is positioning for a cabinet position or something.
If I were a PR guy for the democrats, I'd include a "drain the swamp" resolution as part of my campaign.
...his background as a geologist and brewpub proprietor to accuse him of selling beer to miners.
:~)
Michael Bloomberg has now ruled out running. Your Big Gulps are safe. For now.
I watched the interview on 60 minutes with Howard Schultz and was interested enough to go out and get his book.
I have found it a very good read (2/3 through it). While I don't know where he stands on all the issues - I like his method attacking problems. Gathering together smart people - listening to them and together attempting to fix a problem. He is the first to admit some times he has been way off the mark. Though I see that as a positive - at least he attempted to tackle an issue, rather than just sitting back and not doing anything.
Also like how his wife is active in helping others - she spent time at night, on the streets, helping youth in crisis. That's pretty gutsy.
I am so tired of the Democrats, Republicans and now the socialist. People call Howard a spoiler, will guarantee a win for Trump. I don't know if I completely agree. There are enough independents out there that could make a serious challenge. Way to early to put up any lawn signs - but I like what I am seeing and am interested in learning more.
Michael Bloomberg has now ruled out running. Your Big Gulps are safe. For now.
"phew" that is a relief - from an Diet Coke addict. Hello my name is Greg - I drink way way too much Diet Coke!
Why does the bad stuff taste so good?!
Watching Tulsi Gabbard on CNN Town Hall, and I'm pretty impressed, actually. Not a bad Dem candidate (maybe Bernie can make her VP :)
Watching Tulsi Gabbard on CNN Town Hall, and I'm pretty impressed, actually. Not a bad Dem candidate (maybe Bernie can make her VP :)
I think that so far she’s probably the best of the blighted crop.
It was interesting watching Hickenlooper deal with the talking heads trying to get him to label himself as a capitalist. How times have changed. Only a few years ago, that would have been a strange question to ask of a candidate, but now it’s fraught with all kinds of implications. I would have liked him to answer with something like “Yes, i built myself a tidy fortune as a practicing capitalist. Deal with it, snowflake.”
Watching Tulsi Gabbard on CNN Town Hall, and I'm pretty impressed, actually. Not a bad Dem candidate (maybe Bernie can make her VP :)
She has her issues, notably being rabidly anti-gay in the aughts.
I think all the announced Democratic candidates so far are impressive--certainly in contrast to the venal and craven Republicans. (Save Hickenlooper and Schultz and any others of their ilk I haven't mentioned.) Maybe quietly competent Jay Inslee will move to a competitive spot.
She has her issues, notably being rabidly anti-gay in the aughts.
I think all the announced Democratic candidates so far are impressive--certainly in contrast to the venal and craven Republicans. (Save Hickenlooper and Schultz and any others of their ilk I haven't mentioned.) Maybe quietly competent Jay Inslee will move to a competitive spot.
What taint do Hickenlooper and Schultz carry? Profitable activity? A lack of enthusiasm for the great project to immanentize the eschaton by federal fiat? A certain pale male moneyed aroma?
What taint do Hickenlooper and Schultz carry? Profitable activity? A lack of enthusiasm for the great project to immanentize the eschaton by federal fiat? A certain pale male moneyed aroma?
All that and more...With Schultz, it's the arrogance that he has anything at all to offer.
All that and more...With Schultz, it's the arrogance that he has anything at all to offer.
He certainly isn’t offering the cornucopia of wonderful things that many of the declared contenders are; and he even has the temerity to question their cost.
I see that the Hamlet of the Democratic Party has finally overcome his indecision about running. He’s got the adoring Vanity Fair cover and everything. And flights of angels sing him to the Vice President spot on the ticket?
I just read that.. I wonder how this very crowded field impacts donations and war chests. There are going to be a lot of disappointed donors given that out of 13 at the starting line, only 1 will win. Even spiritual leader Marianne Williamson has thrown her hat in the ring! Personally, I think a Sanders/Williamson ticket would put the country right where it needs to be! :)
There are several candidates I like and would vote for, but I am not seeing many that are electable and capable of beating Trump. They have platforms that may appeal to more liberal democrats and coastal elites but they are missing appeal to middle American. The last election may be debated for years, but middle America is where the dems failed in the last election and where I see them failing again. I don't think they get it, even after their last defeat. Things like restrictive gun issues, guaranteed incomes or jobs for all, Medicare for all, and race and LBGT rights may be fine in moderation, but the Bernie style approach and it's various shades among the different candidates will not hold up against Trumps economic nationalism.
One thing Trump is very good at doing is creating enemies where none exist. Everybody loves somebody to dislike. He created false enemies out of immigrants seeking asylum, created a fear of Muslims as potential terrorists, made a fairly prosperous country as failing and the promise to make things great again. He will create enemies of anything he can label socialism and I predict that will be a big part of his platform.
I think the dems need to come out of la la land. Four more years of Trump will be worse for the country and the environment than the weakest of Democrat moderates. I like Hickenlooper, but don't think he has the persona of a presidential candidate. It's early but I would like to see people with a more moderate agenda, not because I think the are the best of the bunch, but because they are electable. Maybe Biden falls into that category but he also carries the Obama/Hillary taint.
Of course some of that depends on Trump not being indicted for crimes and that he is still president by 2020.
Things like ... race and LBGT rights may be fine in moderation...
LGBTQ and race rights are human rights. Considering the still-oppressed status of some of those communities, and the systemic structures arrayed against them, what does "moderation" look like?
If the voters of this country (aided by Republican vote-suppression and Russian interference) vote for Trump--a veritable "Teflon don," with a crime history going back decades--over any of the Democratic candidates, they deserve what they get.
Democratic proposals have wide appeal (according to polls), and they shouldn't have to be repudiated or watered down to appeal to Republicans. If we can't get enough people out to vote to overcome all the roadblocks thrown in our way, it will be on us. I believe, considering the success of progressives in the 2018 congressional races, that an overwhelming win is entirely possible.
Apart from a handful of highly visible progressives, wasn’t 2018 mostly a story of moderate Democrats defeating moderate Republicans by moderate margins in swing districts?
I did not think it would be a progressive blowout but now Trump has stepped on the third rail of politics by proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
Teacher Terry
3-15-19, 11:11am
Jane, some of the people who voted for trump this time have been hurt by his policies and I don’t feel sorry for them at all. If you were stupid enough to vote for him you got what you deserved.
Jane, some of the people who voted for trump this time have been hurt by his policies and I don’t feel sorry for them at all. If you were stupid enough to vote for him you got what you deserved.
It's unfortunate that the rest of us are riding the sinking ship with them...
I see Kirsten Gillibrand is now officially in. Ideologically, she seems to fit in somewhere between the democratic socialists who claim they can “teach an old dogma new tricks” and the old New Democrat hangovers from the 1990s. I may be wrong, as her convictions seem to have been somewhat malleable over time.
I recently saw a poll of likely Iowa democratic caucus goers. Biden was ranked first, Bernie second with both getting close to30%. Not particularly surprising since thye've both been around for a long time and undoubtedly are the most well known of the 242 people who are currently running for president. The interesting thing was that when Biden supporters were asked who their second choice would be almost 50% said Bernie, a guy with significant policy differences from Biden. Sometimes I wonder if the political pundit class and political news junkies overestimate the importance of ideology.
The interesting thing was that when Biden supporters were asked who their second choice would be almost 50% said Bernie, a guy with significant policy differences from Biden. Sometimes I wonder if the political pundit class and political news junkies overestimate the importance of ideology.
"Old white guy from the correct party. Yup, I'll vote for him."
Related: Did you see the embarrassment of Beto (“I want to be in it. Man, I’m just born to be in it.”) apologizing for being a young inconsiderate white dude the other day?
"Old white guy from the correct party. Yup, I'll vote for him."
Related: Did you see the embarrassment of Beto (“I want to be in it. Man, I’m just born to be in it.”) apologizing for being a young inconsiderate white dude the other day?
I think it's mostly about name recognition. Bernie is a mensch (Biden, not so much), but I'd rather have someone younger. Beto O'Roarke seems remarkably unseasoned to me.
Sometimes I wonder if the political pundit class and political news junkies overestimate the importance of ideology.
