• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Earlynerd on Mercy and Comfort
    Catscatscats on Mercy and Comfort
    Bernard Jenkins on This is the thanks Michigan…
    jmac on Some politicians need to lose…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on This is the thanks Michigan…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on This is the thanks Michigan…
    William on This is the thanks Michigan…
    William on This is the thanks Michigan…
    William on Mercy and Comfort
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on This is the thanks Michigan…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on This is the thanks Michigan…
    jmac on This is the thanks Michigan…
    bellecat on Some politicians need to lose…
    riverdaughter on Some politicians need to lose…
    William on Some politicians need to lose…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    February 2020
    S M T W T F S
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread & March 28th US Covid Numbers Update
      As usual, use this for topics unrelated to recent posts. Since the blog has been all Covid, all the time this last week, this is a good place to discuss other issues. The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE […]
  • Top Posts

The 2020 elections in 3 scenes

The Democratic primaries:

The “Break the Glass” moment and reaction:

The Bernie Bros:

Those who can’t remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

Also, Monty Python is f}#%ing awesome.

169 Responses

  1. Monty Python is classic. I’ll agree with you there.

  2. https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-leads-all-democratic-candidates-support-non-white-voters-new-polls-show-1486807

    Keep pushing that bro narrative. But no matter how many times you say it, that won’t make it true.

    • When your guy states unequivocally that he will support the Democratic nominee let me know. I have yet to see anything believable from him on that yet

      • https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-first-to-sign-pledge-to-rally-behind-whoever-wins-democratic-primary

        He has. Repeatedly.

        And you people berate others as low-information voters.

      • It’s not Bernie who’s hinting he might withhold support if someone he disagrees with gets the nomination. It’s also not the Bernie supporters on the DNC who are arguing for a last-minute rules change to give the superdelegates more power in case they lose at the polls.

        As for the myth that Bernie sat on his hands in 2016, Bernie held three times as many events for Clinton in 2016 as Clinton did for Obama in 2008, as Michael Moore has documented: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rumble-with-michael-moore/id1490354763?i=1000462570751

        I realize you guys don’t care for Bernie, but this whole “any stick to beat a dog” routine is a little tiresome.

        • The thing is, how do we know which are genuine Sanders voters and which are toxic Russian trolls? Either way, I can’t support him. He’s a type, like Trump is a type. Different types but they aren’t unique. Just as I wouldn’t support Trump’s type no matter what his name is, I wouldn’t support Sanders type either. We don’t live in a parliamentary democracy where his political faction gets a slice of power and can make a coalition with another political faction.
          There are a million reasons why he shouldn’t have run but I think this is the most important one. The country he’s running in doesn’t work for him and his voters. They can only fuck it up.
          Sorry. That’s what’s going on here.

          • Well, as long as you know which side of the class war you’re on.

            Don’t worry though, we won’t means test you. You’ll get guaranteed healthcare, just like everyone else.

          • That ‘type’ is one who at least rhetorically speaks to the needs of the majority of the population, people who actually work for a living.

            What neoliberals don’t get is that their time is over. Your worldview has failed, utterly, and people are rebelling against it. The populist genie is never going back into the bottle.

            Now, you can either let an FDR-type figure from the left come along and ameliorate the worst problems. Or you can squash such voices, in favor of more establishment figures. But when you do that, you’re just leaving the crown in the gutter for a right-winger like Trump to come along and exploit the people’s need.

            Trump is a clown, more heat than light. But at some point the smart version of Trump is going to come along (hell, it may be Bloomberg, who I already see this site starting to entertain the idea of supporting), and ride the populist wagon to complete domination of politics.

          • Does Plenue mean Benedict Donald is going to have a road-to-Damascus caliber change of heart and give us guaranteed health care after he buries Sanders in a repeat of 1972? 😈

            Though, actually, I can think of two ways St. Bernard actually could win:

            (1) The economy nose-dives at just the right time, rather like it did for Obama in 2008, just as McCain was starting to close the gap somewhat.

