[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2019-September-10, 18:18, said:

That kind of corruption is not unique to this administration.

The difference is that public corruption was relatively rare in other administrations. In the Grifter in Chief's administration, it's easier and faster to count the people who aren't corrupt.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2019-September-10, 18:18, said:

That kind of corruption is not unique to this administration.

You probably didn't see the clause of emphasis:


The corruption in this administration is pervasive:

[y66]

From What John Bolton’s Ouster Says About Donald Trump by NYT Editorial Board:

Quote

Of the questions surrounding the defenestration of John Bolton as President Trump’s third national security adviser — Did he jump? Was he shoved? — the least interesting is the question of who will succeed him on the parapet.

It’s unlikely to matter much. Regardless of who has advised Mr. Trump on foreign affairs — generals and corporate tycoons, seasoned pros and amateurs — all have proved powerless before a zest for chaos that would have thwarted George Marshall.

Even when Mr. Trump has pursued worthy goals — trying to persuade North Korea’s dictator to give up his nuclear weapons, negotiating with the Taliban so American troops can leave Afghanistan — his mercurial, impatient, crisis-driven approach has often backfired, no matter who was advising him.

His naming of Mr. Bolton as national security adviser in March 2018 was itself an instance of Trumpian chaos. Mr. Trump wanted to pursue an end to hostilities in Korea and Afghanistan and proved wary of conflict in Iran and Venezuela. Yet he chose a proponent of belligerence who disdains diplomacy, supports allies-be-damned unilateralism and thinks bombing North Korea and Iran is the best way to neutralize their nuclear threat.

Mr. Bolton supported Mr. Trump’s worst instincts in leaving the deal that had constrained Iran’s nuclear program. Then the president balked at a planned airstrike in June to retaliate for Iran’s downing of an American drone. Mr. Trump has also expressed a willingness to meet with Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, a step that would be anathema to Mr. Bolton.

Mr. Trump has invested heavily in wooing Kim Jong-un, the autocratic North Korean leader, even stepping into North Korea with him from the Demilitarized Zone separating the two Koreas in the second of their two meetings. Meanwhile, Mr. Bolton did his best to ensure America remained inflexible in demanding North Korea’s complete denuclearization, and even skipped the Trump-Kim DMZ meeting. No matter. North Korea’s nuclear activity has continued, and it recently launched short-range missiles, even as Mr. Trump continues to praise Mr. Kim.

Mr. Bolton told Mr. Trump that by supporting a popular revolt against the Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, the president could lead that country to freedom. But Mr. Maduro remains firmly in power, and Mr. Trump has expressed little interest in doing much about that anymore.

In recent days, as talks between the administration and the Taliban over an American withdrawal from Afghanistan progressed, Mr. Bolton tried to keep Mr. Trump from agreeing to a peace deal. The president appears to have been more annoyed than swayed by Mr. Bolton, though he did scuttle a plan to meet with the militants at Camp David, for reasons that remain unclear. Mr. Trump said the talks were now “dead.”

Unlike Mr. Bolton, whose abrasive personality prevented him from developing a close relationship with the president, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Mr. Bolton’s chief adversary in the administration, has shown a talent for pleasing Mr. Trump. Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo rarely spoke to each other outside of formal meetings, a toxic situation for two leading advisers.

Yet Mr. Bolton’s departure seems unlikely to make the American national security apparatus any less dysfunctional, with many top positions vacant and allies confused about whom to deal with. Mr. Trump clearly likes things this way. The White House may be in turmoil, alliances may be trembling and adversaries may be seeking advantage, but that all just amounts to more drama, more suspense, more television coverage — all of it with Donald Trump at the center.

From Ezra Klein at Vox:

Quote

I've said it before, but the best thing about Donald Trump is that he seems instinctually skeptical of going to war. His hiring of Bolton was a strike against that. His firing of Bolton is a rare bright spot in his presidency.

