Geoff > Status Update

I read somewhere today the suggestion that, if you allow a person to amass $50 or $60 billion, a democracy lasts only as long as that person is too cheap or too uninterested in power to end it. I hope that's wrong.

I am #NeverBloomberg.

Just out of curiosity, why didn't Sanders run as an Independent?

I don't know maybe originally he felt it would be harder to further his career as a party insider in the beginning. He always pretty much voted with the Democrats and he was almost always to the left of the Dems.

On efforts to get a more centrist candidate:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...

There's always this idea that Sanders is about to face a fresh hell of bad press... and then another story drops and it's just another dumb article about how some of his supporters have been mean to various doofuses online, or else something that's long been public record about how he opposed US atrocities in the '70s and '80s.

It seems like they've got nothing.

Antonomasia wrote: "On efforts to get a more centrist candidate:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2..."

We're going to be seeing a new article like this just about every day from this point on.

Taibbi wrote an article this week about how Sanders's path to the nomination resembles Trump's four years ago:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics...

The upshot is that if most of the ostensibly moderate Republicans had dropped out, leaving just one challenger to Trump, they might have been able to keep him from getting the nomination. But Kasich, Cruz, Rubio and maybe someone else I'm forgetting hung in for the long haul, and kept splitting the mainstream Republican vote. Hopefully it breaks the same way for Bernie this year. That's why I'm glad there's this surge of belief in Klobuchar, who in reality doesn't have a prayer, and why I kind of hope Biden gets 2nd in Nevada and SC.

There hasn't been much polling in Nevada apparently, but a new poll did come out yesterday. Bernie is up on Biden 25% to 18%, with Warren in third at 13%:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02...

The Mayor of San Francisco endorsed this piece of shit... every official who's been bribed into supporting him should be permanently banned from public life.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphi...

David wrote: "The Mayor of San Francisco endorsed this piece of shit... every official who's been bribed into supporting him should be permanently banned from public life.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph..."

It's despicable that our system allows this guy to essentially bribe officials for endorsements and support; and despicable that people like your mayor allow themselves to be bought.

On the bright side, I've seen some pushback against Bloomberg's candidacy in the past few days, even on the mainstream news (Jake Tapper)- lots of discussion of stop-and-frisk, and his history of racist and sexist comments. If the Democrats' bitching over the last four years about what an uncouth character Trump is has really meant anything, hopefully enough Democratic voters will see past the 'D' next to his name and feel similarly disgusted by Bloomberg.

De Blasio endorsed Bernie.

Speaking of mayors, the mayor of DC was one of the earliest to endorse Bloomberg. Couldn't help my flash of disgust at the naked ambition (wannabe VP Bowser, eh?) and lack of restraint over the fawning. I feel suspicious of politicians who declare their support so early and so enthusiastically for Bloomberg. There's a word for that...

If the Democrats' bitching over the last four years about what an uncouth character Trump is has really meant anything, hopefully enough Democratic voters will see past the 'D' next to his name and feel similarly disgusted by Bloomberg.

I don't think the issue for DEM voters is a lack of disgust for Bloomberg. But what we do with that disgust relative to the disgust for Trump is the dilemma. If we think Trump is evil now - empowered in post impeachment acquittal, slinging revenge left and right, up and down, strong-arming the rule of law and so forth... And all that is the in face of an upcoming election, which he still needs to win and play to supporter sentiments.

Imagine further, Trump in a 2nd term with nothing, no one, no supporter, no rule of law to be accountable to. Then imagine Trump propping up one of his children - President Ivanka anyone? - as his successor. This could go on and on beyond 2020, 2024.

It's a very difficult dilemma, and all the strong feelings up thread are understandable. It's great that mainstream media is constantly talking about Bloomberg's records. Whatever decision people make, hopefully it'll be an informed one, and with conscience.

Alfred wrote: "Speaking of mayors, the mayor of DC was one of the earliest to endorse Bloomberg. Couldn't help my flash of disgust at the naked ambition (wannabe VP Bowser, eh?) and lack of restraint over the faw..."

Best way to avoid the dilemma of Bloomberg vs Trump... unite behind the clear frontrunner Bernard Sanders!

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/red...

Feels very much like the situation we had in the UK when Corbyn became leader of the opposition and look how well that went?
The media will portray Sanders as some sort of left wing loony and frighten voters either into not voting or sticking with what they know. Gawd help us.

By the way I very much hope I'm completely wrong about this

This is reapeating a discussion from several pages ago but there are differences:
- the Labour antisemitism problem had been building for a couple of years and put off some people who were otherwise very well disposed towards Corbynism; there isn't anything similarly long-term that might put similar people off Bernie (though I am sure opponents have dug for it)
- there isn't an equivalent of needing to get Brexit done.