            (2) If Sanders is a Putin stooge, like Trump, and Putin decides to hack the elections in Sanders’s favor, this time–in order to enrage the Trump Chumps into actually rioting in the streets, further weakening our nation, and especially its ability to accomplish anything outside our borders. Indeed, Putin might decide to do that even if Sanders is not his stooge, just to foment chaos in the USA.

          • The populist genie has always been re-bottled before. Why will this time be different?

          • I already said Trump was a charlatan. He isn’t going to deliver on any of his promises. But he won speaking the rhetoric of change when no one else in the race was. The Democrats self-sabotage left him a free weapon, just lying around.

            The economy doesn’t need to nosedive, because it never recovered from the 2008 crash.

            And no candidate is a ‘Putin stooge’. Russiagate was a made up conspiracy theory. Jesus, you still believe all that nonsense? I’d direct you to read some Aaron Mate articles, but I doubt you’d even bother.

            And no, it hasn’t been re-bottled before, not without serious concessions to its demands. Concessions no one in the race is offering, outside of Sanders.

            You can either compromise with an FDR, or you get a new 1789.

          • “The country he’s running in doesn’t work for him and his voters”

            Right. The country he’s running in has millions of uninsured, lethally expensive pharmaceuticals, captive regulators who are just biding their time waiting for sinecures at the industries they’re supposed to be regulating, two generations in debt servitude to student loans, and no limits on the influence of the wealthy or corporations on campaign finance.

            Yeah, that definitely doesn’t work for me so I’m going to try to change it. I think that beats supine acquiescence, but your mileage may vary.

            If this is the really the case, if he’s such a dark horse that he can’t gain significant support, then why are you all so afraid to let the voters decide? Because it certainly sounds like you are.

            And, if there are Russian trolls inserting themselves in the process, what makes you think they’re all trolling for Sanders? If their real intention is to sow discord, why wouldn’t they make obnoxious posts on behalf of a variety of candidates. Personally, if I were seeking to destroy people’s faith in the process, I’d try to rig it so the general contest was between two billionaires with spotty records on race and gender and with opinions that are wildly unpopular in large segments of the country.

            So, in the unlikely event (and I do think it’s unlikely) that Sanders is the nominee, what are you going to do? Vote for Trump? Sit it out?

          • Yeah, IBW, the progressive populist genie has been bottled before – that’s why the New Deal was never completed, why formerly tuition-free state universities now charge exorbitant tuition, why anti-trust law is a joke in the US, why the formerly publicly-owned Internet is now in the hands of plutocrats, why public officials can talk about cutting social security and Medicare without fear of torches and pitchforks, and why workers have lost all their bargaining power over the last several decades.

            I don’t consider any of that a positive development. Why do you?

          • Prop, I never said it was a positive development.

            And, as I have said before, if St. Bernard wins the nomination, I will vote for him. Then, I will go home and steel myself for four more years of Prez Benedict Donald, or Prez Benny Don for less than four years, followed by (Ass)Holy Mike Pence for the rest of the term.

            You and the troll remind me of the bright, confident young men of 1972, who were sooooo certain that they were The Future Incarnate–really, in the depths of their minds, their hero-leader from an older generation would function as a figurehead–and the alienated masses of proletarians would rally to their banner, and the old order would crumble before their sheer wonderfulness.

            Need I even state what actually happened?

          • A new 1789?

            You propose to run Zombie George Washington next time if St. Bernard fails? (Oh, wait, the election was in 1788, I suppose).

          • Prop, I never said it was a positive development.

            Well, then welcome to the Sanders campaign. 😉 I think I can hook you up with a yard sign or two.

            Yeah, the ghost of 1972 is certainly with us. I was one year too young to vote that year (which also made me one year too young to be drafted, thank God), but I campaigned for Humphrey in the primaries.

            What’s really sad isn’t that 1972 was huge electoral defeat – it’s that it’s the year we lost our nerve and forgot how to fight (really fight, not campaign fundraising email “fight”). Maybe we should get that back. And maybe we should stop being so bloody timid because we’re afraid the Republicans will call us bad names (hint, over on Instapundit, they’re already calling Klobuchar a “commie”). And while we’re at it, we should stop letting them drag the Overton WIndow so far too the Right that Richard Nixon would be considered a socialist these days. Maybe we should drag it back to where it was when Harry Truman said this:

            Well, I have been studying the Republican Party for over 12 years at close hand in the Capital of the United States. And by this time, I have discovered where the Republicans stand on most of the major issues.

