georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 10:30 am
@revelette1,
I agree with you. In a curious way Democrats appear to be in a similar situation to that of Republicans in the last election cycle - an ambitions, but perhaps over-wrought far right ( now left) minority in the Congressional delegation, and numerous candidates contending for the Presidential primary.

Both have so far survived, but we do need some synthesis of the increasingly divergent views of the contending extremists on both sides. I suspect it is a result of the recent emergence of long ignored issues, and will take a good deal of time to settle.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 11:03 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

But from where do you expect this happy "boost" to come? Women? People of color? Young educated people? The "suburban" voters? But I expect you are right to predict that Fox viewers will yell a lot and maybe even step behind the curtain and then cast their ballot with extra-special ferocity.


Has it occurred to you how odd is your evident proclivity to ignore the individuality of human beings, and reduce this complexity to the absurd taxonomy you offered above?

hightor
 
  4  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 11:54 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Has it occurred to you how odd is your evident proclivity to ignore the individuality of human beings, and reduce this complexity to the absurd taxonomy you offered above?

Oh come on — you yourself ignored the "individuality of human beings" (whatever that means) when you referred to "thinking voters". I understand that you are largely in opposition to the sort of perspective offered by blatham and other liberals on this board but I think you're trying a bit too hard here. Breaking down the electorate into various "blocs" is a pretty standard practice. The idea that every individual human being's particular political idiom must be specifically addressed when speaking about candidates and elections is really "odd".
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 12:23 pm
@hightor,
"Thinking voters" is a descriptor of an individual characteristic not one of the largely inaccurate and nonsensical group categorizations you & blatham use as a substitute for thinking and analysis. Moreover they didn't do too well in predicting the outcome of the last election. There was a rush to "explain" this failure, after thee fact, and ironically it chiefly involved the failure of some member s of these groups to behave as was assumed.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 01:10 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
"Thinking voters" is a descriptor of an individual characteristic not one of the largely inaccurate and nonsensical group categorizations...

You divided the electorate into "thinkers" and, supposedly, "non-thinkers". As I said, analyzing election results by observing the characteristic behavior of groups is pretty standard. And no, labels are not predictive. If strategists believed that Clinton would win based on the behavior of Obama voters it would be natural, after the loss, to analyze the behavior of the voting blocs which backed him but failed to materialize in support of her. As we subsequently learned, black turnout dropped and rust belt whites gave more support to Trump than they were expected to. Again, there's nothing unusual in trying to understand voter behavior as losers will seek to correct their mistaken notions and design better campaigns in the future.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 01:49 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
"Thinking voters" is a descriptor of an individual characteristic not one of the largely inaccurate and nonsensical group categorizations you & blatham use as a substitute for thinking and analysis.

It would be an interesting exercise, george, to have you list 20 "thinking" politicians or political writers and then note their ideological/party affiliations.

As regards speaking of or thinking about the behaviors of 300 million American citizens, you're probably going to need some categories. But just in case I have this wrong, you really ought to speak to the people who occupy the territory of GOP electoral strategy/planning to cease spending billions of dollars each cycle because these differentiations are a/the key means they have of influencing masses of individuals. (which is not even to mention how Apple or Ford or Pall Mall or any other substantial business entity goes about trying to get folks to buy stuff or to think well of their products)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 01:51 pm
Somebody apparently lit Rush Limbaugh's pubic hair on fire
Quote:
Rush Limbaugh compares Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot
Limbaugh: "It's not just Cortez. Folks, this is what the Democrat Party has become"
MM
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 02:03 pm
Oh no! There's more trouble down there at the entrance to Hell
Quote:
On Monday, Fox News told Trump — a reliable viewer — that now he should simply ignore Coulter. Co-host Brian Kilmeade interviewed Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, who claimed that Trump did not really cave because a lot of “deplorable Evangelicals” had been telling him so on Twitter and in emails.

Brody then slammed Coulter — who, along with Fox News, helped push Trump into the shutdown to begin with — for objecting to his caving. “Bless her heart, as they say in the South, but look, she is an outlier here, and quite frankly not representative of the base at all. An outlier for sure. And some of those comments, off her rocker, no doubt about it.”
TP

It's all just so damned sad.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 02:29 pm
Jon Chait has an excellent piece up right now HERE
Quote:
In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” the anthropologist Jane Goodall infamously opined in the summer of 2016. “In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.”

Goodall was far from alone in this assessment. In his paper “The Appeal of the Primal Leader: Human Evolution and Donald J Trump,” Northwestern University social psychologist Dan McAdams argued that the mogul embodied “the social dominance form of human leadership” — and likened Trump’s Twitter tantrums to the violent rituals performed by ruling chimps.

