The UK is having a general election this Thursday, brought on by the inability to decide whether to do a hard exit from the EU.
We don’t have to rehash how the U.K. got here except to say that white working class voters were lied to through sophisticated propaganda synthesized by helpful data firms like Cambridge Analytica. But the primary cause of this insanity is that prime minister David Cameron allowed a “Should we exit the EU?” Question on the ballot without first asking, “Should we do preliminary inquiries as to the feasibility and economic impact that leaving the EU will have on Britain?”
I don’t know. Maybe Nigel Farrage and Cameron thought that would be too many words. “Don’t you little people worry about it. Let the House of Commons waste their time hashing it out over an extended period of time!”
So the general election is going to be between Boris “blonde boy running with scissors!” Johnson and wishy washy, might be an anti-Semite, lackluster supporter of Remain Jeremy Corbyn.
What’s so crazy about this election is that now that the voters know what’s at stake that they have to choose from equally unpalatable candidates and the choice is turning out to be difficult.
It would be like us trying to decide between Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Yeah, not digging it.
Anyway, the podcast GOT Academy has a rundown on the election here. This should brighten your day before the Impeachment Inquiry.
Filed under: General |
The Confluence 
Yeah, if Labour had thrown over Corbyn they might be winning this in a walk. Corbyn has done a fantastic job of destroying Labour in the UK. A fair warning to us what Bernie Sanders would do to team blue if given the chance.
I’m not in Britain, obviously, but what I have read indicates that Corbyn is indeed a virulent anti-semite. A number of respected people there, writers and social commentators,, who are no friends of Conservatives, appealed to the populace several months ago not to vote for Labour because of Corbyn and his party’s anti-semitism. It is almost as if Corbyn is there in order to make sure that the Conservatives win every election. Why does Labour keep him as the party leader when it is obvious that their party keeps doing worse and worse?
The Republicans wanted Sanders as the Democratic nominee in 2016. Surely they favor him again, and Gabbard, but Gabbard can’t get the nomination, and Sanders can. Sanders has a long history of voting against Russian sanctions, why is that? The Russians always try to cover all the bases. If Sanders were to get the nomination, he would not only lose, he would cost the Democrats many downballot races, just as he was doing since 2016. And his people would take over the party apparatus, as has always been their goal, making things even worse. Sanders’ campaign just recently got rid of a staffer who was making anti-semitic statements, on social media, I believe.
The Brexit vote was rigged. I do not think that Cameron was guilty of anything more than political arrogance, in thinking that Remain would win, which would stop the carping at him, and solidify his position. Now England is going to be stuck with Johnson, and they will leave the EU, which will severely damage the middle class, but of course make a fortune for the oligarchs. It is all part of a great world tragedy which somehow has to be turned in a positive direction.
The GOP would love to run against Sanders because he “proves” that Democrats are socialists and he has an affinity for Russia.
I wonder if you actually read any of their blogs. They’re going to call us commies (as the Instapundit commentariat likes to put it) no matter what we do or whom we nominate. We could stand up Ronald Reagan’s corpse and they’d call him a commie. Warren, Sanders, Biden, Hillary, it honestly doesn’t matter. They don’t distinguish.
Yes, and they always have done that. However Sanders is one and therefore easier to make it stick. And his history with socialist/communist dictators would make it easy for the GOP.
I’m not in Britain, obviously, but what I have read indicates that Corbyn is indeed a virulent anti-semite.
I think that’s more common in the UK (and a lot of the US) than most people would like to admit. It’s something the far Right and the far Left tend to share.
I have to wonder why a country of approximately 70 million people couldn’t find additional qualified people to run as prime minister. Neither one of this people seems to represent the level headed people who are going to get screwed by Brexit.
I know it’s hard to believe, but the selection of party leaders is even less democratic in Britain than it is in the US. Party membership in Britain isn’t as simple as choosing an affiliation when you register – British parties are dues-paying membership organizations, with membership criteria and disciplinary procedures. Only dues-paying members in good standing have a voice in selecting candidates. I believe the Labour Party, for example, has only about 500,000 members nationwide – and it’s the largest party in the country. The slate they get to choose from is often restricted to candidates who have been approved by the national party organization, so the influence of rank-and-file members in the process is pretty limited. There aren’t a whole lot of dark-horse candidates in Britain.
