I am picking up this thread where the last one left off, rather than post back there.
I'm not at all sure how I feel about Elizabeth Warren. I like a lot of what she says, but she also feels inextricably tied to the DNC. As for Bernie's people sending out for donations and all that, I imagine that's his form of an exploratory committee.
"I still love Bernie, but I think the DNC has already set up to sabotage him if he runs again." I agree that the DNC would do that very thing. And it makes me want him to run all the more, and for all of us to trounce that party entity this time. Grrrrr. I'm still so angry they didn't give Bernie the time of day last time. For crying out loud, even Ronald Reagan was decent enough to invite his opponent George H.W. Bush to be his VP. Had Hillary invited Bernie to be VP there would have been a landslide. But she and the DNC had their egos in the clouds so far that their ears could not hear the people. And even were we heard, they didn't care a wit what we thought. As near as I can tell, they still don't.
What if a third party ran and swept the election away from either of the two usual parties? Now that would be poetic justice.
The DNC already announced that they will only allow DEMOCRATS to run,and if that's not a shot across the bow to Bernie I don't know what is. Personally I think he should go ahead and run as the proud Independent he has always been and I think his crew should get busy because in many state a write-in vote will *not be counted* unless the candidate has filed in some manner. I know that's the case in Ohio, so if he's seriously going to run he needs to pave the way to allow write-in votes in all states. My youngest son, who has *never* been interested in politics is saying - every time the subject of the election comes up - "If a person you hate is running against trump what do you do? You VOTE FOR THEM." The trouble is I think that the Democrats will count on our hatred of trump to shove another corporate Democrat down our throats. Tom Perez was a corporate pick and he's done a lousy job at DNC. Because they betrayed us so the last time they can't raise the money they need. Well, boo hoo, you shouldn't have cheated.
The DNC has nothing to say about who runs. Anybody who files the necessary paperwork will be on the primary ballot.
In Illinois, of course, there is no way to tell who is a Democrat to begin with. In fact, I vaguely seem to recall an instance where the same person running in both primaries was seriously bruited.
The DNC has a lot of clout with mainline Dems. They did a lot of crap last time to thwart Bernie when they really should have embraced him. He nonetheless campaigned for HRC at the end of the campaign. I still don't know how he could bear to do that (they soooooo didn't deserve it!!), but he knew DT was the only other possible option. He was concerned that if he ran third party he would split the vote. Instead, the DNC deciding early on that it was HRC's "turn" meant that in reality it was the DNC who split the vote, by refusing to allow any other serious candidate to be considered. They didn't listen to the People back then and they still are not.
We need five or six parties or, better, none at all. Let the candidates stand on their own merit. What a concept.
Head in the clouds is not the way I would put it. Head up HRC's arss, more like.
As usual the Left is not merely fragmented, it is pulverized. Would Win without War support the same candidate as Common Defense as DFA as Left Action as the Poor People's Campaign as Catholic Climate Covenant as Code Pink as US Labor against the war as the aCLU as...? I list just some of the organizations I belong/give money to and/or get regular e-mail from. There's overlap, but each organization has its own narrow focus. Can any one candidate satisfy them all? What about Common Cause? What about Every Town for Gun Safety? What about disability rights organizations like NFB and AAPD? And surely any successful candidate would need the imprimatur of AARP. I doubt the archangel Michael could get all these groups to agree long enough to get him elected.
There's still a great deal of hatred towards Bernie among Clintonistas. The DNC and its organs, like MSNBC, would launch a revamped and probably twice as poisonous version of their 2016 smear campaign against him. So much as I love him, I myself do not think a 2020 campaign would be advisable.
So, what's left? Somehow for someone to run a strong enough campaign to make the DNC irrelevant? Maybe I'm lacking in imagination, but that doesn't seem likely.
listener--I think the institutional Democratic Party IS changing before our eyes; but the many remaining New Democrats just don't know how to be anything else. This is going to take more than a single election cycle, but we are on the way. I don't see Warren [EAW?] as particularly wedded to the DNC; I figure she remained neutral in the race between HRC and Bernie, then supported the nominee; that is honorable. Maybe there were other things going on that I didn't notice.
I killed the previous thread with comment on Sherrod Brown. Condensed opinion: not Pres on basis of foreign policy, but a good choice for VP. IMO.
NYT: Biden’s campaign preparations [?] [Click] I don’t like the sound of it. And think he has been in high elective office for too long to be a viable presidential candidate.
I truly do like Joe Biden as a person, BUT. He tends to blurt out stuff without thinking. And, to be honest, I still haven't forgiven him for his treatment of Anital Hill and for putting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. Yes, I hold grudges.
Hallo Friends!
ReplyDeleteI am picking up this thread where the last one left off, rather than post back there.
I'm not at all sure how I feel about Elizabeth Warren. I like a lot of what she says, but she also feels inextricably tied to the DNC. As for Bernie's people sending out for donations and all that, I imagine that's his form of an exploratory committee.
"I still love Bernie, but I think the DNC has already set up to sabotage him if he runs again."
I agree that the DNC would do that very thing. And it makes me want him to run all the more, and for all of us to trounce that party entity this time. Grrrrr. I'm still so angry they didn't give Bernie the time of day last time. For crying out loud, even Ronald Reagan was decent enough to invite his opponent George H.W. Bush to be his VP. Had Hillary invited Bernie to be VP there would have been a landslide. But she and the DNC had their egos in the clouds so far that their ears could not hear the people. And even were we heard, they didn't care a wit what we thought. As near as I can tell, they still don't.
What if a third party ran and swept the election away from either of the two usual parties? Now that would be poetic justice.