But one didn’t need a degree in evolutionary psychology to appreciate the primordial nature of Trump’s appeal. The mogul’s assertions of alpha-male status weren’t the subtext of his debate performances; they were the text.
And let's not forget the display he put on at the NATO summit, pushing aside the PM of Montenegro and then doing the puffy chested Mussolini thing
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTy4IaqPjdX4bM725l5aGGj6bfA5HdIf1S5ppBsTN8SZ-7oTlT2nw

But I wanted to point to a unique consequence for Trump with the base he's helped cultivate after losing to Nancy Pelosi. To help out, I've bolded the thing
Quote:
Matt D
@mtdisme
Trump the Cuck. @realDonaldTrump You BETRAYED US. No more support. Done.
11:30 AM - Jan 25, 2019


I'd mentioned earlier that Lou Dobbs had described Trump as having been "whipped" by Pelosi and I pointed to this as an obvious abbreviation of "pussy whipped".

Sophisticated crowd, this modern GOP.



0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 02:34 pm
Quote:
The president has also claimed to guests, without evidence, that his private dining room off the Oval Office was in "rough shape" with a hole in the wall when he came into the West Wing and that Obama used it to watch sports, according to two White House officials and two other people who have heard him discuss the dining room.

"He just sat in here and watched basketball all day," Trump told a recent group, before saying he upgraded Obama's smaller TV to a sprawling, flat-screen one, the four people said.
Benen

Never in history has there been a US President of such integrity and nobility of character.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 04:34 pm
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/28/wall-street-2020-economy-taxes-1118065

Makes me love Bernie Sanders more.

Wall Street freaks out about 2020
Many of the nation’s top bankers want Trump gone, but they’re growing anxious about some Democratic presidential contenders.
By BEN WHITE 01/28/2019 05:01 AM EST
NEW YORK — Top Wall Street executives would love to be rid of President Donald Trump. But they are getting panicked about the prospect of an ultraliberal Democratic nominee bent on raising taxes and slapping regulations on their firms.

The result is a kind of nervous paralysis of executives pining for a centrist nominee like Michael Bloomberg while realizing such an outcome is unlikely from a party veering sharply to the left.

Story Continued Below


Early support from deep-pocketed financial executives could give Democrats seeking to break out of the pack an important fundraising boost. But any association with bankers also opens presidential hopefuls to sharp attacks from an ascendant left.

And it’s left senior executives on Wall Street flailing over what to do.

“I’m a socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist who would love to vote for a rational Democrat and get Trump out of the White House,” said the CEO of one of the nation’s largest banks, who, like a dozen other executives interviewed for this story, declined to be identified by name for fear of angering a volatile president. “Personally, I’d love to see Bloomberg run and get the nomination. I’ve just never thought he could get the nomination the way the primary process works.”

Morning Money
Political intelligence on Washington and Wall Street — weekday mornings, in your inbox.
Email Sign Up
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Across Wall Street and more in executive suites across the nation, corporate titans are trying to figure out how to navigate the 2020 presidential election. While some executives remain supportive of Trump — especially in industries like energy given the president’s approach to climate change — many recoil at his chaotic approach to governance and harsh approach to trade and immigration.

On Wall Street, executives love Trump’s tax cuts and soft-touch regulatory posture. But as the nation comes off the longest shutdown in American history amid warnings of an impending economic slowdown, there is also a clear preference for a change to more predictable leadership.

While just one slice of a complex corporate world, Wall Street has often played a pivotal role in presidential elections.

The industry backed then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008, viewing him as more savvy about the depths of the financial crisis than Sen. John McCain, the GOP nominee. Bankers swung back toward Republicans in 2012 when private-equity executive Mitt Romney became the standard-bearer. But the financial support could not overcome — and perhaps added to — Romney’s image as a plutocrat with fancy houses and a rotating garage.

In 2016, Wall Street campaign cash and paid speeches to big banks became a serious headache for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, helping open her to a brutal primary battle with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who made those banker ties a central issue. Now, several Democrats are trying to figure out if they can scoop up Wall Street money without significant blowback.

Story Continued Below


After mentioning Bloomberg, Wall Street executives who want Trump out list a consistent roster of appealing nominees that includes former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California. Others meriting mention: former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, former Maryland Rep. John Delaney and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, though fewally know his positions.

Bankers’ biggest fear: The nomination goes to an anti-Wall Street crusader like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or Sanders. “It can’t be Warren and it can’t be Sanders,” said the CEO of another giant bank. “It has to be someone centrist and someone who can win.”

Robert Wolf, an investment banker, founder of 32 Advisors and former adviser and fundraiser for Obama, echoed that sentiment but suggested it was too soon to declare anyone unelectable.