Or maybe Iowans are just odd. They seem to be really into wrestling, for instance. That’s just creepy.
Related: Did you see the embarrassment of Beto (“I want to be in it. Man, I’m just born to be in it.”) apologizing for being a young inconsiderate white dude the other day?In spite of everything, I think he's the chosen one, at least according to MSNBC. They've been following him around and breathlessly talking about him all day, every day since he announced his intention to run. He's also apparently beaten Bernie's opening day contribution total with something over $6M coming in during his first 24 hours.
I think it's fascinating watching the media choose and promote their favorites.
Related: Did you see the embarrassment of Beto (“I want to be in it. Man, I’m just born to be in it.”) apologizing for being a young inconsiderate white dude the other day?
Yes, I was listening to CNN's commentary of his speech, and they were also saying what a rookie move that comment was. Almost Trumpian in its arrogance, and I don't think he's known to be an arrogant guy.
Alan, I got the feeling that he is NOT the chosen one by CNN. Media bias is so tiring.
Teacher Terry
3-18-19, 1:18pm
It’s way too early to pay attention with so many people running.
Beto O'Roarke seems remarkably unseasoned to me.
Hmmm - I just looked him up - he's 46, and has served 3 terms as US Congressman, and 2 terms as El Paso City Councilperson.
Obama was 47 years old when he took office, so ~46 when he ran for President. Obama had 3 terms as an Illinois state-level senator under his belt, and was 2 years into his first US Senate term when he announced his candidacy for President.
Beto O'Roarke seems remarkably unseasoned to me.
Like uncooked pork.
Yet he raised six million bucks the first day. Like a televangelist of years gone by. What are people thinking?
I think it's fascinating watching the media choose and promote their favorites.
I watched some "news" show this weekend about the various candidates, and their selection and discussion was entirely concerned with the candidates' fund-raising abilities, and ability to go viral. Not much about their qualifications or positions. The baseline assumption seems to be the most money wins, and that the voters only care about spending on ads, and shiny faces on the Internet.
Hmmm - I just looked him up - he's 46, and has served 3 terms as US Congressman, and 2 terms as El Paso City Councilperson.
Obama was 47 years old when he took office, so ~46 when he ran for President. Obama had 3 terms as an Illinois state-level senator under his belt, and was 2 years into his first US Senate term when he announced his candidacy for President.
Yes, but how often has Beto voted “present”?
Hmmm - I just looked him up - he's 46, and has served 3 terms as US Congressman, and 2 terms as El Paso City Councilperson.
Obama was 47 years old when he took office, so ~46 when he ran for President. Obama had 3 terms as an Illinois state-level senator under his belt, and was 2 years into his first US Senate term when he announced his candidacy for President.
You can tell I'm not impressed; not only can I not spell his name, I thought he was a state representative. But it's still early; maybe I'll get more enthusiastic as time goes. on. I kind of doubt it, though...
You can tell I'm not impressed; not only can I not spell his name, I thought he was a state representative. But it's still early; maybe I'll get more enthusiastic as time goes. on. I kind of doubt it, though...
I thought from some of the coverage I'd seen a short while ago, when he was on his "discover himself navel-gazing trip", that he was in his 30s, so I'm clearly clueless as well.
He seems to be filling the "woke frat-bro" niche.
I suspect at this point not too many people, maybe including the media, know what Beto's running platform is or will be. He's not old, has plenty of enthusiasm, is well spoken, AND not connected to the old school politicians. I understand he may not be in favor of the Medicare for All plan that so many of the others support, so maybe falls into a mid-ground that will avoid Trump's socialistic labels and demonizing. It's early.
When we were back in Austin during local elections, Beto signs were everywhere and we had never even heard of him. It is pretty funny to hear media say his name Bay-toe and comment on his fake hispanic name. It is very common in much of Texas for Anglos to have Spanish nicknames. Beto is a nickname for Robert/Roberto. I also think we need some younger candidates but will have to study up on Beto before I make a judgement.
No democrat will avoid the republican ‘socialism’ labels. Judging from what gets called socialism by them i don’t think they know what the word means beyond it’s value in making their voters really afraid. I mean seriously, just last week a well known Russian congressman from southern california called it socialism when a waitress asked his table if they wanted straws.
Judging from what gets called socialism by them i don’t think they know what the word means beyond it’s value in making their voters really afraid.
What does it mean?
What does it mean?
Apparently any idea that a democrat has.
Apparently any idea that a democrat has.
None of the current slew of Democratic Socialists seem able to define it either. I think the best anyone can do at this point is to stress that it's not the bad kind that has destroyed economies and killed millions, it's the good kind that hasn't yet.
Trying to label everyone as either a socialist or a capitalist is silly. We have elements of both in our economy. Plenty of kids go to socialized k-12 schools, we drive around on socialized roads, I take a socialized transit train to work every day, old folks get socialized healthcare and pensions and if my house catches fire I'm going to call the socialized fire e democratic ideas of Medicare for all or free/reduced public university tuition are just expansions of various socialized things that already exist in this country. They aren't efforts to turn this into the Soviet Union v. 2.0. calling a candidate a socialist isn't an effort to help explain them or their ideas. It's just a way that republicans are trying to make them seem scary. There was no possible other point when John hickenlooper, a man who made his money opening and running a brewpub, was asked if he's a capitalist. You really can't get more capitalismish than that.
Trying to label everyone as either a socialist or a capitalist is silly.
So would you characterize someone labeling themself as a “democratic socialist” as silly?
People can describe themselves however they choose. That's different from trying to force someone to accept one of a list of preset labels.
People can describe themselves however they choose. That's different from trying to force someone to accept one of a list of preset labels.
That would be deplorable.
I'm not concerned about socialism; I'm much more concerned about the barely-restrained capitalism in this country that is bankrupting people needing medical care and pricing housing out of the reach of working families. "The love of money is the root of all evil," indeed.
Glancing at the news today, there seems to be a lot of crowd-cheering for candidates who propose eliminating the electoral college, and increasing the number of Supreme Court seats.
Glancing at the news today, there seems to be a lot of crowd-cheering for candidates who propose eliminating the electoral college, and increasing the number of Supreme Court seats.
I don’t think the Constitution sets a limit on the number of justices, but wouldn’t eliminating the EC require an amendment? I would think that would be a pretty hard sell in the smaller states. I wonder how representative the crowd doing the cheering is of the country at large.
Glancing at the news today, there seems to be a lot of crowd-cheering for candidates who propose eliminating the electoral college, and increasing the number of Supreme Court seats.The Democrats have been keen on stacking the Supreme Court since Roosevelt's time, nothing new there. What I find interesting is a sitting Senator making the elimination of the electoral college part of her Presidential campaign. If memory serves me correctly, the President has nothing to do with changing the Constitution, this is done completely within the Congress. If Senator Warren were serious, it seems she should start the process while still in the Senate as she would not be able to do so from the White House.
I don’t think the Constitution sets a limit on the number of justices,
It doesn't - deciding the size is left up to Congress. We started out with only 6 :-)
but wouldn’t eliminating the EC require an amendment?
Indeed so. I do think there's a good argument to be made to have the states consider modifying the winner-take-all scheme most currently use to allocate their electors, which wouldn't require an amendment at all.
If memory serves me correctly, the President has nothing to do with changing the Constitution, this is done completely within the Congress. If Senator Warren were serious, it seems she should start the process while still in the Senate as she would not be able to do so from the White House.
I think there is a bill submitted to this Congress, but I don't believe it will get any traction.
Indeed so. I do think there's a good argument to be made to have the states consider modifying the winner-take-all scheme most currently use to allocate their electors, which wouldn't require an amendment at all.
But why would they surrender that much influence to a handful of populous coastal states?
I'll bet no one else gets a 2 acre earth portrait. https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-2020-earth-art-appears-texas-story-amazing-man-1367442
https://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embed_tablet/public/2019/03/19/crop-beto.jpg
It doesn't - deciding the size is left up to Congress. We started out with only 6 :-)
Indeed so. I do think there's a good argument to be made to have the states consider modifying the winner-take-all scheme most currently use to allocate their electors, which wouldn't require an amendment at all.