Which doesn't mean to say he would definitely win, or that there isn't going to be a 'red scare' element to the Republicans campaign. But there aren't these two big issues that were negatives for Labour under Corbyn.

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with the discussion. I'll now shut up and keep my fingers crossed for November

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to tick you off in any way. There are loads of posts in a short time, and a lot of people haven't got time to keep up with everything.

I wanted to mention that I was repeating earlier points because the most regular readers and posters just heard them last week.

Paul wrote: "Feels very much like the situation we had in the UK when Corbyn became leader of the opposition and look how well that went?
The media will portray Sanders as some sort of left wing loony and frigh..."

Bloomberg would almost certainly to lose to Trump. Sanders definitely has a chance but only if American centrists and liberals learn a lesson from our British brethren: If you throw a tantrum because the people choose a candidate who’s too left-wing for your tastes, it’s going to spell doom.

I have a feeling that if Bernie gets the nomination, we're going to be hearing the name Corbyn a lot. Not to mention McGovern, and some goofball at the NYT even brought up William Jennings Bryan as an example of why Sanders can't win.

It's easy to come up with counter-examples, though. I could say that in the last election we nominated a centrist, corporate Democrat to go up against Trump, and she lost. But that alone wouldn't be an argument for Sanders, just as Corbyn/McGovern/etc. isn't an argument against him.

Of course the Republicans and the media to a large extent will try to paint a distorted picture of Bernie. Chris Matthews will keep saying that he's afraid of being executed in Central Park. But Bernie's very good, assuming people will listen, at explaining just what he means by democratic socialism, and at pointing out that we have many socialized programs in our country already, that are extremely popular.

And just imagine how Trump will attack Michael Bloomberg. Remember how Trump attacked Jeb Bush from the left, tying him to his brother's invasion of Iraq? Remember how effective that was, even among Republicans, never mind Democrats? Bloomberg campaigned for W. and supported the Iraq war.

Bloomberg has supported cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Trump will quote Bloomberg nonstop and paint himself as the champion of the common people.

In a general election, Trump will talk about stop-and-frisk nonstop. He'll constantly call Bloomberg a racist...and he'll be right. Not just a racist, but someone who very competently enacted racist policies. Will it be hypocritical on Trump's part? Of course. But that won't hurt him with his base at all. Bloomberg on the other hand will fail to bring out a whole bunch of people, including me, who will have a hard time differentiating one racist asshole New York plutocrat from another, despite the fact that one has a D next to his name and the other has an R.

Warren genuinely disgusts me at this point. Bernie "has a lot of questions to answer here", she says, referring to the online "Bernie Bros" narrative: "that's not how we build an inclusive Dem party and not how we beat Trump. We do not build on a foundation of hate."

...This despite the fact that Bernie constantly calls for civility, that he sets that example himself, and that he never sinks to the petty personal attacks that candidates like Warren herself have been making against him.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with Elizabeth Warren? Doesn't she realize that to whatever degree she manages to damage Bernie at this point, she's helping Michael Bloomberg? Is that what she wants?

Mike wrote: "online "Bernie Bros" narrative"

You know, it struck me recently that, however absurd, this is probably true. Bernie supporters probably ARE passionate to the point of being abusive online. But I think that's because people drawn to Bernard (as friend David M, styles him), are those who appropriately grasp the severity of our crisis. If you aren't angry, especially at the centerist HACKS who have led our society tenderly by the hand to the brink of collapse, then you aren't paying close enough attention.

HOLY FUCK!!! This thread is still going on? You damned idealists, God bless each and every one of you.

ATJG wrote: "Mike wrote: "online "Bernie Bros" narrative"

You know, it struck me recently that, however absurd, this is probably true. Bernie supporters probably ARE passionate to the point of being abusive on..."

Stakes are high for civilization as we know it, and it's reasonable to be passionate/angry about that, no question. I think we've all got to try to channel that urgency in the most productive way possible, and yelling at other people rarely persuades them.

I do think it's truly grotesque and craven however for Warren to talk about an infallibly civil candidate (and ostensibly her ideological ally) as building from a "foundation of hate." Especially when she could and should be directing her ire at the right-wing plutocrat who's suddenly #2 nationally.

Cody wrote: "HOLY FUCK!!! This thread is still going on? You damned idealists, God bless each and every one of you."

Cody, you're back!

Okay, I admit I actually don't remember you. But welcome back anyway.

Mike wrote: "Cody wrote: "HOLY FUCK!!! This thread is still going on? You damned idealists, God bless each and every one of you."

Cody, you're back!

Okay, I admit I actually don't remember you. But welcome ba..."
this thread need emoticons

Hahaha. See? Good eggs all. You know when you thought you were alone? It was when I carried you.