            Since they won’t tell you themselves, I am going to tell you.

            They approve of the American farmer — but they are willing to help him go broke.

            They stand four-square for the American home — but not for housing.

            They are strong for labor — but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

            They favor a minimum wage — the smaller the minimum the better.

            They indorse educational opportunity for all — but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools.

            They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine — for people who can afford them.

            They approve of Social Security benefits — so much so that they took them away from almost a million people.

            They believe in international trade — so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement.

            They favor the admission of displaced persons — but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.

            They consider electric power a great blessing — but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.

            They say TVA is wonderful — but we ought never to try it again.

            They condemn “cruelly high prices” — but fight to the death every effort to bring them down.

            They think the American standard of living is a fine thing — so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people.

            And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.

            Now, my friends, that is the Wall Street Republican way of life. But there is another way — there is another way — the Democratic way, the way of the Democratic Party.

            Note the comments about medical care, social security, and displaced persons. We’re still fighting a battle we should have won almost 72 years ago.

          • As for zombies, if we dug up Ronald Reagan’s corpse and ran it, they’d still call him a commie. We should stop playing their rhetorical game and stop letting them define the rules.

          • I was talking about the French Revolution, you illiterate.

          • You’re always going on about 1972. That’s the closest thing you have to an actual argument. I can vaguely understand where you’re coming from with it, at least that position sort of has actual evidence to back it up. But you’re basically wrong about what happened to McGovern: he didn’t lose because he was too far left, he lost because he was campaigning against a popular sitting president. he would have most likely lost regardless of his platform https://newrepublic.com/article/130737/democrats-still-dont-get-george-mcgovern.

            By focusing solely on an episode where a progressive lost, you’re also ignoring the half-dozen other times after 1972 when moderates also lost. And you’re ignoring the previous 39 years, including the four consequential wins of a progressive candidate, who left such a mark that Republicans had to force through a new term limit rule so it would never happen again.

            You’re also ignoring that the America of 2020 isn’t the America of 1972. Whatever economic problems people had in 1972, they’re an order of magnitude worse now.

          • I iz not illitrut! I kann reed and rite REALE gud! 😛

            It’s like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall, isn’t it? 😈

            (“Ehhhh…I do dis to him all troo da picture, folks.”) 😛

        • The fact is that Sanders went out of his way to support Clinton in 2016, to the point that he gets criticism for having done so and is called a sheepdog for having done so, shepherding the left to vote Democrat.

          This site is exactly the sort of place that will deny he did it enough, or didn’t try hard enough, but he did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUE1cHe9GLY

          Meanwhile, Clinton herself in the 2008 primary stubbornly went two whole months after the delegate math had turned decisively against her, justifying it with thinly veiled speculation that Obama might be assassinated.

          • “Meanwhile, Clinton herself in the 2008 primary stubbornly went two whole months after the delegate math had turned decisively against her, justifying it with thinly veiled speculation that Obama might be assassinated.”

            Plenue, not that my opinion matters, but I don’t see what happened to Clinton in 2008 remotely compares to what happened to Sanders in 2016, apples to oranges. They wouldn’t even give her a roll call, she had to give all her delegates to Obama without it which offended me as a voter. And, that she implied that Obama might be assassinated is absurd. With the Obama campaign using the race card against her and Bill, do you honestly believe she would be that stupid if she did mean it which i will never believe she did. Damn, there I go again forgetting I am just a fanatical cultist in thrall to an entitled narcissist.

          • Er, you mean they played the race card on a campaign that peddled in subtextual racism?

            https://www.huffpost.com/entry/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004

            And yes, actually. I do believe she is that stupid. She lost to Trump.

          • By that logic, Sanders lost to Hillary so he must be stupider than Hillary. I assume you will reply that the primary was not fair or free from influence but the GE was epically fair and free and had Sanders been the nominee, he would have beat trump like a drum. I don’t buy it.