It's already in the works. At this point who knows if enough states will enact legislation to do this. It's still 89 EV's short.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
I'll bet no one else gets a 2 acre earth portrait. https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-2020-earth-art-appears-texas-story-amazing-man-1367442
https://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embed_tablet/public/2019/03/19/crop-beto.jpg
Soon they’ll be sacrificing virgins to him. Like back in the Kennedy days.
Soon they’ll be sacrificing virgins to him.
Better than sacrificing them to Roy Moore...
Roy Moore is no more; politically at least.
But the cult of Beto grows, driven almost entirely by media. He’s the political equivalent of the Monkees, using the media’s unquestioning adoration the way Trump used their contempt as a route to power.
Roy Moore is no more; politically at least.
But the cult of Beto grows, driven almost entirely by media. He’s the political equivalent of the Monkees, using the media’s unquestioning adoration the way Trump used their contempt as a route to power.
Thanks to the corporate media and social media, people will never vote for the "right" candidate again. Decisions will be made on telegencity, who Fox and Disney executives prefer, tweets, and Facebook memes. No party is immune to it.
Oh, I remember the good old days when a stump speech meant that farmers gathered in the town square and listened for 2 hours to a candidate's positions on the issues from a human being on a real live stump.
I wasn’t there for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but I know what you mean. Ever since, and probably before, the Kennedy media machine demonstrated that the right team of fixers, ghostwriters and tame journalists could reap political benefits, that has been the case.
But only up to a point. If only the anointed media darlings ever won elections, we would be approaching eighty years of Democratic Party dominance about now. Trump won office despite of, or perhaps in reaction to the universal scorn of the mainstream media. I know some will chant “Fox News” over and over and over, but that is but one outlet out of many.
I think it can help to have the media on your side, but it is not, thank God, decisive. Even in this noisy age, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Roy Moore is no more; politically at least.
I wouldn't count your chickens so quickly.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alabama-election/alabamas-roy-moore-undone-by-allegations-considers-new-senate-run-idUSKBN1QQ024
I wouldn't count your chickens so quickly.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alabama-election/alabamas-roy-moore-undone-by-allegations-considers-new-senate-run-idUSKBN1QQ024
I wouldn’t worry overmuch about a Senator Moore. I’m sure it won’t be that difficult to crank out some more fake websites.
Telegenicity has mattered for 60 years now. I'm not too worried about social media and whatever else ruining politics. I was reading an article the other day where researchers had found that the efforts during the 2016 election to use fake posts on facebook and the like were much more successful with older folks than with people in their 20's. Perhaps people who have grown up online have better-honed online BS detectors.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/politics/jfk-nixon-debate/index.html
Personally I'm not too worried about a potential senator moore. Since I'm not an Alabama resident I'm not at risk of being teased mercilessly if he wins.
So far, I like Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, and Inslee--subject to change, of course.
For someone who seems to rank pretty consistently at third in the polls, Harris seems remarkably quiet. Beto stands on tables, Warren issues her Big Idea of the week and Bernie promises to recreate Sweden circa 1972, but no such tactics from Harris.
Is that a strategy of some sort, or is she being drowned out by a large and gaudy crowd?
As far as I can tell, Harris is out pressing the flesh, like an old-school campaigner.
We could do way worse than emulating Sweden...
Maybe it's because he's a home town boy, but it's too bad the media isn't giving Hickenlooper more air time. I have wondered how they choose how to divide their air time among the candidates, but they can sure affect the voting outcomes. Hickenlooper could use a little help from Mitt's hair stylist and he has a halting speech pattern that is less than commanding, but he was a well liked governor and mayor before that who got quite a bit done to make the state a better place to live. At least by most common accounts.
Back when they elected Calvin (AKA "Silent Cal") Coolidge and most of the promotions came from news paper, radio, and campaign tours, the selection process was probably different.
Back when they elected Calvin (AKA "Silent Cal") Coolidge and most of the promotions came from news paper, radio, and campaign tours, the selection process was probably different.
One big difference in the selection process then versus now is that parties could choose their candidates without an open primary system that could allow outside forces to push for candidates who didn’t necessarily share the party’s philosophy. Look at Trump. Look at Sanders. He didn’t even pretend to be a Democrat.
dado potato
4-11-19, 6:58pm
Jeffrey Gundlach: We will likely see violence in the 2020 campaign. There will be more than just people heckling. There will be violence, maybe even riots.
Gundlach, the founder of DoubleLine Capital LP, was interviewed for the Swiss digital media, "themarket", publication date April 10, 2019.
In my view, the die is cast by both the left and right... each accusing the other of incitement to violence. This reminds me of the classic defense mechanism Projection … those aggressive impulses, they started it.
Item: Alex Jones on radio and Instagram has an estimated 2.7 million monthly listeners. 6/13/18 We have to start getting ready for insurrection and civil war because they (i.e.. Democrats?) are really pushing it.
Item: Fox Business personality Lou Dobbs referred to former Attorney General Eric Holder as an "illustrious thug". Holder was quoted as saying When they go low, we kick them. Was Holder appealing to Democrats to engage in physical violence? Have the faithful Dems responded by kicking anybody?
Item: Maxine Waters has called upon supporters to "push back".
We have proceeded from the merely silly to the hysterical. I think outside social media, the views are much less unhinged.
I don't know that much about him but watched an interview with Ray Dalio on 60 Mintues. He also predicted impending violence or further ideological separation (based on history) because we don't have the will to unite our vision of the future.
I see Mayor Bill is announced now, giving hope to all us flown over rubes who yearn for the Gotham life with a bit of Sandinista zest.
I just frustrated some poor pollster. Told them I didn’t know who I was voting for, wouldn’t til I did my research. More, we have no tv and avoid all political ads til we do our own research. Poor thing, it was sad. They want me to endorse some rhetoric or the other and I won’t.
I am just amazed. I'm thinking of running. What the heck?
The more the Dems slice and dice their hopes to beat Trump into a thousand pieces, the more likely that all the DNCs horses and all the DNCs men will never be able to put Humpty Dumpty together again.
I just frustrated some poor pollster. Told them I didn’t know who I was voting for, wouldn’t til I did my research. More, we have no tv and avoid all political ads til we do our own research. Poor thing, it was sad. They want me to endorse some rhetoric or the other and I won’t.
Next time I’m called, I’ve got a card that spells out “I support Trump” in phonetic Russian.
I am just amazed. I'm thinking of running. What the heck?
The more the Dems slice and dice their hopes to beat Trump into a thousand pieces, the more likely that all the DNCs horses and all the DNCs men will never be able to put Humpty Dumpty together again.
When a dozen Republicans were running they called it a clown car. With more than twice as many Democrats it’s an embarrassment of riches. I agree with the embarrassment part. Pity poor Iowa.
iris lilies
5-16-19, 1:24pm
...Pity poor Iowa.
Nah, Iowans will make this work for them. Instead of the usual number of candidates milling around your block if you live within 2 miles of interstate 80, they will be cleaning up the parks and polishing your car and walking your dog to get votes.
I look forward to my brother’s colorful commentary from the trenches of interstate 80. He is a never Trumper Republican.
When a dozen Republicans were running they called it a clown car. With more than twice as many Democrats it’s an embarrassment of riches. I agree with the embarrassment part. Pity poor Iowa.
I would definitely agree that it's turning into a clown car. There are several candidates that I like and would be comfortable voting for if the primary were today. A few more that I will definitely not vote for in the primary, and several that I just don't know enough about to have a comment on one way or the other. It's certainly going to be an interesting 9 months before the first votes/caucuses happen.
One thing that I AM concerned about is that some decent candidates are forgoing the possibility of challenging incumbent republican senators by running for president instead. It won't matter that we've won the presidency, if we do, if we don't also take back the senate. But no one ever said democracy wasn't messy, so I guess there isn't really much choice to do things differently unless we go back to the days of people in smoke filled rooms making decisions for the party. And if 2016 is any guide, I don't think the democrats will be resorting to that this time around. Or at least not this early in the game. Whether they can resist the urge for the next 18 months is anyone's guess...
Teacher Terry
5-16-19, 8:54pm
Last election didn’t the Republicans start out with 17 candidates?