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

Quote

The Democratic Party’s performance is moving in the wrong direction.

Last year, in North Carolina’s 9th congressional district, a young Marine Corps veteran and moderate Democrat named Dan McCready lost a House election by just 0.4 percentage points, 49.3 percent to 48.9 percent. It was an especially impressive performance because Donald Trump won the district by almost 12 percentage points in 2016. Ultimately, the victory by McCready’s opponent was nullified because of evidence of ballot fraud, and the district scheduled a do-over election, without the Republican whose campaign committed fraud.

That do-over was held last night, this time with McCready running against a Trump-friendly state senator named Dan Bishop. And although McCready put up another impressive performance, it was weaker than his 2018 showing. Bishop appears to have won the race by two percentage points.

The two elections are obviously not a perfect comparison. They featured different Republican nominees, and turnout was lower last night. But the comparison still fits a pattern, one I described in my column earlier this week:

Democrats aren’t having a very strong 2019.

Their attempts to investigate Trump for his many scandals have been unimpressive, disappointing their loyal voters and failing to persuade more swing voters that Trump is unfit for office. The party’s presidential candidates have also chosen to support — and in some cases emphasize — a few policies that are deeply unpopular, such as border decriminalization and the elimination of private health insurance. The candidates aren’t focusing enough on kitchen-table issues that matter most to voters, like wages and living costs.

I still consider Trump to be an underdog to win re-election next year, and McCready’s performance last night is consistent with that. His share of the vote was six percentage points higher than Hillary Clinton’s in 2016. But he achieved that strong result in part by avoiding some of the stances that are hurting the party. (He opposes “Medicare for all.”)

Beating Trump next year is vital for the well-being of the country. It’s past time for Democrats to get more serious about doing so.

For more …

North Carolina’s 9th congressional district stretches from Charlotte and its suburbs to the military-heavy city of Fayetteville. “If you had told me yesterday McCready (D) would carry Mecklenberg Co. (Bishop’s base in Charlotte burbs) by 12.6% after winning it by just 9.5% in 2018, I would’ve bet he’d win. But his poor showing among rural Trump Dems (yes, they’re a real constituency) cost Dems a pickup,” Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report wrote. “Dems underestimate how much room there still is to fall with these anti-elite voters at their own peril.”

Nate Cohn, writing in The Times: “In Republican-held congressional districts, the Democratic candidates who supported Medicare for all, for instance, fared as much as a net three points worse [last year] than those who did not, after controlling for other factors like recent presidential and congressional election results.”

On Twitter, Cohn added: “My ‘interactions’ are full of people asserting things like: there are no swing voters; the only thing that changed in 2018 is turnout, Democrats can’t and haven’t won over any Trump voters. And whatever you think of the optimal strategy for Democrats, this is all facially untrue.”

[Winstonm]

This information condensed from a chart from the US Census shows which programs lift Americans out of poverty the most.

1) Social Security
2) EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit)
3) SNAP (aka food stamps)
4) Housing subsidies

Yet these are the targets to tear down of Trump and the Republicans. Do they fear the poor or just despise them?

[y66]

From Matt Yglesias at Vox:

Quote

The professional liberal class is tired of courting swing voters. The path back to the White House, they argue, isn’t through racing to the center but racing left to mobilize and expand the Democratic base.

Tory Gavito and Sean McElwee warned in a spring GQ article that “in chasing a narrow swath of white swing voters, [Democratic Party] leadership has ignored a broader coalition of voters who have delivered blue victories time and time again.”

John Long in the New Republic, similarly, describes swing voters as “a persona from a political landscape that simply no longer exists.” Instead of chasing these mythical beasts, he says, Democrats should see that “mobilizing more Democratic voters is the key to the 2020 election.”