That said...getting this current Administration OUT and anyone decent into office would be better than continuing as we are.
DeleteThe DNC already announced that they will only allow DEMOCRATS to run,and if that's not a shot across the bow to Bernie I don't know what is. Personally I think he should go ahead and run as the proud Independent he has always been and I think his crew should get busy because in many state a write-in vote will *not be counted* unless the candidate has filed in some manner. I know that's the case in Ohio, so if he's seriously going to run he needs to pave the way to allow write-in votes in all states. My youngest son, who has *never* been interested in politics is saying - every time the subject of the election comes up - "If a person you hate is running against trump what do you do? You VOTE FOR THEM." The trouble is I think that the Democrats will count on our hatred of trump to shove another corporate Democrat down our throats. Tom Perez was a corporate pick and he's done a lousy job at DNC. Because they betrayed us so the last time they can't raise the money they need. Well, boo hoo, you shouldn't have cheated.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe DNC has nothing to say about who runs. Anybody who files the necessary paperwork will be on the primary ballot.
DeleteIn Illinois, of course, there is no way to tell who is a Democrat to begin with. In fact, I vaguely seem to recall an instance where the same person running in both primaries was seriously bruited.
The DNC has a lot of clout with mainline Dems. They did a lot of crap last time to thwart Bernie when they really should have embraced him. He nonetheless campaigned for HRC at the end of the campaign. I still don't know how he could bear to do that (they soooooo didn't deserve it!!), but he knew DT was the only other possible option. He was concerned that if he ran third party he would split the vote. Instead, the DNC deciding early on that it was HRC's "turn" meant that in reality it was the DNC who split the vote, by refusing to allow any other serious candidate to be considered. They didn't listen to the People back then and they still are not.
DeleteWe need five or six parties or, better, none at all. Let the candidates stand on their own merit. What a concept.
Head in the clouds is not the way I would put it. Head up HRC's arss, more like.
DeleteAs usual the Left is not merely fragmented, it is pulverized. Would Win without War support the same candidate as Common Defense as DFA as Left Action as the Poor People's Campaign as Catholic Climate Covenant as Code Pink as US Labor against the war as the aCLU as...? I list just some of the organizations I belong/give money to and/or get regular e-mail from. There's overlap, but each organization has its own narrow focus. Can any one candidate satisfy them all? What about Common Cause? What about Every Town for Gun Safety? What about disability rights organizations like NFB and AAPD? And surely any successful candidate would need the imprimatur of AARP. I doubt the archangel Michael could get all these groups to agree long enough to get him elected.
There's still a great deal of hatred towards Bernie among Clintonistas. The DNC and its organs, like MSNBC, would launch a revamped and probably twice as poisonous version of their 2016 smear campaign against him. So much as I love him, I myself do not think a 2020 campaign would be advisable.
So, what's left? Somehow for someone to run a strong enough campaign to make the DNC irrelevant? Maybe I'm lacking in imagination, but that doesn't seem likely.
Some in Congress are donating their salaries during the Shutdown. As they ought.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnn.com/2019/01/01/politics/elizabeth-warren-congress-donate-salary-shutdown/index.html
That's good! I don't see any mention in the article of Republicans doing it...
DeleteWhat? God fearing, mother, baseball and apple pie loving Republicans doing something patriotic, not to say compassionate? Surely you jest!
Deletelistener--I think the institutional Democratic Party IS changing before our eyes; but the many remaining New Democrats just don't know how to be anything else. This is going to take more than a single election cycle, but we are on the way. I don't see Warren [EAW?] as particularly wedded to the DNC; I figure she remained neutral in the race between HRC and Bernie, then supported the nominee; that is honorable. Maybe there were other things going on that I didn't notice.
ReplyDeleteI killed the previous thread with comment on Sherrod Brown. Condensed opinion: not Pres on basis of foreign policy, but a good choice for VP. IMO.
Sherrod Brown Foreign Policy [Click]
DeleteNYT: Biden’s campaign preparations [?] [Click] I don’t like the sound of it. And think he has been in high elective office for too long to be a viable presidential candidate.
ReplyDeleteTrump Suddenly Got Bad at Twitter [Click] “This Trump sounds more like a kid trying to talk his way out of detention.”
I truly do like Joe Biden as a person, BUT. He tends to blurt out stuff without thinking. And, to be honest, I still haven't forgiven him for his treatment of Anital Hill and for putting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. Yes, I hold grudges.
DeleteYou're not the only one with a long memory, Susan.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the two-senators-per-state rule isn’t as permanent as it seems. [Click] Interesting question of constitutional law.
ReplyDeleteHere’s a column from the popular press telling us What the Press Won’t Tell [Us] About Elizabeth Warren’s Presidency. [Click] Which has seemed abundantly clear to me.
Across America, racist and sexist monuments give way to a new future [Click]
'The drought is over': mass US copyright expiry brings flood of works into public domain [Click]
Warren fundraising off 'sexism' in tweet calling her unlikeable - Click
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should compare the male hopefuls to Trump. After all, they're all male. :P
Our first past the post electoral system implies a two-party system, it seems.
ReplyDeleteoops...
ReplyDeleteTeam Sanders Forced To Face Sexism Within Ranks As Women Come Forward [Click]
Bernie Sanders says he was not aware of sexism problems in 2016 campaign [Click]
DeleteHave you guys seen today's photo of Ultima Thule? They're calling it a snowman.
ReplyDeleteNasa's New Horizons: 'Snowman' shape of distant Ultima Thule revealed - Click
Chrystal clear photos from four billion miles away. If that isn't a testament to Man's intelligence, imagination and know-how, I donno what is!
Listener, I love the title of the thread.
ReplyDelete