I would definitely agree that it's turning into a clown car. There are several candidates that I like and would be comfortable voting for if the primary were today. A few more that I will definitely not vote for in the primary, and several that I just don't know enough about to have a comment on one way or the other. It's certainly going to be an interesting 9 months before the first votes/caucuses happen.
One thing that I AM concerned about is that some decent candidates are forgoing the possibility of challenging incumbent republican senators by running for president instead. It won't matter that we've won the presidency, if we do, if we don't also take back the senate. But no one ever said democracy wasn't messy, so I guess there isn't really much choice to do things differently unless we go back to the days of people in smoke filled rooms making decisions for the party. And if 2016 is any guide, I don't think the democrats will be resorting to that this time around. Or at least not this early in the game. Whether they can resist the urge for the next 18 months is anyone's guess...
What’s better for a political party: deal making by party potentates aimed at selecting the most electable candidate, or leaving the decision to the more extreme elements of the party or groups with little or no party affiliation at all who turn out in disproportionate numbers for open primaries? Have we seen a better quality of candidates since 1970 or so?
Are half or more of the current crop of candidates truly running for President, or just cabinet posts, book deals or simple vanity?
As George W Bush once said ‘this job would be a whole lot easier if i was a dictator’. Or something to that effect. If left up to our more ‘wise’ party elders we’d undoubtedly end up with an old white guy, since that’s what electable means. Neither obama nor trump were considered electable at this stage of the game 4 and 12 tears ago, so i don’t put much stock in electable.
…i don’t put much stock in electable.
I hope the majority of Democrats share that view.
There was a recent article in National Review that raised the concern that Trump has driven the Democrats sane (https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/joe-biden-campaign-democratic-party-voters-pragmatic/).
Polls say many of the potential Democratic candidates could beat Trump at this point--but again, don't rule out dirty tricks.
Last election didn’t the Republicans start out with 17 candidates?
Yes. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-republican-field-dwindled-from-17-to-donald-trump/
Teacher Terry
5-19-19, 7:48pm
Thanks G glad my memory still on it!
dado potato
5-19-19, 8:22pm
The Fox News telephone poll of 1,008 registered voters nationwide conducted between May 11 - 14 asking about potential 2020 contests versus President Trump.
In the Biden-Trump hypothetical matchup, Biden wins with 49% to 38% for Trump.
Biden's 11-point lead is greater than the 3-point margin of error in the poll.
The only other Democratic contender that led Trump by over 3 points in the poll was Bernie Sanders by 5 points.
Under the circumstances I believe the internet smears of Joe Biden will be intense for the foreseeable future.
It's early yet. I don't expect Biden to fare well in the debates, but as we saw in the last election debacle, debates don't matter.
I attended an Elizabeth Warren house party today. She came across as more centrist than I expected.
Ultralight
6-14-19, 11:17pm
I like Harris, Buttigieg, and Bennett so far.
iris lilies
6-15-19, 9:09am
I attended an Elizabeth Warren house party today. She came across as more centrist than I expected.
Interesting. What did she talk about?
Interesting. What did she talk about?
She started with she has three brothers who served in the military, with no hint of criticism of the military-industrial complex, and circled back to them several times. Two of them are Republicans and she talked about their shared values including cleaning up corruption in Washington (think Drain the Swamp though she did not use that term). She talked about picking and choosing your battles. A Black Lives Matter activist tried to get her to commit to cutting minority incarceration rates in half but she would not, instead saying marijuana should be decriminalized and more funding put in place for public defenders so their caseloads can be reduced.
She is a former elementary school teacher (fired because she got pregnant, legal at the time, at which point she went to law school) and wants universal pre-K so I was surprised to see Julian Castro claim this on NBC News as his supposedly unique big idea. She would fund this and other programs with a 2% tax on income in excess of $50 million per year.
She said she is willing to shame corrupt officials of both parties to try to get reforms through including a lifetime ban on anyone who has served in government being a lobbyist.
As with her announcement speech there was no mention of foreign policy.
Ultralight
6-15-19, 2:45pm
Universal pre-K, huh? Something about that bothers me. Isn't 5 years old early enough to make the state the primary care giver and educator of a kid?
When I was a kid most started kindergarten at age 5. My mom waited until 6 to put me in because she did not want me to be institutionalized and given a routine until the last moment. I am glad for this.
Now they want to start kids in school at, what, age 3?
Parents: Raise your own dang kids!
ApatheticNoMore
6-15-19, 3:00pm
Well she's hawkish and former Republican. I don't necessarily expect her to govern as a Republican, but of course she would talk about shared values. Everyone picks and chooses their battles, that is common sense as a politician.
If she's too centrist for you -> feel the Bern! I like Bernie. I like Jay Inslee's comprehensive GND plans A LOT. I don't like Warren that much, but don't think she'd be terrible, far from the worst we could do (ok the worst we could do is already in office, but even among Dems).
I do feel the Bern, but he is getting up there in years and if he develops serious medical issues I think I should have a backup candidate. I would like to hear more candidates in person.
iris lilies
6-15-19, 3:41pm
Universal pre-K, huh? Something about that bothers me. Isn't 5 years old early enough to make the state the primary care giver and educator of a kid?
When I was a kid most started kindergarten at age 5. My mom waited until 6 to put me in because she did not want me to be institutionalized and given a routine until the last moment. I am glad for this.
Now they want to start kids in school at, what, age 3?
Parents: Raise your own dang kids!
A lot about that bothers me, not the least being E.Warren is operating at the federal level and the last thing we need is the feds mandating more stuff that was formerly the realm of local government.
We have optional public school for 3 year olds here in my city. Not many parents take advantage of it. It is optional. It is a choice. Long live choice.keep the damn geds put of it.
keep the damn geds put of it.
To my knowledge no one is proposing Federalizing the GED test.
Ultralight
6-15-19, 4:02pm
A lot about that bothers me, not the least being E.Warren is operating at the federal level and the last thing we need is the feds mandating more stuff that was formerly the realm of local government.
We have optional public school for 3 year olds here in my city. Not many parents take advantage of it. It is optional. It is a choice. Long live choice.keep the damn geds put of it.
You know, I really think most Democrats don't want kids to have a damn bit of fun. They also are keen on destroying summer vacation and making kids go to school that whole time. INSANE!
And I say this as a liberal. Look, school is important. But you can very easily get too much of a good thing.
Teacher Terry
6-15-19, 4:06pm
We don’t need federal preschool. Right now parents can pay for preschool and poor kids can go to headstart.
iris lilies
6-15-19, 4:07pm
To my knowledge no one is proposing Federalizing the GED test.
haha ok, keep the damn feds out of the pre-k mandating world as well.
Ultralight
6-15-19, 4:07pm
Right now parents can pay for preschool and poor kids can go to headstart.
They should be raising their own dang kids!
They should be raising their own dang kids!
But what if the parents don't indoctrinate them early enough? You gotta get em while they're young.
Ultralight
6-15-19, 6:58pm
But what if the parents don't indoctrinate them early enough? You gotta get em while they're young.
It is less ideological for me, but I agree. This is one of the reasons I don't think prayer belongs in schools. I don't think governments should indoctrinate kids like that.
For me the issue is more like: "Why have kids if you are going to outsource most of the parenting?"
Maybe we should just cancel public education entirely. People who think their kids need an education could buy it, or do it themselves. Surely part of parenting is educating one's kids. Some other countries do it that way. And as someone with no kids surely it would save me some money. And save everyone from that evil evil government indoctrination.
And some other countries only educate the boys.
Maybe we should just cancel public education entirely.
I think that would be an over-reaction, although I'm all in favor of getting the Federal government out of our local school districts. The indoctrination begins in primary schools but really hits it's stride on the college level. It will be interesting to see how the Oberlin College $44M judgement in compensatory and punitive damages will influence other schools, who are most certainly sitting up and taking notice of the future cost of unrestrained SJW advocacy.
I’m pretty liberal but I’m also big on individual freedoms. I also read thousands of pages about child development and education before deciding to home school my kids for the first few years. It’s not good for kids for sit at a desk all day at a young age. I think it would be better to start formal education at about age 8-10 depending on the kid.
But the parents can’t afford all that day care, etc.
We lived on 20,000 a year for several years so I could stay home with the kids. That was 1980s and 1990s, so inflation has happened - but that was still considered to be poverty level I believe.