            P.S.: i don’t think either Hillary or Bernie is stupid.

        • Sorry but Michael Moore is not a reliable source. Bernie has a history of not supporting the nominee and his behavior and the behavior of his supporters in 2016 is why nobody believes him.

          • You should follow the links Moore cites. The sources for the statistic are NPR and The New Yorker.

          • He has a history of not supporting the nominee? Since when? He did 40 speeches for Clinton, and has repeatedly said he’ll do it again this time. Here’s freaking video of him saying it:

            And he reiterated that he will do it at literally the most recent debate.

  3. Some of us view the impending coronation by the superdelegates this way:

    • I didn’t like their interference in 2008 because there WAS no brokered convention. They just handed it to Obama and completely ignored the voters.
      But this time, They might be useful.

      • Right. They rigged it in the Rules Committee, which some members of the DNC are trying to do this year as well. They also bullied Hillary delegates to abandon their pledges and vote for Obama (including one from my precinct). They also called state and local party officials (like me) to threaten them. Believe me, I know about that. It’s why I don’t donate to the party anymore.

        • I was a delegate to the state convention for HRC in 2008. All of us who represented her, and there were a substantial number, were subjected to harassment and intimidation.

          • Yup. One of my precinct delegates made it all the way to the national convention. She went through hell. My personal threat came from a former district attorney from a neighboring county.

            Let’s just say there’s a reason I don’t donate to the party anymore.

  4. Actually, forget the strange women in ponds:

    • Henh – you know the character of Charles Forbin was based on Seymour Cray, right?

      • I’ve never actually read that book, or seen that movie (at least I think I remember it was both).

        Also, how about Locutus/Data 2020?

        “Resistance Is Futile” 😈

        • It’s a trilogy. The presence of CDC 607 tape drives in the movie is positively chilling – I was once almost decapitated by one of those damned things.

        • Somewhere there’s a product photograph (taken by me) of a Cray-4 cpu sitting on top of paperback editions of the Colossus Trilogy. Very few people got the joke – I had to explain it to Seymour (he’d never read the books or seen the movie).

  5. What an absolute hatchet job done on Bloomberg by Maddow and O’Donnell. Maddow saying that Klobuchar, whom she interviewed last night, sounded like she was rubbing her hands at the opportunity to debate Bloomberg, and then laughing her weird laugh. Maddow and O’Donnell going on and on about a comment Bloomberg made in 2008 about the cause of the housing crash being caused by redlining. O’Donnell putting Warren on, who absolutely attacks Bloomberg, saying that he is trying to buy the election, we don’t need billionaires, we need to support poor people, whatever.

    Bloomberg is open to being criticized for anything, just like all of them are. But it is clear that MSNBC wanted Sanders or Warren,, now might accept Klobuchar, will never say anything positive about Bloomberg, even though he somehow got elected three times in NYC, has been endorsed by several African-American mayors already. Vote for anyone you like, but do not run a partisan show. It reminds me of when Matthews spent two hours going over a comment Hilary made in a debate in 2008, where she may have contradicted herself about whether immigrants should get drivers’ licenses Only semi-mistake she ever made in a debate, and Matthews salivated over it, two hours hes spent. with graphs and charts. If you’re going to question candidates’ positions and credentials, then do it for all of them. But they don’t, not even close. You would think that Bloomberg was a terrible mayor of some backwater town, instead of being quite popular in a city which will destroy the career of someone they see as incompetent or always wrong.

    The biggest story in the primaries for me is that there is a concerted effort by Republicans to get their people to cross over and vote for Sanders in primaries Not a word about this from anyone on MSNBC or anywhere else on TV, as far as I know. But boy, they are so excited to talk about a 2008 comment by Bloomberg. I’m looking at a country which will slide into complete authoritarian rule unless Trump is defeated. I’m looking at the hottest January in recorded history,, and it is accelerating. I am thinking that if people do not completely concentrate on getting rid of Trump, and replacing him with someone who has the views and the resources to powerfully combat climate change, we have no real hope. But I’m sure that if we lose, Maddow and O’Donnell and the rest will look appropriately sad and outraged, even if it does no good whatsoever for anyone. They can vote for anyone they like, but their job is not to play favorites, not within the only Party that can save the country.