Mike and Peter:

Thanks, guys. (EMOTICONOGRAPHY)

Mike wrote: "Warren genuinely disgusts me at this point. Bernie "has a lot of questions to answer here", she says, referring to the online "Bernie Bros" narrative: "that's not how we build an inclusive Dem part..."

Kind of amazed at how low Warren has stooped. So much for a progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It’s literally just Bernard and maybe half a dozen members of the House of Representatives - oh, and the vast multitude of rank and file supporters, but of course they don’t matter; they can safely be dismissed as “Bernie Bros” or whatever...

My Yemeni friends are among the fiercest Bernie Bros I know. The whole narrative is racist and sexist and smacks of elite entitlement.

David wrote: "Mike wrote: "Warren genuinely disgusts me at this point. Bernie "has a lot of questions to answer here", she says, referring to the online "Bernie Bros" narrative: "that's not how we build an inclu..."

I'm surprised, too. Maybe I was naive, but she was my clear second choice when the primary began. Now I find her behavior very disturbing.

But ultimately I think the reason we're seeing these kinds of attacks is that when it comes to substance, there's not a whole lot they can hit Bernie on.

Warren showed poor judgment of deferring to her advisors. She isn't going to win but it is good to keep in mind that she is still one of the better Dems.

Peter (Pete) wrote: "Warren showed poor judgment of deferring to her advisors. She isn't going to win but it is good to keep in mind that she is still one of the better Dems."

That's true. And I must say I approve of this tweet:

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/12...

If she teams up with Bernie to eviscerate Bloomberg tomorrow night, I'll be grateful. But I don't know that I'm going to hold my breath.

At its simplest terms, the deployment of the "Bernie Bro" moniker is white privilege writ large; it's an erasure of the people of color and women who support Bernie. This is the case regardless of how well he polls across these groups.

Further, I don't know why anyone would think attacking a candidate's supporters would ever be a great way of "building unity." It worked great for HRC in '16 and the "deplorables," didn't it?

Personally, I'm a Bernard Breaux.

Mike wrote: "But ultimately I think the reason we're seeing these kinds of attacks is that when it comes to substance, there's not a whole lot they can hit Bernie on."

Actually, of all the kinds of criticism to level at Sanders, this is probably the best kind because it can be easily addressed ** and moved on. There'll always be bad behavior at the fringes of support. Trump has them, Sanders has them. Unlike Trump, Sanders isn't inciting supporters to be nasty and dangerous, and potential voters know the difference. Sanders may be grumpy, but he's civil.

Heckling at a Biden event with a casket in tow and having a mock memorial of Biden's campaign? Vicious, violent online comments? Even AOC is going round the circuit to help distance Sanders from supporters' bad behaviors. Sanders himself can more strongly disavow the behaviors. If Sanders becomes the DEM nominee, you would want people (who are currently non-Sanders supporter) to vote for Sanders being assured that he won't let this kind of behavior get further out control.


(** EDIT: unlike Sanders' policies, for e.g. healthcare/Medicare-for-all)

---------

On a side note about the debate tonight, I look forward to seeing Bloomberg get grilled on the hot seat.

Sanders is not actually a divisive candidate, and I hope he never apologizes for his supporters ever again:

"Strange as it sounds, Sanders may be the least polarizing candidate in the presidential field, at least according to surveys of ordinary Democrats. A Monmouth University poll last week found not only that Sanders’s favorability rating among Democrats nationally—71 percent—was higher than his five top rivals’, but also that his unfavorability rating—19 percent—was tied for second lowest. Sanders’s net favorability rating was six points higher than Elizabeth Warren’s, 16 points higher than Joe Biden’s, 18 points higher than Pete Buttigieg’s, 23 points higher than Amy Klobuchar’s, and a whopping 40 points higher than that of Michael Bloomberg, whom more than a third of Democratic voters viewed unfavorably."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...

David wrote: "Sanders is not actually a divisive candidate, and I hope he never apologizes for his supporters ever again:

"Strange as it sounds, Sanders may be the least polarizing candidate in the presidential..."

I knew he had the highest favorability rating, but the actual numbers are still pretty stunning. Heartening to see Bloomberg all the way at the bottom.

It’s still baffling to me why Corbin was so disliked (was it just that he was so principled about imperialism, whereas Sanders tends to hedge from time to time?); whatever the reason this is a different country and Sanders is a different candidate.

I'm having a little wine and may be less coherent than usual for the next couple of hours. Bloomberg has appeared on the TV screen, in all his glory. I'd just like to say- let's go candidates, eviscerate this diminutive billionaire.

Bloomberg better hope that no one is watching the debates tonight.

I've got to say, Warren is killing it.