It wasn’t easy.
Ultralight
6-15-19, 9:00pm
Maybe we should just cancel public education entirely. People who think their kids need an education could buy it, or do it themselves. Surely part of parenting is educating one's kids. Some other countries do it that way. And as someone with no kids surely it would save me some money. And save everyone from that evil evil government indoctrination.
You are clearly trolling. But who are you trolling?
Ultralight
6-15-19, 9:00pm
And some other countries only educate the boys.
Bad idealert.
Ultralight
6-15-19, 9:03pm
I think that would be an over-reaction, although I'm all in favor of getting the Federal government out of our local school districts. The indoctrination begins in primary schools but really hits it's stride on the college level. It will be interesting to see how the Oberlin College $44M judgement in compensatory and punitive damages will influence other schools, who are most certainly sitting up and taking notice of the future cost of unrestrained SJW advocacy.
If you teach kids how to think, you usually don't have to worry about what they think.
If you teach kids what to think, that is not education.
You are clearly trolling. But who are you trolling?
That was actually a generic troll, tossed out there just to see what kind of reaction I'd get. I don't really have strong opinions on the topic of education because I'm not a teacher or parent. (or public school student, at least as of 33 years ago)
Curiously I actually agree, at least somewhat, with Alan. Based mainly off of the opinions of friends who are teachers I think that two of the worst things to happen to education in my lifetime are Common Core, and No Testing Company Left Behind. Generally I think that states are capable of making reasonable decisions about how best to educate the children who live in them. I'm not sure that I would make that same statement about individual districts.
And I even agree with Alan's opinion about the absurdity of what happened at Oberlin. Shoplifters aren't generally the people I'd want to prioritize as heros or victims from a social justice perspective. Maybe, possibly if the storekeeper had shot them in the back as they ran away with a couple of bottles of wine. But that's not what happened here.
Ivanka Trump promised increased child care subsidies, so the issue has bipartisan appeal.
If you teach kids how to think, you usually don't have to worry about what they think.
If you teach kids what to think, that is not education.
How do you go about teaching people “how to think” in a completely value-neutral way? I’ve heard math called racist and logic called a tool of white supremacy.
Teacher Terry
6-16-19, 10:58am
Common core and all the testing has been a disaster. Y, don’t count on Ivana to actually carry through on anything helpful. She’s a joke like her dad.
iris lilies
6-16-19, 11:47am
Common core and all the testing has been a disaster. Y, don’t count on Ivana to actually carry through on anything helpful. She’s a joke like her dad.
How would Ivanka carry out subsidies? i mean, since she is not an elected legislator and has no juice.
Why do you think Common Core principles are a “disaster”? President Obama put them into place. Do you think he made a mistake?
I don’t know enough about Common Core at any level of detail to have an opinion except, generally speaking, I don’t like the feds exerting their big giant federal self over issues formerly handled by local and state governments. However, standards are a good thing and there have always been standards so I’m not sure why this particular set of educational standards are not to your liking.
Why do you think Common Core principles are a “disaster”? President Obama put them into place. Do you think he made a mistake?
Yes, I think he made a mistake.
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/04/29/common-core-work-research/
Personally I think the entire rote learning of facts and then testing the memorization of them system of education is horrible. Sure, it can be, ummmm, tested to see if it works. But it's also a great way to turn kids off of school and learning at an early age. There are much better ways to learn things.
iris lilies
6-16-19, 1:07pm
Yes, I think he made a mistake.
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/04/29/common-core-work-research/
Personally I think the entire rote learning of facts and then testing the memorization of them system of education is horrible. Sure, it can be, ummmm, tested to see if it works. But it's also a great way to turn kids off of school and learning at an early age. There are much better ways to learn things.
I wont defend or repudiate the Common Core program itself, but generally it seems to be an excellent example of:
1) social engineering by Nanny G. that didnt go as planned or that had unforeseen consequences
2) social engineering that can’t even be measured in any kind of rational way so that all of us can see its clear success or failure (see opposing viewpoints and studies that show success, as reported in this article)
3) social engineering that we are now stuck with, apparently no backing out, although bandaids and superficial fixes will be applied to further the chaos until a dozen years from now the entire program will be tossed out and re-invented by another wannabe-fixer of human kind
A coupla engineers over on the MMM site a few years ago talked about the math concepts of Common Core. They liked ‘em and saw utility in those educational concepts and methods. But they were engineers, so there ya go.
Teacher Terry
6-16-19, 1:43pm
Ivanka, probably has influence with her dad. Good point that she is not elected yet finds herself at meetings, etc that she shouldn’t be a part of. Rote memorization isn’t what I consider learning.
How exactly do you define ‘social engineering’? I didnt see common core as some nefarious plan, just as an extension of the stupid idea that all educational plans need to be structured in a way that their efficacy can be tested by forcing students to take excessive tests rather than structured in a way that actually helps students to learn.
And now that that efficacy of common core is in doubt we can indeed get rid of it. We just have to make the decision to do so. But with a secretary of education who hates public schools and loves testing companies and a president who doesnt give two shits about anything that doesnt help him make money it isnt likely that anything will happen in the near future.
iris lilies
6-16-19, 2:14pm
How exactly do you define ‘social engineering’? I didnt see common core as some nefarious plan, just as an extension of the stupid idea that all educational plans need to be structured in a way that their efficacy can be tested by forcing students to take excessive tests rather than structured in a way that actually helps students to learn.
And now that that efficacy of common core is in doubt we can indeed get rid of it. We just have to make the decision to do so. But with a secretary of education who hates public schools and loves testing companies and a president who doesnt give two shits about anything that doesnt help him make money it isnt likely that anything will happen in the near future.
i define social engineering as government policy or practice put into place to drive human behavior.
In the big picture any government policy of public education is social engineering because it intends to create informed and capable citizens.
Common Core concepts are not directly tied to testing, and standardized testing has always been a thing (4th grade and 8th grade tests being the big ones in my state for decades, long before the Common Core program.)
If you mean that Common Core hs increased the emphasis on standardized test, it may well have.I dont know enough about real world classrooms to comment beyond there certainly was a lot of noise about the testing and lots of unhappiness from educators back in the day of new CC about the testing.
Is there a federal carrot on a stick to drive testing? I dont know but remember much gnashing of teeth about projected outcomes with schools thatbdo not measure up.
What has been the real fallout of schools that do not test out?
Second hand opinion from my son who has a math education degree:
1. Common core teaches kids what they need to know in a systematic way.
2. The huge emphasis on standardized testing forces teachers to teach to the test rather than follow the natural thread of creative activities that the class is ready for as the year unfolds.
It’s two different problems/issues, although intertwined, and is complicated by the fact that any one teacher struggles to make the material accessible to 25-30 students at the same time.
This is the problem with education for the masses. It’s not individualized. Kids who are not in the middle of the bell curve will struggle.
Any minds changed or positions solidified by the first round of debates? I saw a number of different approaches. The angry progressive guy. The “unifier” who will obviously keep an eye open for backs needing to be stabbed. The sharp elbowed interrupting to demand moral authority. The childish pretense of acting like the only adult in the room. The speaking in tongues. I wasn’t aware it was the President’s job to put food on the table. I’d like a chili dog with cheese fries please.
The “raise your hand” questions like the one about outlawing private health insurance reminded me of middle school. The time allocation seemed faulty. Did I blink and miss Andrew Yang? I think some of the moderators got more words in than the candidates. What’s Chuck Todd running for anyway?
I didn’t come out at the end knowing any more about the candidates than I did before. I wonder who the Libertarians will nominate?
I'm concerned that Trump will get reelected after seeing this debate circus unfold.
I'm concerned that Trump will get reelected after seeing this debate circus unfold.
Agreed. I really don't want to agree with Trump that the debates were "boring"--because I don't like his way of livening up the action, but I didn't see any stand-outs that have a chance of overcoming his showmanship. I do like the women though--Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar especially. I'm a huge Bernie fan, but I think he's Moses--bringing us to the edge of a Progressive Promised Land but not being able to gain entrance himself. I think his window of opportunity has expired, sad to say.
Yes. I try not to be ageist. But honestly - Biden and Bernie both seemed to struggle to either find the right words or follow the logic of the questions. They just repeated the same canned answers. And their thinking seemed a little slow - they are showing their age.