“We just haven’t seen this many candidates running in our party. The Republicans went through that, but we haven’t,” he said. “There is a lot of excitement about where the party is going, and we will all have friends running, and it’s hard to decide who to support. Our party likes the aspirational, exciting candidate, but we also have to find someone who can do well in the swing states.”

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg
2020 ELECTIONS
How Bloomberg plans to create his own lane in 2020
By MARC CAPUTO
For Democratic candidates, seeking Wall Street support in the 2020 race will be tricky. The allure of cash to report on initial fundraising filings remains strong. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have all taken meetings or made calls to top Democrats on Wall Street gauging potential financial support.

But news reports of such meetings often draw swift social media backlash from progressives who don’t want the 2020 nominee to have anything to do with Wall Street “fat cats“ and view higher taxes on the wealthy and stronger banking regulations as sacrosanct positions for any potential nominee to hold.

After CNBC reported earlier this month on Gillibrand making calls to bankers to gauge potential support for a 2020 bid, the senator tweeted a list of her progressive credentials on the banking industry including support for a financial transactions tax, reinstating a wall between retail and investment banking and opposing the bank bailouts of 2008.

In several interviews, Wall Street executives cited these positions as reasons they were skeptical of Gillibrand as a candidate and unlikely to support her unless she catches fire and emerges from the field. “It will be an interesting test to see if people actually step up and support her,” one senior executive at a large bank said. “There is not a lot of trust there.”

Story Continued Below


But Gillibrand does have Wall Street backers who view her as pragmatic, a centrist and preferable to Warren or Sanders.

“She understands Wall Street, but she is not owned by Wall Street,” said Larry Rand, a Wall Street veteran and visiting professor of economics at Brown University. “Wall Street likes her because she is a pragmatist, not an ideologue, and of the announced candidates so far she is the most electable.”

A person close to Gillibrand noted the senator’s strong support for banking regulation and said any meetings with people at financial firms should not indicate a willingness to change positions on anything.

Overall in 2020, financial support from Wall Street and corporate America is likely to be somewhat less important. Democratic candidates are mostly swearing off any donations from corporate political action committees and are committed to raising small dollar amounts from grassroots donors, mostly online. Warren has urged all candidates to swear off support from any outside PACs and also criticized anyone who self-funds, a clear shot at Bloomberg.

Warren and Sanders both have formidable digital fundraising operations, as do Gillibrand and Harris. O’Rourke broke fundraising records last year in his unsuccessful Texas Senate run, drawing in $80 million.

Elizabeth Warren
2020 ELECTIONS
Warren readies plan for tax on ‘ultra-millionaires’
By NATASHA KORECKI
But the allure of wealthy donors who can write the maximum $2,700 checks to candidates — and billionaires who can fund outside super PACs — will remain, especially given the competition for small dollar online donations and the pressure to put up solid fundraising numbers in early reporting periods to show momentum.

“People are still calling and showing up. They just don’t want to be seen doing it,” a senior Wall Street executive who has worked in Democratic politics said.

Pete Buttigieg, the Democratic mayor of South Bend, Ind., who just entered the presidential race running at least in part as a voice of fiscal prudence, said in an interview that he would not shy away from seeking Wall Street cash. “But I’m not sure they would be too wild about me anyway,” he said, noting that he too is focused on small dollar, grassroots donors.

While Bloomberg represents something of the platonic ideal on Wall Street — fiscally responsible while strong on climate change and gun policy and not in need of cash — Biden represents something of a wild card.

The former vice president does not have deep relationships across Wall Street, but he’s viewed favorably as a candidate who could win and would take a somewhat more moderate approach on taxes and regulation. But there are concerns about his age and his penchant for gaffes.

“Everybody likes him. I don’t know if you want him to be president at 78 in 2020, but it looks like he’s in great shape,” said one hedge fund manager and top Democratic donor. “If it’s Biden and Beto or Biden and Harris, that might make a difference. The good news for Biden is everyone likes him. The bad news is there is not a lot of passion.”

Among the most hardcore Democrats on Wall Street, the strong desire is to find a candidate — any candidate — who can beat Trump, even if that means getting behind someone like Warren who supports policies that bankers hate.

“Everybody just wants to win,” a second senior executive who has worked in Democratic politics at the presidential level said. “It’s as wide open as I’ve ever seen it. There is no gravitational force that everyone is sort of running towards. Everyone has their candidate. Frankly, if people believed Warren would win, they’d jump on board. And everyone in the top tier not named Bernie Sanders could probably win.”
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 05:09 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:

.


Has it occurred to you how odd is your evident proclivity to ignore the individuality of human beings, and reduce this complexity to the absurd taxonomy you offered above?




Phew, George, I am seriously considering using this latest effort as a signature line. This is some serious gas baggery.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 05:43 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:


Phew, George, I am seriously considering using this latest effort as a signature line. This is some serious gas baggery.