Yes she is doing a good job

David wrote: "Sanders is not actually a divisive candidate, and I hope he never apologizes for his supporters ever again:

"Strange as it sounds, Sanders may be the least polarizing candidate in the presidential..."

Pete kept repeating last night that Bernie is a polarizing figure. Too bad the moderators chose not to bring up these numbers.

Warren was on fire. But is it enough? I liked how she stood up for Klobuchar about forgetting names.
Bloomberg got his ass whooped. Only time he got animated was on climate. I think he actually rolled his eyes when Warren cornered him about the NDA.

Respectfully, on favorability ratings, the % figures in the Atlantic article is just a snapshot for the month. You could say he's held steady over time, which would be true, because he's obviously got a solid unwavering core of supporters.

Sanders supporters should be glad the debate moderators didn't bring up these numbers. Because the actual Monmouth polls where the % were derived from, showed very little upward change for Sanders on a 12-month rolling trend from Jan 2019 to Jan 2020 (page 7). Sander's favorability only went up 4%, but in comparison, Warren's up by 10%, Buttigieg up by 47%, Klobuchar up by 26%. Biden down 16%.

And, yeah, while the Atlantic article is correct that Sanders has the 2nd lowest unfavorability rating at 19%, it didn't mentioned that both Warren and Buttigieg were also at 19%, with Klobuchar at 18%.

----------------------------
Source: https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-inst...

2020 CANDIDATE OPINION AMONG DEMOCRATIC VOTERS
Net favorability rating (page 3):

Feb ’20 Jan ’20 Dec ’19 Nov ’19 Sep ’19 Aug ’19 May ’19 Apr ’19 Mar ’19 Jan ’19

Bernie Sanders +53 +48 +53 +47 +56 +40 +44 +44 +53 +49
Elizabeth Warren +48 +46 +61 +70 +66 +52 +46 +32 +30 +40
Joe Biden +38 +52 +56 +57 +52 +41 +57 +56 +63 +71
Pete Buttigieg +36 +27 +35 +33 +41 +29 +24 +29 n/a +2
Amy Klobuchar +31 +32 n/a n/a n/a +9 +22 +14 +13 +15
Mike Bloomberg +14 +17 +1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a +1 +10

---------------------

Sorry if I come across as a downer, I'm really just trying to rationalize to myself why I'm casting that vote for Sanders when he becomes the nominee, which he most probably would be. A vote isn't just for myself but for all the people I care about, along with 150 million Americans, who would probably lose, or have to significantly change, their current healthcare coverage, medical providers, treatment plans etc under Sanders' Medicare for all/single-payer. Which, I might add, was rolled out in his home state Vermont, but was not successful.

The final question last night felt rather ominous. When asked if there were not a candidate at the convention with a sufficient number of delegates to win the nomination outright, five out of six of the politicians on stage said they would place their confidence in the party system rather than allow the candidate with the most delegates at that time to be awarded the nomination.

Read instead: when Bernie gets to the convention with the most delegates the superdelegates on the second ballot will tell us "beating Trump is too important to take a chance on Sanders, so here you go, Joe [or Mike]."

ATJG wrote: " here you go, Joe [or Mike]."

How did you put it, David? It's either Sanders or civil war?

ATJG wrote: "The final question last night felt rather ominous. When asked if there were not a candidate at the convention with a sufficient number of delegates to win the nomination outright, five out of six o..."

Yeah, pretty much a tacit admission that they all believe Bernie is going to have the most delegates. As well as an admission that a plurality is not necessarily going to be honored with the nomination. Bernie's got to win big.

Mike wrote: "a plurality is not necessarily going to be honored with the nomination"

This would be the coffin lid closing on not just the 2020 election but on the future of the Democratic party.

ATJG wrote: "Mike wrote: "a plurality is not necessarily going to be honored with the nomination"

This would be the coffin lid closing on not just the 2020 election but on the future of the Democratic party."

I just hope they are- not noble enough, but smart and self-preserving enough- to realize that, if they take it away from Bernie after he's amassed a plurality, a significant number of us are either going to vote third party or not vote at all.

...Unless of course they'd rather lose once more to Trump than see Sanders fundamentally reshape the party.

I'm taking optimism where I can find it, though. I even saw a clip this morning of Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe- not a big fan of Bernie Sanders- saying that if it's neck-and-neck going into the convention that's one thing...but if Sanders has a 100-delegate lead, for example (Plouffe's number), it'd be a hard sell to just say, "well, thanks for playing, we're giving it to someone else."

Mike wrote: "well, thanks for playing, we're giving it to someone else."

Like Fox Mulder, I want to believe.

Shocked. First that Pete Buttigieg has bowed out so soon (I thought it would be him, Bernie and Biden left till, like, May or something and all the others would go first).

And now this:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/202...