I’m not terribly drawn to any of them, but I’ll take anyone who is not Trump at this point.
Did i watch the same debates? Sure, the nutjobs like williamson were nutty, but the serious candidates did just fine.
Any minds changed? I was leaning Bernie but now it's about even in my mind between him and Warren.
While I agree with DiBlasio and Harris on health insurance they were both rude, interrupting other people. Harris said let's not make this a food fight, then later talked over people herself.
Castro and Buttigieg came across as smart, Klobuchar as personable. I would have liked to hear more from Gabbard and Yang.
I like Warren and Harris and many of the others as potential running mates or cabinet appointments. I'm sure we could even find a spot for Williamson, who some wag opined appeared to be on edibles :~). Any of them could think rings around Trump. and they all seem to have a vision bigger than destroying the government, shredding the Constitution, and cruelty for its own sake.
iris lilies
6-29-19, 9:33am
I didn’t watch the debate because I don’t have much interest but I heard that Elizabeth Warren was not on the stage. Is that true? If so, Why is that?
A radio report said that it was all over the map as to who “won” the debate. The good people of Des Moines and Ames who I know well had opinions that differ greatly from the New York Times etc., the intelligencia of the media. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by that.
Warren was in the first debate.
iris lilies
6-29-19, 9:57am
Warren was in the first debate.
Ok. So this most recent one was second string? But why was Daddy Joe in it?
Maybe my question is: how did they chose which ones were in which debate? Everyone got just one chance, right?
It is interesting that the Democrats have a clown car of candidates like a Republican said if you years ago.
I'm not sure why we call them debates. They seemed to me to be events where moderators asked candidates questions in hopes of receiving an entertaining response. Maybe a true debate will come into play once a score or more of the candidates are sent home.
I wasn't impressed with any of the big names, Biden seemed old and infirm, Sanders seemed angry and singly focused on class division, and Warren hasn't yet found whatever personality she allegedly has. I did kinda like Mayor Pete and Kamala Harris, although they both showed too much willingness to go hard left for my taste. I think the media has convinced them they must embrace flat out goofiness in order to appease the Socialists, but I think that will only guarantee an ultimate loss in the General election.
Outside of the debates it's entertaining to watch some of the downstream candidates. DeBlasio throwing Che Guevara quotes to Cuban immigrants, Williamson affirming that she lives in the old "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" commercial and O'Rourke and Booker competing for first honors in Spanish class.
There's still a long way to go but I'm betting on Harris or Buttigieg to get the nomination. Either should beat Trump easily in the General if they can ignore the caterwauling of the extreme Democrats, but I'm not sure that's possible.
iris lilies
6-29-19, 10:31am
My radio program had speakers agree that Beto is dead given this recent performance. I disagree that anyone is dead this early in the game, and since no one watched these programs anyway, it is unlikely. Beto has the sex appeal factor for me so yeah, go Beto! Not really.
I do not mind old white men telling me what I dont want to hear as long as it is something i think we NEED to hear. So Old Bernie is out because we dont need what he is peddling, although I did like his answer about the one thing he would do when in the White House (save our democracy.)
Teacher Terry
6-29-19, 11:01am
The candidates names were drawn at random to see which night you would debate. It just so happened that warren ended up in a second rate group. I don’t think this country will vote for a woman or a gay guy unfortunately.
I don’t think this country will vote for a woman or a gay guy unfortunately.
We already did vote for a woman. It was the electoral college that didn’t.
ApatheticNoMore
6-29-19, 12:02pm
Noone's mind should be changed by a debate, they are very superficial and probably rigged. There are a lot of forums candidates have participated in, they are bound to be more informative (that I am aware of an immigration forum, the poor people's forum, a roe v wade forum - not all candidates go to all forums).
if we wanted real debates:
1) everyone should have gotten the same time, field will be narrowed down anyway
2) people mics should be cut off if they talked over others or over time
3) league of women voters should be moderating this not a bunch of millionaire performers
4) it needs to be on public television and public radio (and online of course as it was). This debate was literally not on the radio at all.
As for outright funny business: Some people seemed to get easy questions and others gotchas (some of them ridiculous - they asked sanders to defend being a white male - no right answer to a question like that). Yang said his mic was cut off. I have no idea what to make of that. I think he's a smart guy with a set of policies that overall won't work well.
As for impressions: the people in the first debate were mostly nice, Booker and Castro came off well. The second debate was mostly a bunch of rude people and an out of it Biden. Well of course Bernie is ever the gentleman, raising his hand and not being called on while everyone acts like a complete jerk and talks over everyone else. Of course, it seems we want a jerk in the white house so: they'll do well!
I think the media has convinced them they must embrace flat out goofiness in order to appease the Socialists, but I think that will only guarantee an ultimate loss in the General election.
I think it’s possible that the Democrats may venture beyond what is acceptable to mainstream America, even to the point of losing to Trump. Again. Especially if the economy fails to tank for them on cue.
The candidates names were drawn at random to see which night you would debate. It just so happened that warren ended up in a second rate group. I don’t think this country will vote for a woman or a gay guy unfortunately.
Our “systemically racist” country elected a black man twice. Our “systemically misogynistic” country would have elected a woman had she been better at concealing her contempt for large swathes of voters.
Ultralight
6-29-19, 1:00pm
Our “systemically racist” country elected a black man twice. Our “systemically misogynistic” country would have elected a woman had she been better at concealing her contempt for large swathes of voters.
My dream ticket is still Kamala and Pete.
A big group of my coworkers and I talked about this yesterday. They said: "This country and the straight, white men who run it are just not ready for a woman of color or a gay man to president and vice president."
I pointed out: "I remember when they said similar stuff about Obama. And then he came back and whipped their asses twice."
The thing is, my coworkers were not saying that the country and white straight guys are not ready to elect a WOC and a gay man to convince me to vote for Biden. They were saying it as a near whole-sale condemnation of America and straight white dudes."
Our “systemically misogynistic” country would have elected a woman had she been better at concealing her contempt for large swathes of voters.
Or if we didn't use a "little states are more important than big states" method of selecting our president.
Ultralight
6-29-19, 1:05pm
Or if we didn't use a "little states are more important than big states" method of selecting our president.
Suppose we had used the popular vote instead of the electoral college.
Suppose Hilary had been elected.
Would The Left then be like: "We arrived! We conquered straight, white, male privilege! From now on we judge people by the content of their character, not by their immutable characteristics!"
ApatheticNoMore
6-29-19, 1:10pm
I think barring a recession or Miami drowning before the next election, it's actually TOUGH for ANYONE to beat Trump because it's ALWAYS tough to beat an incumbent. Maybe only elder Bush has not served 2 terms in the last 40 years. I know this is the most depressing thought imaginable, 4 more years of Trump. It is a horror. Almost the worst person imaginable (I'd take Jeb in a heartbeat at this point) is in office when we need real leadership. It's horrible, but incumbents often do have an advantage.
So it's an uphill fight regardless of the candidate. If Trump wins everyone will blame it on their candidate not being the chosen one (could be, but such counterfactual claims are usually unprovable - all leading candidates are polling well against Trump last I heard) or the candidates ALL being bad or something (as if bad didn't need a whole new definition after Trump). But it might just be incumbent advantage. So I'll play to win and not just not to lose, and vote for whoever I think has the best chance of making the significant changes we need.
Suppose we had used the popular vote instead of the electoral college.
Suppose Hilary had been elected.
Would The Left then be like: "We arrived! We conquered straight, white, male privilege! From now on we judge people by the content of their character, not by their immutable characteristics!"
Indeed not. But 2016 and the sad aftermath of trump's "presidency" has certainly put to rest the idea that all candidates are equally bad. Or that elections don't matter.
I think barring a recession or Miami drowning before the next election, it's actually TOUGH for ANYONE to beat Trump because it's ALWAYS tough to beat an incumbent. Maybe only elder Bush has not served 2 terms in the last 40 years. I know this is the most depressing thought imaginable, 4 more years of Trump. It is a horror. Almost the worst person imaginable (I'd take Jeb in a heartbeat at this point) is in office when we need real leadership. It's horrible, but incumbents often do have an advantage.