Where is the IG report on the bias and leaks from the NY division of the FBI which was pro-Giuliani and viciously anti-Clinton? I thought that we were supposed to get such a report, but I guess that is not going to happen. The FBI people there lied about no Russian connections to the Trump campaign, and got the NYT to make a major story of it right before the election. They leaked to Giuliani, and to Stone, and possibly others. When we hear that IG Horowitz did find some procedural mistakes in the way that the FBI handled the Trump investigation, why has there been no investigation into the NY FBI office blatantly violating procedures, lying (Gingrich kept saying that his friends at the FBI tell him that Hillary is going to be indicted any day now), and doing everything they could to help Trump and damage Clinton? I guess that when you control the presidency, and the DOJ, you get to stay on offense all the time.
I think congress ordered one and the IG had to do this one first. Eventually it is all going to come out.
I hope you’re right, and the sooner the better!
I know that there are not many Biden fans here, and I am not one, either, except that we desperately need someone who can win. But it looks as if one of the casualties of these hearings is going to be Biden’s campaign, which perhaps not ironically will achieve Trump’s goals with regard to Ukraine. Biden’s general election poll numbers have been going down, and the Republicans use the hearings to attack him and his son. The Republicans always have their eyes on the ball, which for them is power above all. So we will have to find another candidate who has a decent change to beat Trump.
I think he’s too cozy with the insurance companies and the money center banks – and I think the bankruptcy bill betrayed a couple of generations of ordinary working and middle class people. But if it’s down to Joe or Donnie, I’m voting for Joe.
In all honesty I think if they take him out they are doing us a favor. Aside from the Ukraine garbage Biden has shown himself to be a terrible candidate attacking a voter. He is thin skinned and stuck in the 1970’s. And yet for all that the GOP is putting Biden through he still apologizes for them. With Joe as president it would be a repeat of Obama with constantly begging the GOP to go along with whatever policy he wants passed. That being said if he’s the nominee I will vote for him but I will probably tune out the presidential election and focus on the senate.
I am truly worried we are going to be left with Bernie as the candidate. As I said previously, I still do not understand why the press is not vetting him. Meanwhile they are ripping all the other Dem candidates apart.
I don’t get it either other than they know he is a sure election loser and want us to nominate a sure loser.
“I don’t get it either other than they know he is a sure election loser and want us to nominate a sure loser.”
Hammer. Nail. BANG!
Never forget, the owners and the higher-ranking employees of the “mainstream” media are rich, just like their equivalents in the wingnut media, and all of them, with an occasional honorable exception, are willing to subjugate our country to Fascist Russia just to keep their “prrrecioussssss” low taxes.
I dunno, from my perspective (as a Bernie supporter), it seems that MSNBC, the NYT, and the WaPo will savage him at every available opportunity – to the point of misrepresenting their own polling data.
Lucy, with each passing day, i want Hillary to run, i want a full court press by all the Dems for her election (forget Sanders, he is not a Dem, let him run as as an Independent); frack the DNC for letting Sanders run again as a Dem and damage our candidates. I want us to challenge the Media and GOP talking points every hour of every damn day. Better to burn out than fade away. This may be our last chance to have a Dem prez and a democracy respected around the world. After listening to these Rethugs all day, it is getting clearer and clearer that a significant portion of our government is corrupt and dangerously and deliberately dysfunctional. I want someone to explain to me why proven “sweeping and systemic election interference” by a foreign enemy does not render the 2016 election unfair and anything but free. Trump is a cheater, a bully, a grifter, always was, always will be. A profiteer who will never have our country’s best interest in mind. He will ALWAYS put himself before and above every other being on the planet. If he cannot be removed from office or voted out, the experiment is over and the US will be moved to the “lessons learned” column in the history books.
I noticed that the thugs keep talking about our “legitimately” elected “prez” by 63 million voters. The 66 million of us who voted for his opponent are invisible and irrelevant because of the states in which we live. Time for us to be heard and seen, it may be our last chance to do so.
Cats, great comments and I totally agree! Hillary or (we will very likely) Bust!