Elizabeth Spiers: "There Are No F##king Swing Voters"

The Hill: "Democrats can kiss swing voters bye with progressive candidates"

Absolutely nothing about this argument is new — it in fact very strongly echoes late-80s disputes between Jesse Jackson and the Democratic Leadership Council — except for the fact that party professionals are taking the mobilization side of the dispute more seriously these days. Indeed, Ron Brownstein reports there’s only “a narrow majority that favors focusing on ordinarily Republican-leaning voters repulsed by Trump.”

The truth, however, is while mobilization is unquestionably important to winning elections so is flipping swing voters. Activists who want to push Democrats to the left while still winning can do so by identifying popular progressive ideas to run on. But the notion that there’s some mobilization strategy that will eliminate the need to cater to the median voter is a fantasy.

Quote

Of course, when it comes to certain kinds of resource allocation questions — where do you run ads, whose doors do you knock on, whose social media feeds do you target — there is a zero-sum tradeoff between trying to mobilize non-voters and trying to persuade swing voters. Obviously, any prudent campaign would want to do some of both, but decisions need to be made at the margin about where to spend money.

But on the big ideological questions, there’s no mobilization loophole that will let progressives evade the problem that some progressive ideas are unpopular. Third-party voters and drop-off voters are more progressive than D-to-R swing voters, which makes them a promising constituency to target. One reason that taking popular positions is smart politics is that it works as a mobilization strategy as well as a persuasion one.

Last but by no means least: While activists often paint a portrait of bold ideological positions firing up the party base, the available evidence suggests the opposite happens — bold ideological positions fire up the opposition party base.

The way political scientists Andrew Hall and Daniel Thompson studied this was to look at the outcomes of very close primary elections.

Moderates who won narrow primaries did better in the general election than candidates who narrowly defeated moderates. Hall and Thompson also found that mobilization played a big role in driving the difference “largely because [it decreases a] party’s share of turnout in the general election, skewing the electorate towards their opponent’s party.” That’s because extreme nominees tend to do an unusually good job of motivating their opponents to come to the polls to vote.

This is roughly the opposite of how the base mobilization concept is normally framed in the press, but it makes a fair amount of sense. Most rank-and-file Republicans are pretty enthusiastic about Trump. But even those who aren’t could be motivated to vote out of fear of what Democratic Party governance is likely to entail — fear that would be dulled by nominating a boring person who takes few controversial positions. Of course, taking such positions might be a good idea anyway on the merits. Politics matters because policy matters, and a political party that never takes a righteous stand on anything is worth very much. But while centrist types can be wrong about which kinds of policy stances will be popular, there’s fairly overwhelming evidence that popular stands are better than unpopular ones — both because swing voters matter but also because taking popular positions is better from a strict mobilization standpoint.

[Winstonm]

I am coming to the opinion that Biden is the best choice for the Democratic party - perhaps Warren or Harris on the ticket but perhaps even that may be too much - but the only consideration at this time that matters is unseating Trump. And that will require winning the middle ground independents who might otherwise choose Trump as a less dangerous choice than a more radically-viewed Democratic candidate.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-11, 11:36, said:

I am coming to the opinion that Biden is the best choice for the Democratic party - perhaps Warren or Harris on the ticket but perhaps even that may be too much - but the only consideration at this time that matters is unseating Trump. And that will require winning the middle ground independents who might otherwise choose Trump as a less dangerous choice than a more radically-viewed Democratic candidate.

To rephrase: This is not where the Democratic Party is right now but we will put up this guy who does not reflect our views because we think the country would reject someone who really advocated our views.

I am not so sure that will work.

This is a challenge to the Dems: I can understand not being that fond of Biden as a candidate, but how about the views of the people that he appeals to? Is reconciliation possible? I seriously doubt that nominating a candidate that you don't like because you hope enough others will like him is a good way to go.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2019-September-11, 11:50, said:

To rephrase: This is not where the Democratic Party is right now but we will put up this guy who does not reflect our views because we think the country would reject someone who really advocated our views.

I am not so sure that will work.