So it's an uphill fight regardless of the candidate. If Trump wins everyone will blame it on their candidate not being the chosen one (could be, but such counterfactual claims are usually unprovable - all leading candidates are polling well against Trump last I heard) or the candidates ALL being bad or something (as if bad didn't need a whole new definition after Trump). But it might just be incumbent advantage. So I'll play to win and not just not to lose, and vote for whoever I think has the best chance of making the significant changes we need.
Normally the incumbent does have a significant advantage. But trump is not a normal president. His approval rating has never even hit 50% and he's not doing anything even remotely to try and change that. It's difficult to imagine that anyone who didn't vote for him last time will vote for him this time. Not to mention that 4 years worth of his base from 2016 will be dead and 4 more years worth of young people will be eligible to vote by election day 2020.
It's difficult to imagine that anyone who didn't vote for him last time will vote for him this time.
He has made several pro-Israel moves that may win some voters who care about such things over to him.
Suppose we had used the popular vote instead of the electoral college.
Suppose Hilary had been elected.
The Form 1040 would be longer and the Bill of Rights would be shorter.
I don’t think this country will vote for a woman or a gay guy unfortunately.Please don't force them to run as the gay guy or the woman, especially if you follow up by declaring everyone unimpressed with them as sexist, racist or homophobic. Independents, Republicans and rational Democrats don't like that.
Teacher Terry
6-29-19, 3:24pm
Alan, your post was good for a laugh.
The Form 1040 would be longer and the Bill of Rights would be shorter.
And the deficit would be lower.
Ultralight
6-29-19, 5:01pm
Please don't force them to run as the gay guy or the woman, especially if you follow up by declaring everyone unimpressed with them as sexist, racist or homophobic. Independents, Republicans and rational Democrats don't like that.
Alan: Would you vote for a gay, half black/half Indian woman who otherwise shared and agreed with your politics and advocated for such?
Ultralight
6-29-19, 5:30pm
And the deficit would be lower.
I think we can have both a longer bill of rights and a lower deficit. Americans can do some brilliant and inspired things when we really want to.
Alan: Would you vote for a gay, half black/half Indian woman who otherwise shared and agreed with your politics and advocated for such?
Have you ever seen Alan indicate otherwise ?
Alan: Would you vote for a gay, half black/half Indian woman who otherwise shared and agreed with your politics and advocated for such?
Sure! I'm not nearly progressive enough to do otherwise.
Ultralight
6-29-19, 5:51pm
Have you ever seen Alan indicate otherwise ?
I suspect that Alan would vote for the hypothetical candidate if, when asked about their sexuality and/or racial background they said something like:
"I am gay, I am half Indian and half black. I am done talking about it. Let's get into my policy ideas and my plans for governance."
But I dunno! I would prefer to hear what Alan has to say, whether my speculation is correct or not.
Ultralight
6-29-19, 5:53pm
Sure
Even better answer than I would have predicted!
What is INSANE is that some of my fellow leftists would still consider someone like Alan racist and/or homophobic. It takes some intellectual contortions, but they can do it. And I wish they would not. LOL
frugal-one
6-29-19, 6:08pm
Normally the incumbent does have a significant advantage. But trump is not a normal president. His approval rating has never even hit 50% and he's not doing anything even remotely to try and change that. It's difficult to imagine that anyone who didn't vote for him last time will vote for him this time. Not to mention that 4 years worth of his base from 2016 will be dead and 4 more years worth of young people will be eligible to vote by election day 2020.
There are many who are sick of the constant drama inflicted by the current president. Many will vote for ANYONE but him.
iris lilies
6-29-19, 6:49pm
There are many who are sick of the constant drama inflicted by the current president. Many will vote for ANYONE but him.
Keep in mind that many Trump supporters and onTheFencers see the drama as being created by the non-Trump camp. mainstream media is viewed with great skepticism and derision.
They had a big hand in electing Trump last time. I really wish they would learn. Really. Just dial it back.
Ultralight
6-29-19, 7:21pm
Since he was first elected I have thought Trump would get his second term. I still believe this.
I went to hear Bernie speak today. He was funny, energetic, and populist. Although he walks with a stoop he did not otherwise come across as elderly, and his most vocal supporters in the crowd were young.
Since he was first elected I have thought Trump would get his second term. I still believe this.
You live in the heartland of uneducated trump supporters. I like to believe that Americans can do some brilliant and inspired things when we try. Not reelecting that moron isn't quite up to that level, but I'll take it and think we're capable. I'll worry about bigger things like us getting to the moonmars afterwards.
You live in the heartland of uneducated trump supporters.
People who say things like that fail to understand that a big part of Trump’s appeal was sticking it to people who say things like that.
iris lilies
6-30-19, 10:14am
People who say things like that fail to understand that a big part of Trump’s appeal was sticking it to people who say things like that.
Gosh! Exactly.
Especially since where UL lives there’s probably more “educated” people per capita than where JP lives. Ohio State University is a giant employer there.
But perhaps JP means overall flyover country. OK, well, speak badly of us, see how we vote.
Edited to correct university
People who say things like that fail to understand that a big part of Trump’s appeal was sticking it to people who say things like that.I think they understand, but just can't help themselves. If they were able to moderate themselves, they wouldn't be liberals.
I thought the republican mantra was that we live in a land of opportunity and if you fail it's your own fault for being lazy or not taking advantage of opportunity when it arises. Does that only apply to people in large urban areas? By that metric it seems like trump supporters have no one to blame but themselves for their disappointment in how their life turned out.
ApatheticNoMore
6-30-19, 10:37am
The truth is while there may be independents that can be won over (as these fall all over the map politically), most of the Republican vote can't be won from Trump. He has over 90% approval with Republicans, and this is now despite all. He only has a 40 something approval rating overall, yea well that about lines up.
So people that can be won in flyover states? Sure. But people that can be won over among registered Republicans, well good luck with that.
But people that can be won over among registered Republicans, well good luck with that.
But it's nice of them to offer their concern and advice for what we should be doing to win the election.
Teacher Terry
6-30-19, 11:06am
I looked it up and the east Coast is the most educated and the south the least. Education in Wisconsin has always been excellent and it’s still good.
But it's nice of them to offer their concern and advice for what we should be doing to win the election.
What we should be doing is organizing a turnout too massive to be quashed by voter suppression, voting machine hacking, and whatever dirty tricks the Russian/Republican consortium has up their sleeves. And we should remember that timidity and appeasement are the mechanisms of cowardice.
What we should be doing is organizing a turnout too massive to be quashed by voter suppression, voting machine hacking, and whatever dirty tricks the Russian/Republican consortium has up their sleeves. And we should remember that timidity and appeasement are the mechanisms of cowardice.Just remember that if your side loses, it won't be because of any of those excuses, it will be because the new Democratic platform is too extreme for the majority and the vocal Democratic minority cannot mask their disdain for them.
We warn you as a public service and for 'I told you so' rights after you fail to listen.
What we should be doing is organizing a turnout too massive to be quashed by voter suppression, voting machine hacking, and whatever dirty tricks the Russian/Republican consortium has up their sleeves. And we should remember that timidity and appeasement are the mechanisms of cowardice.
Just remember that if your side loses, it won't be because of any of those excuses, it will be because the new Democratic platform is too extreme for the majority and the vocal Democratic minority cannot mask their disdain for them.
We warn you as a public service and for 'I told you so' rights after you fail to listen.
It's not necessarily an either/or. It could very well be both. But if the 2018 midterms are any guide, I don't think the new democratic platform is too extreme. Going back to a Nixon-lite platform is not a winning strategy for the democrats.
iris lilies
6-30-19, 11:39am
I looked it up and the east Coast is the most educated and the south the least. Education in Wisconsin has always been excellent and it’s still good.
When DH and I were growing up, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were always at the top of education measures. I think they were using test scores for that measure. ? but l
also graduation rates. .?
Now, Iowa has plunged down in ranks and I do not know why. Probly the ‘wascally wePublicans although when we were growing up we had a string of Republican governors. So who knows.
I believe FDR was demonstrably the most popular American president--if electability is any indication--and he was no shrinking violet. His "I welcome their hatred" speech is considered a masterpiece. Like jp1, I'm completely over Republicans masquerading as Democrats. I yearn for FDR 2020.