    • MSNBC has been blatantly anti-Sanders since he announced. Krystal Ball has done a lot of reporting on this.

      • Hasn’t Chris Hayes had Sanders on virtually every week for four years? My feeling is that while no journalist is going to be without some bias, they are supposed to play it fair. What I saw tonight from Maddow and O’Donnell was just blatant, and they did not have any Bloomberg surrogate to try to answer or contest. I read that Katy Tur had Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia, who is supporting Bloomberg, on today, and was quite dismissive of him, did not even show any interest in his responses. Fox is obviously unwatchable. CNN with Zucker is probably all -in for Trump again. One depends on MSNBC to present the candidates fairly, but they are not doing it. The only ones I can really expect to be fair about things are Nicolle Wallace, and Chris Jansing, when she is on. I know you don’t support Bloomberg, and many here may not, but what I saw tonight, and I only saw the last ten minutes or so of Maddow, and then the first half hours of O’Donnell, was really disgraceful in terms of fairness. It has freed up two more hours of my day for the rest of the campaign and probably beyond,, because things like that stay with me.

    • Actually, Maddow and O’Donnell call themselves journalists. Their job isn’t to favor any party. Just reporting the unvarnished truth ought to be enough.

    • And let me just add that Warren, by her own account, was a Republican until she was 41. She thus voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan twice, and GHW Bush. People can develop, change opinions, we welcome such people who come over to the Democratic side. But for Warren to act like the voice of political virtue, someone who just knows so much more than anyone else, is pathetic. What did she say when Reagan was piling up the deficit, when Grover Norquist was telling everyone that he wanted a government that could drown in a bathtub? Now she’s inveighing against billionaires as if she is Upton Sinclair. And she does so with such righteous passion. No one in any of the debates that I saw ever attacked Warren for her support of right-wing Republicans in past years. If the Democrats lose the election, she can still keep her Senate seat in Massachusetts. Maybe she can tell us again how the 2016 primary was rigged, because she thought it would appeal to Bernie and his folks.

      • William,

        I am sick and tired of your continued attacks on Warren. You will find any reason to attack her, even if she is not part of the conversation.

        FYI, your boy Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican. Why would he do that? Surely, there must be nafarious reason for his doing so but I doubt very seriously that you would find fault with his change of heart and will make any excuse for his changing parties, no matter what the reason was.

        Your pathetic attacks on Warren are exactly like those men (bernie bros, male pundits and the repubicans) who attacked Hillary ad nauseum. We know you don’t like her so don’t vote for her. Many of us on this blog like and believe in her and I am tired of your rants against her.

        I’ll give Lawrence O’Donnell credit for something no other pundit has had the guts to say out loud about the continued misogyny being spewed against any woman seeking power…”no one questions the electability of a gay man or the electablilty of a Jewish man” but they always question a woman’s electability no matter how much more qualified she is to her male counterparts and it’s maddening.

        Yes, it is maddening and I refuse to stay silent when it’s being spewed on a blog where women come to find refuge from such nonsense.

        • Do you think that the 2016 Democratic primaries and nomination were rigged? I certainly do not. When Warren was asked after the election whether she thought the primaries were rigged, she said, “Of course they were!” She could have said, “Well I really don’t know much about any of it, but I don’t think that they were.” She could have tried to be politic and say, “It’s something that bears looking into.” But no, she chose to say, “Of course they were!”