If only there were not so many Democrats in various places who are so determined that Hillary not run and get nominated. Can you imagine what the social media, not to mention the entire country, will look and feel like if Trump wins again? The Sanders people, who live in their own bubble, will be the only ones not despondent. They will be excitedly looking forward to AOC, and their imminent takeover of the Democratic Party, which will be as valuable as getting mining rights to a ghost town in 1870;
William, you made my day, i thought I was having an aneurysm after enduring today’s rethug demolition derby! Did you get to finish the Howard-Hillary interview? She covered so much ground and could switch speeds and topics effortlessly. She must have an eidetic memory, she reads and processes a prodigious amount of info, she is never stagnant, always evolving. One term is all I ask with a DEm House and Senate and then let her pass the baton. Wouldn’t a Hillary Inslee ticket be awesome? I was thinking Inslee would pick up the young people, focus the admin on climate change and infrastructure transformation to renewables. Then an Inslee Harris or Abrams ticket. An old girl can dream.
Slightly off topic:
Remember, the Pearl Harbor raid never should have worked. The Japanese grimly expected to lose at least two of their big carriers. The fact that it worked made the Japanese look invincible for a while, but the truth is, they were doomed from the beginning.
I believe the same is true of Putin’s Virtual Pearl Harbor of 2016. The 2018 midterms were our Midway. The future belongs to us.
I never learned how to link, but here is a Harvard/Harris poll taken the last week in November.
Democratic candidates
Biden 29
Sanders 16
Warren 13
Buttigieg 8
Bloomberg 7
Then they did the poll with Hillary and Kerry (why put Kerry in there to confuse things?) in the race
Hillary 21
Biden 20
Sanders 12
Buttigieg 5
Kerry 5
Yes, this poll has Hillary actually leading the field if she ran. And if she did run, she would do even better, because some of these polled are assuming she would not, so picked someone else.
Now, do we want to slog along with Biden, have to choose him because we don’t want Sanders or Buttigieg, and Warren is dropping?Why should Hillary not run under these circumstances? Assuming she would want to run, which I think she would. She is the person who would beat Trump. But because some Democrats and most of the TV pundits don’t want her, we are required to run someone who would lose but at least make the pundits happy? We are inuring ourselves to four more awful years of Trump, just because we must give someone else a chance, rather than the person who got three million more votes last time, and would probably get eight million more votes this time?
I missed Warren in the second poll, she is 9.
It is just one poll, but it is hardly a discredited one. Why aren’t we hearing bout this? Hillary is more favored by those polled than anyone currently in the race? She takes much support from Biden (many of those Biden supporters are Hillary supporters trying to make the best of it). She takes from Warren and Sanders.. This is without even running so far!
This has become more than “just” about Hillary. This is about a country on a precipice, and the one person who is most likely to save us, is not running; and we’ve got various “pundits” and other assorted people saying, “Oh, she must not run, it would ruin everything?” What is that? Biden who unfortunately has problems finishing a coherent policy thought? Warren, whose proposals are simply not electable in this country now? Sanders, the same? Buttigieg, trying to sound like a Log Cabin Republican of thirty years ago? Klobuchar who is qualified but has a mountain to climb? Bloomberg, who I actually think would win, but is never going to get the nomination? What great candidate hope are we holding on to that we just must not let Hillary run??? Then of course we have the not negligible issue that she is by far the most qualified and knowledgeable.
My mother, who along with my father was a very loyal FDR and Stevenson Democrat, long ago said, mostly seriously, but with same resignation and asperity, that “The Democratic Party has a death wish.” There was always truth behind it. Trying to yell Hillary out of running, so that Warren or Biden or the others can flounder around and likely lose to Trump, is the newest and perhaps final and definitive example of it.
OT, and I know I’ve said this before, but please bear with me, this one is causing me to lose sleep. Here’s my nightmare scenario, regarding the Democrats’ fast track impeachment schedule: Moscow Mitch will get Trump acquitted in January, and by May, with the way the 24 hour news cycle goes, impeachment will be forgotten. Does anyone doubt that this is the most likely outcome now?? https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/05/democrats-trump-impeachment-politics-analysis-075656
The Senate trial in January is going to be, as Digby says, a sh** show. We will be reminded of a Southern white kangaroo court circa 1925, primed to acquit their friendly neighborhood lynch mob. A mockery of a once great country rather than any serious deliberation. https://www.salon.com/2019/12/09/senate-trial-will-be-a-stshow-can-democrats-beat-trumps-disinformation-machine/
It gets worse. After his acquittal Trump will claim vindication, that he was always an innocent victim of leftist craziness, and attack the Dems for spewing “baseless conspiracy theories.” Concurrently he will use these “provocations” to amp up his electoral cheating and dictatorial craziness to 11. Once the impeachment is over (and with it any enforceable Congressional oversight) one can also expect such cheating to put a heavy hand on the scale for Trump’s re-election. I don’t want to even think about his raised odds for a second term. Or how the nation’s capital will have moved more obviously to Moscow in that case.