When DH and I were growing up, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were always at the top of education measures. I think they were using test scores for that measure. (.) but lso percapita graduation rates. .?
Now, Iowa has plunged down in ranks and I do not know why. Probly the ‘wascally wePublicans although when we were growing up we had a string of Republican governors. So who knows.
That was before Republicans realized that an ignorant electorate confers a tremendous advantage. We used to have Republicans with a modicum of character and principles, aside from naked greed. I used to vote for them.
When DH and I were growing up, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota were always at the top of education measures. I think they were using test scores for that measure. ? but l
also graduation rates. .?
Now, Iowa has plunged down in ranks and I do not know why. Probly the ‘wascally wePublicans although when we were growing up we had a string of Republican governors. So who knows.
I think sometimes education is confused with enlightenment. Is the Oberlin mob a model for us to aspire to?
iris lilies
6-30-19, 12:27pm
That was before Republicans realized that an ignorant electorate confers a tremendous advantage. We used to have Republicans with a modicum of character and principles, aside from naked greed. I used to vote for them.
Yes,
I used to vote the Democratic ticket. Guess we made an even swap, no advantage for the opposing team.
catherine
6-30-19, 12:34pm
Yes,
I used to vote the Democratic ticket. Guess we made an even swap, no advantage for the opposing team.
Just like DH and I.
I think we need a third party or a reinvention of one of the two parties. They are both becoming caricatures of themselves.
We saw the reinvention of the republicans finally reach full fruition a few years ago. Thankfully it seems to be pushing democrats to stop pretending to be just like republicans.
ApatheticNoMore
6-30-19, 12:46pm
I think sometimes education is confused with enlightenment.
it's probably less important than sources of information. Bear in mind I think they are ALL filter bubbles to a degree, just some are more accurate than others etc.
frugal-one
6-30-19, 3:10pm
Keep in mind that many Trump supporters and onTheFencers see the drama as being created by the non-Trump camp. mainstream media is viewed with great skepticism and derision.
They had a big hand in electing Trump last time. I really wish they would learn. Really. Just dial it back.
Drama in many forms by Trump... every day HE does something. Every day I comment I wish he were gone. I am very happy I am no longer working because of all the safety regs and OT and wage laws he has deregulated, laws in favor of big business but detrimental to the rest of society. Truthfully the list is endless. Not to mention the type of person he is.... Totally a disgrace to the US.
Also, the only reason Trump was elected was because of the electoral college.
frugal-one
6-30-19, 3:14pm
That was before Republicans realized that an ignorant electorate confers a tremendous advantage. We used to have Republicans with a modicum of character and principles, aside from naked greed. I used to vote for them.
+1
frugal-one
6-30-19, 3:16pm
Yes,
I used to vote the Democratic ticket. Guess we made an even swap, no advantage for the opposing team.
You need to keep informed. By your own admission you are not. So, you really have no clue.
Also, the only reason Trump was elected was because of the electoral college.Using the same process and criteria as every other elected President since 1804.
frugal-one
6-30-19, 3:19pm
Yes, a travesty!
iris lilies
6-30-19, 3:23pm
You need to keep informed. By your own admission you are not. So, you really have no clue.
You are right that I don’t read the ?st Louis newspaper and don’t watch TV news. I do have the radio on a lot during the day so I get a fair amount of national and local news from that. Even though I don’t seek it out somehow it all seeps in as to the new story of the day which I’m not espevially interested in as well as the local news stories in which I have more interest.
You need to keep informed. By your own admission you are not. So, you really have no clue.
I believe there's several chapters in a Dale Carnegie book (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003WEAI4E/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)relating to this.
iris lilies
6-30-19, 3:24pm
You need to keep informed. By your own admission you are not. So, you really have no clue.
Define “keep informed. “
frugal-one
6-30-19, 3:48pm
I believe there's several chapters in a Dale Carnegie book (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003WEAI4E/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)relating to this.
Not relevant.
Using the same process and criteria as every other elected President since 1804.
Since the purpose of the electoral college was rendered irrelevant by the civil war the union should have included abolishment of it as part of reconstruction.
frugal-one
6-30-19, 4:54pm
Define “keep informed. “
Search forum... discussed previously.
Since the purpose of the electoral college was rendered irrelevant by the civil war the union should have included abolishment of it as part of reconstruction.And then we could let Congress elect our President.
Or we could actually follow the will of the people. Clearly this ‘thwarting the will of the people’ method we currently use didnt prevent us from selecting a lying cheater who loves russia more than the US so we might as well use popular vote.
Or we could actually follow the will of the people.You'd still be following the will of the people through their selection of Congress Critters. The Electoral College provides one vote per elected Congressional Representative now, it's just that the states have a little leeway in whether they are directly apportioned or winner takes all, etc.
I've heard some folks say that if we abolished the Electoral College and elected our President by popular vote, candidates would be forced to campaign in every locality, but I don't see that happening. Why would a Democrat campaign in California? Would you guys vote Republican otherwise?
Teacher Terry
6-30-19, 6:59pm
I am definitely for letting the popular vote decide. Republicans don’t want it because they have won elections they really lost.
rosarugosa
6-30-19, 7:09pm
I have a question for the Republicans on the Forum. ( I am an Independent, or "Unenrolled" as they now call us in MA, but I definitely lean Democrat these days). I don't think we necessarily have many strong Trump supporters here, although I could be wrong. In the next election, are you hoping for a Trump victory, or for a Democrat who is not an extreme liberal? I'm genuinely curious.
In real life, I have Republican friends who are strongly pro-Trump, and others who like him about as much as most Democrats do.
In the next election, are you hoping for a Trump victory, or for a Democrat who is not an extreme liberal? I'm genuinely curious.
I'm not a fan of our current President, but I'm also not a fan of the race/sex/gender/class divisive/populist governance priorities of the Democrats. I could easily pull the protest lever for a Joe Lieberman or John Glenn style Democrat but they've been effectively banned from the party. You guys can't provide an alternative for a principled Republican, so what choice do we have?
Teacher Terry
6-30-19, 7:41pm
Good excuse Alan to vote for trump.
I noticed that former Republican now Libertarian Ron Paul has endorsed Tulsi Gabbard. So some principled Republicans may like her.
Good excuse Alan to vote for trump.I think it's a bad excuse but you guys don't provide much of an alternative and I don't see any attempt to provide one prior to the next election.
I noticed that former Republican now Libertarian Ron Paul has endorsed Tulsi Gabbard. So some principled Republicans may like her.
National Review has had some positive things to say about her. I might consider her or one or two of the others as an alternative to Trump. None of them seem likely to win through at this point.
If I hold my nose and vote for Trump, it will be because I think the Democrat presents such a great threat to our future that I’m not comfortable casting a third party protest vote.
I've heard some folks say that if we abolished the Electoral College and elected our President by popular vote, candidates would be forced to campaign in every locality, but I don't see that happening. Why would a Democrat campaign in California? Would you guys vote Republican otherwise?
Actually i’d expect the republican presidential candidate to campaign in california and the democrat to campaign in texas. There are surely plenty of republican voters in CA who currently stay home in november, and vice versa in states like texas.
Teacher Terry
6-30-19, 8:27pm
If I was in your position I would leave it blank. But that’s my husband’s excuse for voting for him to. My husband would have voted for Bernie but not Hillary. Makes no sense to me.
I think it's a bad excuse but you guys don't provide much of an alternative and I don't see any attempt to provide one prior to the next election.
I will likely continue to have to vote for some 3rd-party candidate.
iris lilies
6-30-19, 9:06pm
I will likely continue to have to vote for some 3rd-party candidate.
Probably me too, but if Trump can keep the stock market propped up that would be the only reason I would vote for him.
Probably me too, but if Trump can keep the stock market propped up that would be the only reason I would vote for him.
The U.S. economy has historically done better under Democrats: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/#9f935fb67868
Probably me too, but if Trump can keep the stock market propped up that would be the only reason I would vote for him.
I can't stomach voting for evil and ineptitude just for potential economic gain.
iris lilies
7-1-19, 11:48am
I can't stomach voting for evil and ineptitude just for potential economic gain.
Sure. But strong economics benefit a lots of people, not just me.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.