From my reading on the subject, there are basically two schools of thought: 1) attract the middle-ground voters or 2) energize a whole new base of Democratic voters.

I think what got to me the most was that there still is a significant amount of "Trump Democrats" who reject (or actually fear) ideas like Medicare for all.

Quote

I am not so sure that will work.

Neither am I. But for the sake of this country we'd better find something that will work. Otherwise, we risk more of this: from NYT

Quote

WASHINGTON — The White House was directly involved in pressing a federal scientific agency to repudiate the weather forecasters who contradicted President Trump’s claim that Hurricane Dorian would probably strike Alabama, according to several people familiar with the events.

Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, told Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, to have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publicly disavow the forecasters’ position that Alabama was not at risk. NOAA, which is part of the Commerce Department, issued an unsigned statement last Friday in response, saying that the Birmingham, Ala., office was wrong to dispute the president’s warning.

This is banana republic level intervention into what should be a totally apolitical process. All Trump had to do was say, I misspoke, and it would have been done. Instead, he has to make up a ridiculous claim a la Kim Jong-un and just like North Korea all the sycophants have to bow and scrape and pretend it was so.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-11, 11:55, said:

From my reading on the subject, there are basically two schools of thought: 1) attract the middle-ground voters or 2) energize a whole new base of Democratic voters.

I think what got to me the most was that there still is a significant amount of "Trump Democrats" who reject (or actually fear) ideas like Medicare for all.



Neither am I. But for the sake of this country we'd better find something that will work. Otherwise, we risk more of this: from NYT



This is banana republic level intervention into what should be a totally apolitical process. All Trump had to do was say, I misspoke, and it would have been done. Instead, he has to make up a ridiculous claim a la Kim Jong-un and just like North Korea all the sycophants have to bow and scrape and pretend it was so.

He probably didn't even have to admit mis-speaking. For example "It was my early understanding that Alabama might be in danger, but that is no longer the case. Please watch carefully as the weather bureau tracks this dangerous storm. "

Maybe there was once some thought that Alabama was possibly in the path, maybe there wasn't, no reason to be concerned if Trump just made it clear that it now wasn't and, more importantly, people should watch weather bureau announcements for the latest and most accurate information. And if the stories about Ross are true, he needs to go. Working for Trump is a very destructive experience, Ross wasn't up for it, too bad, but he wasn't. It's my understanding that fewer and fewer people are willing to work for Trump, I cannot imagine why anyone would.

My issue about reconciliation was a serious question. When I was young a working class guy and the intellectual base of the Democratic Party were largely on the same page. Now they can't stand each other. One regards the other as a clueless elite, in the other direction the other is regarded as a racist multiply-phobic moron. They need to work this through, if possible. It might not be and, if not, nominating Biden will be too little too late.

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-11, 11:36, said:

I am coming to the opinion that Biden is the best choice for the Democratic party - perhaps Warren or Harris on the ticket but perhaps even that may be too much - but the only consideration at this time that matters is unseating Trump. And that will require winning the middle ground independents who might otherwise choose Trump as a less dangerous choice than a more radically-viewed Democratic candidate.

I am not fond of making predictions, but I'll make an exception here. There will be no Biden-Warren and no Warren-Biden ticket.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2019-September-11, 14:26, said:

My issue about reconciliation was a serious question. When I was young a working class guy and the intellectual base of the Democratic Party were largely on the same page. Now they can't stand each other. One regards the other as a clueless elite, in the other direction the other is regarded as a racist multiply-phobic moron. They need to work this through, if possible. It might not be and, if not, nominating Biden will be too little too late.

I am glad I don't have a vote in the Democratic primary. I'd want to vote for Warren, but given her weakish general election poll numbers I'd be hesitant.
But I think she'd be uniquely positioned to lead this reconciliation. The "intellectual base" (isn't that an oxymoron?) already likes her. Put her in a room full of working class guys, and they'll warm up to her - she has been on their side for 30 years, and has the right case to make. (Nobody likes bankers, after all.)