          This was of course the crux of the Sanders and followers’ argument all along. They lost, so it was rigged. They didn’t win the Nevada caucus, so it was rigged. Some of them hadn’t voted in years, so NY took them off the voting rolls, and they did not re-register in in time, so it was rigged. There were superdelegates, whom he tried to switch from Hillary to him three months after all the primaries were over, and they did not, so it was rigged. And what the result of this ceaseless griping and anger? First, plenty of Sanders supporters chose not to vote for Hillary, thus electing Trump. Second, Tom Perez got so intimidated that he acquiesced to Sanders’ handpicked “Unity Commission,” and allowed changes all designed to benefit Sanders. These included counting each stage of the caucus vote in Iowa, never before done, which led to the debacle that occurred there. It included the not allowing of any superdelegates to vote on the first convention ballot. Most importantly, they kept the DNC from working with states to make primaries closed. Now we see massive efforts going on in which Republicans are being encouraged and even told to cross over, re-register for a brief period, and vote for Sanders. Trump is saying it, in so many words, “Vote for the person who would be easiest to beat.”

          And now there is a better than 50% chance that Sanders will be the nominee. And if not, his supporters will gripe and yell and threaten, just like last time, and not vote in sufficient numbers. And Elizabeth Warren saying, “Of course the primaries were rigged,” gave them all the imprimatur they needed. She would not be the only reason for Sanders getting the nomination, and the resultant landslide victory for Trump which would destroy the country, but she would be a significant reason.

          • Do you think that the 2016 Democratic primaries and nomination were rigged?

            Yeah, because Donna Brazile admitted in print that they were (and that she helped):

            https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

            Even if you don’t read the hacked emails on Wikileaks that ought to be proof enough.

            Hillary would have won the nomination anyway, of course.

          • And if not, his supporters will gripe and yell and threaten, just like last time, and not vote in sufficient numbers.

            Rather like those here who say they will not support Sanders if he gets the nomination. Here’s a hint: if you’re the nominee your job is to unify the party and persuade people to support you. Proclaiming them unnecessary to your inevitable victory, excluding them from any involvement in the platform process, and basically just conducting a Stalinist purge of the party leadership to exclude anyone who agrees with them even a little bit is not productive.

          • With all due respect Propertius, i have never considered Brazile a woman of integrity. I also remember reading that Sanders’ slow move to get out of the race meant Hillary could not access funds designated for the nominee. At least Brazile acknowledges obama left the party in debt, impairing down ticket candidates. She also joined Fox news, not sure if she is still there, but that as no surprise. And, there is this article a few days after the one you cited:

            https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/05/donna-brazile-rigged-democrats-clinton-sanders-244566

          • You’re relying on Ass Mange the Rapist’s Russkileaks? Seriously, dude? 😆

          • Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign over the wikileaks revelations.

            You literally have nothing. You resort to ad hominem attacks (which aren’t even true) against the messanger when confronted with information you don’t like.

          • Because they were true? Or because the media–mainstream as well as wingnut–treated them as true, because the owners and higher-ranking employees of the media are rich, and therefore, prefer the rule of the Treason Party (fka GOP), with its policy of perpetually low taxes for the rich, so any stick to beat the Democrats with is fine with them?

            You keep acting as if

            (1) Objective reality exists in politics, and
            (2) It has any power if it does exist.

            Karl Rove was right. In politics, propaganda is everything and truth is nothing.

            No, I don’t like that–but it’s a fact. You’re so big on objective reality; why won’t you acknowledge that objective reality?

        • “nauseam: First declension.

  6. Oh, and it’s spelled “Judea”. 😉

  7. Aaaaand once again, here’s the #1 reason Why We Can’t Have Nice Things.

    Or, that is, we can’t have nice things until enough states and Congressional districts become non-white-majority–and I say that as a white dude (I include that for the benefit of any newcomers).

    • All I see is neoliberals pushing identity politics (things will get better if only the ruling class is sufficiently diverse and ‘woke’) while attempting to smother any attempt at building intersectional class politics.

      • The Plain Sturdy Noble Working-Class and Middle-Class White Folks, whom our new troll lionizes, started turning away from the liberal Democrats BEFORE the economy started to turn sour in the 1970s.

        George Wallace–not George McGovern, George Wallace–won the 1972 Democratic primary in that kudzu-strangled cradle of the Confederacy, the state of Wisconsin, because our new troll’s Working Class Zeroes Heroes didn’t like those uppity women and uppity n*****s and uppity hippies and uppity eggheads and et cetera, ad nauseam.