You are wrong, it is a very accurate description of Blatham's post, and it reflects an all too common failing in contemporary political discourse.

In his reply he also conveniently ignored the obvious fact that surveys based on the same group identities, conducted before the last election, predicted a Clinton victory.

However, I do believe you could use some rhetorical refreshment - you're getting a little repetitious and predictable.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 05:48 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Again, there's nothing unusual in trying to understand voter behavior as losers will seek to correct their mistaken notions and design better campaigns in the future.


I agree. However, I hadn't addressed the task of predicting voter behavior at all, and, in addition, I don't know of any superficial descriptor with which one could easily identify thinking voters. I was instead making a value judgment about the content of a particular issue.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 05:49 pm
@glitterbag,
George's response was quite odd. I'm not quite sure what his notions are here. Obviously these terms (I'll note just a few) refer to something real in human populations:
- Christians
- Buddhists
- atheists
- anti-abortion advocates
- artists
- bankers
- males
- females
- bullies
- theocrats
- hippies
- americans
- african americans
- first nations americans
- young people
- military people
- conservatives
- liberals (noting that I'm pretty sure I've read one or two descriptors from george about this particular taxonomic category).

Pretty obviously, to speak of "Americans" as different from "Egyptians" or "classical Greeks" or to speak of "females" as different from "males" is in no way a denial or diminishment of anyone's personal individuality.

I gather that george's comments/opinions here emerge from the right wing critique of leftist voices where those voices make political appeals to general groupings of humans in the US population. Which, given GOP history through to the present is derisable.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 05:57 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
However, I hadn't addressed the task of predicting voter behavior at all
Now you are speaking of something other than demographic delineations. You're making a criticism of those estimations of people involved in US politics regarding Trump's victory. But you seem to be going rather further with the clear suggestion that someone such as myself who figured Trump had no chance of winning henceforth can say nothing of worth regarding US politics. Of course, to be consistent, you'd now have to hold the same to be true for anyone in your party (or you yourself) who has ever gotten a electoral prediction wrong.

Edit: I do not want you, in your disagreements with folks like me, to tie yourself up into the shape of a pretzel. None of us knows what the next world is like including how hungry the inhabitants might be.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 06:00 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

I gather that george's comments/opinions here emerge from the right wing critique of leftist voices where those voices make political appeals to general groupings of humans in the US population. Which, given GOP history through to the present is derisable.


No, I wasn't addressing the problem of making statistical analyses or prediction based on such external observable characteristics at all. Both political parties do it and it often - not always- has some practical value in a broad statistical sense.

I was instead indirectly addressing the growing proclivity of so called progressives in our public discourse for making value judgments about individual people based on such things . Examples of this abound in the MSM and in contemporary political discourse.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 06:09 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I was instead indirectly addressing the growing proclivity of so called progressives in our public discourse for making value judgments about individual people based on such things . Examples of this abound in the MSM and in contemporary political discourse.
Thank God that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, Louie Gohmert, Frank Gaffney, Mitt Romney, Richard Nixon, Ed Meese, Mary Matelin, Dick Cheney, Ginni Thomas, etc etc etc are innocent of such behavior. Thank God for that.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 06:13 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
However, I hadn't addressed the task of predicting voter behavior at all
Now you are speaking of something other than demographic delineations. You're making a criticism of those estimations of people involved in US politics regarding Trump's victory. But you seem to be going rather further with the clear suggestion that someone such as myself who figured Trump had no chance of winning henceforth can say nothing of worth regarding US politics. Of course, to be consistent, you'd now have to hold the same to be true for anyone in your party (or you yourself) who has ever gotten a electoral prediction wrong.

Edit: I do not want you, in your disagreements with folks like me, to tie yourself up into the shape of a pretzel. None of us knows what the next world is like including how hungry the inhabitants might be.

I think our last posts crossed each other on the net.

I don't think the failure of pollsters to accurately predict the outcome of the last election was an indictment of anyone. The margins are small and errors of that magnitude are fairly common.

Nor do I imply (or believe) that you or any of a very large number of "informed" people who accepted the poll results can have nothing to say regarding the current state of US politics.

However I do make a sharp distinction between the groupings behind such statistical predictions and the growing phenomenon of making judgements about individuals, based on them.

I'm not twisted up at all. Indeed I just finished a workout and am enjoying the endorphin rush … and a glass of wine.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2019 06:19 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
However I do make a sharp distinction between the groupings behind such statistical predictions and the growing phenomenon of making judgements about individuals, based on them.
I was going to ask you to provide an example of where I've done this but I imagine you will point to charges I've made about modern conservatives or Republicans. Could you flesh it out a bit.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 09:13:44