[awm]

cherdano, on 2019-September-11, 14:55, said:

I am glad I don't have a vote in the Democratic primary. I'd want to vote for Warren, but given her weakish general election poll numbers I'd be hesitant.
But I think she'd be uniquely positioned to lead this reconciliation. The "intellectual base" (isn't that an oxymoron?) already likes her. Put her in a room full of working class guys, and they'll warm up to her - she has been on their side for 30 years, and has the right case to make. (Nobody likes bankers, after all.)

I think people somewhat overrate the degree to which the Democratic candidate matters in the coming election. Elections with an incumbent president are primarily a referendum on the incumbent. Trump is extremely polarizing -- both his supporters and opponents are likely to turn out when he's on the ballot (regardless of whom the Democrats nominate). It's true that Biden does a little better than the other choices in early general election polls, but Sanders is normally a close second (despite being an admitted socialist). This isn't about having centrist positions -- it's about name recognition. If the Democrats nominate a relative unknown (say Buttigieg) he will still have universal name recognition by the time of the general election (and probably have a good chance of winning).

It's always possible some crazy events happen that swing Trump's favorables into the positive range and he wins (or that the economy collapses and he loses in a landslide) but the most likely way for Democrats to lose this election is to nominate someone who has a significant scandal that the news media plays up as being "just as bad as Trump." This will demotivate a lot of voters (especially younger voters) who would otherwise vote Democratic. I think the older folks who support Biden (especially older Black folks) are highly likely to vote for the Democrat regardless, whereas the young liberals (who mostly support Sanders or Warren depending on education level) are less assured of turning out, especially if Biden has one of his really serious trademark gaffes.

But in the long run, I'd rather vote for the person whom I think will be the best president, since I don't think it's that likely to impact the election result.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2019-September-11, 14:55, said:

I am glad I don't have a vote in the Democratic primary. I'd want to vote for Warren, but given her weakish general election poll numbers I'd be hesitant.
But I think she'd be uniquely positioned to lead this reconciliation. The "intellectual base" (isn't that an oxymoron?) already likes her. Put her in a room full of working class guys, and they'll warm up to her - she has been on their side for 30 years, and has the right case to make. (Nobody likes bankers, after all.)

Yes, "base" was a poor word choice. I meant the people who think through the intellectual presentation of the party..


I think Warren might be a good choice, partly for just this reason. She knows what she is talking about at a policy level, and she knows it at a gut level also. She has a lot of really big plans, and we have to see if they really hang together.

[hrothgar]

I was originally skeptical about Warren because I was worried about her age, however, she has done more to impress me that anyone else currently running.

I think that Warren / Castro is probably the dems strongest ticket (though I'd still like to see Biden at the top of the ticket with Obama as VP)

[Winstonm]

awm, on 2019-September-11, 15:14, said:

I think people somewhat overrate the degree to which the Democratic candidate matters in the coming election. Elections with an incumbent president are primarily a referendum on the incumbent. Trump is extremely polarizing -- both his supporters and opponents are likely to turn out when he's on the ballot (regardless of whom the Democrats nominate). It's true that Biden does a little better than the other choices in early general election polls, but Sanders is normally a close second (despite being an admitted socialist). This isn't about having centrist positions -- it's about name recognition. If the Democrats nominate a relative unknown (say Buttigieg) he will still have universal name recognition by the time of the general election (and probably have a good chance of winning).

It's always possible some crazy events happen that swing Trump's favorables into the positive range and he wins (or that the economy collapses and he loses in a landslide) but the most likely way for Democrats to lose this election is to nominate someone who has a significant scandal that the news media plays up as being "just as bad as Trump." This will demotivate a lot of voters (especially younger voters) who would otherwise vote Democratic. I think the older folks who support Biden (especially older Black folks) are highly likely to vote for the Democrat regardless, whereas the young liberals (who mostly support Sanders or Warren depending on education level) are less assured of turning out, especially if Biden has one of his really serious trademark gaffes.