At best, Pelosi’s expedited schedule is an embarrassing mistake and an awful endpoint to her distinguished career. At worst: if Trump gets re-elected and then succeeds in his obvious quest to become president for life, Pelosi will go down in history among those who bungled our democracy’s last, best chance.
Happy New Year everyone.
Centaur, those are all good points, and I agree with your sense of how it will play out,, once we fire the one arrow we have, and then the other side has all of them.
But I will say that we are always at a major disadvantage, in that the Republicans have the right-wing media and then they have much of the rest of the media, which tries to give Republicans every break they can. So however it is played, we are likely to be hammered at.
I think that some of Peolosi’s reasons are one, or some, or all of the following:
1. If the impeachment runs into Spring, the Democratic candidates who are senators cannot campaign much, giving the advantage to those who are not; and she doesn’t want to be accused of that.
2 If the impeachment ran into Spring, she would get attacked for interfering with the election campaign, trying to drive the coverage. The media hates that, and they don’t to cover more impeachment hearings, when they can have the thrill of the horse race, with John King and Steve Kornacki at the big boards.
3, She does not think that impeachment is a winning political issue; and more specifically, it risks House seats in districts where Democrats just won. She is doing it out of a sense of duty to the Constitution, no more.
4. She doesn’t think that there are really great additional witnesses to call. The Republicans will block theirs, and so there are very few additional options. At that point, she feels that she can’t draw it out too much longer.
That all said, the Senate trial will be a stage act concocted by Republicans, and Trump will indeed call it exoneration. That is why I kept writing essays here arguing against impeachment. But after the Ukranian story came out, I agreed that impeachment was necessary, and a duty. I think we all had hoped that some Republicans would start to break away, but they have become a literal cult.
This puts the country in an awful place, where one of the parties is a power-mad cult of fake religiosity. The Republicans’ behavior at these hearings has been one of the most appalling things in the history of this country. I don’t know what can be done about them, except somehow to beat them at the polls. Maybe Pelosi is hoping for that, and it may indeed be the only hope we have. We never get fair treatment from the media referees, so we often lose either way, just like Hillary, who gets attacked for saying either of two opposing things. The only thing I can hope for is the start of an economic turndown, but the Wall Streeters are determined to prop Trump up to win, at which point they will take their billions in profits, sell, and wait for the inevitable Depression for the working classes.
@William, I hear you.
While I don’t think those reasons are particularly strong, they are plausible and may well figure in the Speaker’s thinking. In particular the Dems have worried too much about #3. Far too much.
The Intelligence Committee hearings actually moved the polling by 15 points in favor of impeachment. More hearings and more evidence could move public opinion further. Dems should remember that even in 1974 the Democrats did not have a majority of public opinion in favor removing Nixon until the “smoking gun” tape hit the airwaves.
The Intelligence Committee hearings were a smashing success to build on rather than bumble away. Their effectiveness was little short of astonishing, when you consider the prevailing media narrative and the power of Fox News.
As I’ve said before, we won’t get the hard core Trumpers to agree with us but we could get most of the Independents, and therefore a solid majority, in favor of impeachment if we had a couple more months of well run hearings. These things take time and if Nancy wanted to take that time she could have it. I think she’s been spooked by media spin that says the hearings were a “failure” because the Dems didn’t get a 60% majority in favor of removing Trump from office, immediately. As you say, talk about media referees always on the wrong side…
Re economics, I am perversely fascinated by the China negotiations. I actually agree with Trump that the China trade has to be re negotiated, even though Trump himself lacks the horsepower to do that. Now that Trump has publicly attacked China instead of working quietly in a way that would not force one party or the other to lose face… the Chinese are not going to make things easy for him. In addition he has NO knowledge of Chinese customs or how the Chinese think. Coverage at “The Diplomat” magazine, which discusses the Chinese view (right or wrong) was an eye opener for me and indicates that a deal will be a long process at best.
Bottom line: while the only upside of a recession will be to make Trump look bad, it looks like Trump will have to give away the store in order to do a deal before the election. Not sure a scenario of bad deal or no deal looks good for him. With this in mind it is just too funny, that Trump asked China to intervene in the 2020 election on his behalf. The Chinese are ROFL at Trump.