But in the long run, I'd rather vote for the person whom I think will be the best president, since I don't think it's that likely to impact the election result.

If you are right (and I hope you are), then I vote (and, full disclosure - have donated to) Warren. Booker and Harris are tied for second.

Practical consideration: any of the current crop is fine if they win.

[johnu]

cherdano, on 2019-September-11, 14:55, said:

I am glad I don't have a vote in the Democratic primary. I'd want to vote for Warren, but given her weakish general election poll numbers I'd be hesitant.
But I think she'd be uniquely positioned to lead this reconciliation. The "intellectual base" (isn't that an oxymoron?) already likes her. Put her in a room full of working class guys, and they'll warm up to her - she has been on their side for 30 years, and has the right case to make. (Nobody likes bankers, after all.)

I can vote in a primary but my vote almost certainly won't count for anything. By the time my state votes, there's a good chance that all the candidates except one have already dropped out, or maybe one candidate has already amassed enough votes that it's practically all over. I strongly disagree with states like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina always being the first states to have primaries. In particular, South Carolina is a solid red state. Why should South Carolina have a very loud voice in determining the winner of the Democratic primary?

There should be a rotation where different states have the first primaries (with the exception of solid red states) and states who had the first primaries the previous election should have the last primaries in the nation.

[johnu]

The Stable Genius is about to strike again:

Trump Flirts With $15 Billion Bailout for Iran, Sources Say

Quote

President Donald Trump has left the impression with foreign officials, members of his administration, and others involved in Iranian negotiations that he is actively considering a French plan to extend a $15 billion credit line to the Iranians if Tehran comes back into compliance with the Obama-eranuclear deal.

No wonder the Bankruptcy King in Chief leads the civilized world in bankruptcies with astute decisions like this. First he pulls out of the Iran Nuclear Deal which allowed Iran the cover to resume nuclear testing because the US had voluntarily withdrawn from the deal. Now the Incompetent in Chief wants to give Iran 15 billion dollars to resume nuclear compliance, when it would have cost nothing, nada, zero, ziltch, goose eggs, etc to not have withdrawn from the original nuclear deal in the first place.

This is after President Bonespurs starts a trade war with China that has cost American agriculture much of the China market for the foreseeable future, and will cost American consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in the long run. Maybe President Bonespurs can call a timeout in the trade war to have surgery on his bonespurs and ease off his disasterous trade war. Maybe the Manchurian President can pick on somebody he's got a chance to beat, like Greenland.

[Winstonm]

New Dance Craze Sweeps Miami Nightclub Scene: Do the Falwell!

Quote

Sources claim the conservative leader was partying in nightclubs and graphically discussing his sex life with employees.

Falwell claims the pictures of him in the nightclub were photo-shopped. What he should have done is have Trump use his magic black marker to erase his face.

[johnu]

The Grifter and Con Man in Chief is trying to raid the US Treasury again

Trump Demands Fed Drop Rates To Zero. That Would Save Him $8 Million A Year.

The Bankruptcy King in Chief's business empire must be sinking into a sea of sh*t as he is trying to use the US government to try to prop up his failing business.

Quote

Bloomberg News estimated that each quarter point reduction in the Fed rate saves Trump some $850,000 ― meaning that if the central bank dropped that rate from the current 2.25% down to zero, Trump’s own interest payments would drop $7.65 million annually.

“It is hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to save millions of dollars a year,” said Jordan Libowitz from the watchdog group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington. “In a presidency defined by Trump’s personal profits, he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.”

Trump’s White House did not respond to HuffPost queries on the matter, or on the rationale for taking such drastic measures in a relatively strong economy.

The American people also need to see the loan papers from Deutsche Bank and any other banks doing business with Putin's favorite oligarchs to see the terms of those loans and which of Putin's friends may have cosigned those loans.