The stock market has been hostage to trade deal headlines (the headlines can move the Dow Jones up or down 200 in 15 minutes) and it looks like that will continue. It’s to China’s advantage to jerk us around, and I don’t doubt that, as a lagniappe, they are making money by placing speculative market bets before they say favorable (or unfavorable) things about the possibility of an agreement. I’d love to be the broker who handles their bets on S&P stock futures…
I see deja vu all over again in this election too.
If Hillary were to run, the media would go right back to attacking her daily with the republicans literally blowilng a gasget screaming how she is nothing but a sore loser and a power hungry woman! It would be ugly and the media would not come to Hillary’s aid. As much as I would like her to be my president, I don’t want to see her put through that hell again.
The media is already using the same playbook on Warren that they used on Hillary, finding any and every reason, no matter how small it is to define her as not genuine nor electable, as compared to how they continue to turn a blind eye to the men’s far worse faults and mistakes both past and present. After all, it worked before.
Why should we trust the media’s polling of Warren or Klobuchar considering how their polls always claimed the American people did not think Hillary as electable nor likeable? Are we certain that every critique of Warren has been put into proper context and not overblown in order to put her in the worst light possible? They did that to Hillary.
I sure as hell am not going to trust the media’s analysis of the candidates as being “fair and balanced” and devoid of gender bias, considering how they turned a blind eye to the overwhelming issues of criminality trump brought to the campaign, not to mention Sanders lack of legislative achievement in 40 years of living off the government teat. How could they have not vetted trump knowing what they knew about his well known corrupt business dealings, racism and sexual assaults on women? Because of this blatant double standard, I don’t care how much they put their love on biden, sanders or buttigieg, it will not be enough to persuade me that these guys are better than Warren or Klobuchar in defeating trump.
We all know the saying…”Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.” I believe it applies here.
The fact that the media is pushing a candidate should be fair warning not to support them.
Ga6thDem,
Unfortunately, despite their failure to do their jobs in 2016 by vetting both trump and sanders, far too many people still trust the media’s take on which candidate is most favored by the people and who can best defeat trump.
Haven’t you noticed how unfiltered they are when critiquing any of the women running and how measured and careful they are in how they report any issues with the men? They always try to put a postive spin on any of the men’s mistakes, missteps or bad policy proposals. Sounds like little boys being reprimanded by a doting mother!
Have you noticed that 3 white men are at the top of the polls in Iowa? The media stated with glee that Warren was once at the top but no longer is and it’s because of her Medicare for All plan. Then ask youself why sanders has not suffered the same attacks from the media (and as a result a drop in the polls too) as Liz has with regard to his Medicare for All proposal? His plan includes taxes on the middle class, where Liz’s plan doesn’t.
Clearly, the pattern in this election is exactly what we witnessed in 2016 against Hillary. It’s still voge to attack the women and placate the men. We got trump because of this bias and if we aren’t careful, we will get another ineffective white male in the WH who will be allowed to blame everyone but himself for not getting anything done.
Are we willing to go down that road AGAIN? Not me.
The elite media fell in love with Buttigieg, not just because he’s genuinely talented, but because he’s the type of candidate — young, earnest, credentialed, progressive but with a self-image as an ideologically moderate pragmatist — it always falls in love with.
It is attracted to the idea of an intellectual as a presidential candidate, even one who has accomplished NOTHING. They are in love. Hardly an objective way of reporting on a candidate, don’t you think? To understand how extremely biased the media is when it comes to covering male vs. female candidates, ask yourself, would a woman with the exact same creditionals, speaking ability, intellect and personality be loved like Pete? A resounding NO! She would be laughed off the stage for even thinking she had what it takes to be president, much less running.
Following is an excellent article explaining the phenomenon of both biden and buttigieg and their curious rise in the polls, which explains in part regarding Pete: “So if you’ve found yourself wondering why the press is giving so much attention lately to Pete Buttigieg, so assiduously empty a candidate that the most interesting thing he’s said since entering the presidential campaign is something he didn’t even say, there’s your answer. The politics press is the Nothing constituency, and it has found its man, for now.”
https://theoutline.com/post/8255/pete-buttigieg-iowa-polls-why?zd=1&zi=77utzzio
The media expects us to accept their insanity of “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result…”
Buttigieg is the white gay version of Obama.
Would Obama have won in 2008 if the economy had not done its Wile E. Coyote imitation at just the right time?