        As the non-elite but non-poor whites, still economically confident enough to put their prejudices above their interests, continued to turn away from the New Deal/Great Society Dems, the Dems were forced to try to compensate by buying more ads, for which they needed money, for which they needed to go to the people who had money–who, of course, wanted some quid for their quo, and so the Dems were forced to tack rightward to secure their funding.

        I can’t blame the Dems. My Volk did this to themselves.

        Davis X. Machina is right, and the troll is wrong.

        Again, I feel like a Marvel Comics mutant who has decided that Magneto is right about the normals.

        • Funny, the only bigot I see here is you.

          • If Chris Rock and an infinity of rappers can use the N-word because they are black, I can say what I said because I come mostly from Borderer stock. 😈

          • Oh, and everyone else please notice that the troll did NOT try to refute that the Virtuous White Sons of Toil abandoned the Democratic Party first, before the economy started turning sour for the Sons of Toil.

        • And how many of these “r*cists” voted for Obama? Twice?

          Why didn’t they vote for Hillary?

          And thank you for spelling “nauseam” correctly 😉

          • “Why didn’t they vote for Hillary?”

            Have you ruled out stupidity? 😈

            Plus, Obama did not face a hostile foreign power which was flooding the zone with anti-Obama propaganda.

            This assumes that you are correct that a significant number of Obama voters later voted for Benedict Donald, which I rather doubt.

            ****************************

            I have had the misfortune to live among these people my whole life, with no way to escape. I think I know them better than you do.

            Why did the White Dumb-Asses desert those “horrible liberal Democrats” BEFORE the economy started to turn sour for White Dumb-Asses, if not due to “cultural anxiety”?

    • The only reason why this *might* be true is because the plutocrats have convinced people that any attempt to improve the lot of others comes at the cost of further impoverishing their own families. This while picking the pockets of everyone. Don’t help them out. Frederick Douglass wrote about this over 150 years ago, specifically suggesting that slaveholders in the South encouraged racism among poor whites to prevent them from agitating for higher wages or allying themselves with the slaves.

      • Yes, and the slaveholders succeeded in planting that foul idea in “Cracker Culture”, and making it self-perpetuating. Your last post didn’t refute DXM, it reinforced him.

        • Yeah, my gripe is that your rhetoric only serves to perpetuate the evil you claim to despise.

          • Well, Holy Ascended Madoka, Prop! Thank you for telling me that my words are Ye Omnipotent Magick! I’ll just say, “Hear me, Universe! I command you to place a billion dollars in my bank account!”.

            My words perpetuate nothing. You are becoming almost as tedious as Our New Friend.

  8. I wonder when Bernie’s essay about women will get coverage.

    • Within a few days after he wins the Democratic nomination, if he wins it.

      • It’s just sitting there, easy to find with a quick search. And so much more. The.”if” he wins is a big “if”.

    • That essay is in plain sight, and no one on the air will even allude to it. The Republicans are just holding it, not even believing that the Democrats would be so foolish as to let Sanders get the nomination so that they can use the story to destroy his candidacy. And I am supposed to believe that the media is unbiased? Actually, has anyone seen anything personally negative about Sanders ever put on the air? We hear that Biden got too touchy with women, that Klobuchar yelled at her staffers, that Bloomberg made some remarks which might have been acceptable in the Mad Men days but not now. Not a word about Sanders’ essay. Do they think that it is not going to be used by Republicans? Do the networks all want Trump to win, so they want this held until the nomination? Remind me of the Bill Clinton candidacy, when we spent months on draft dodging, inhaling, antiwar protesting abroad, affairs, a land deal. The media calls the tune every time.

      • “Actually, has anyone seen anything personally negative about Sanders ever put on the air?”

        Yes, constantly (when they actually bother to even mention He Who Should Not Be Named at all, anyway). The most charitable assessments he gets are that he’s a naive idealist.

        Most recently we’ve had the wonderful spectacle of an obviously drunk Chris Matthews ranting about how he thinks Sanders might have him executed in Central Park.

      • Remind me of the Bill Clinton candidacy, when we spent months on draft dodging, inhaling, antiwar protesting abroad, affairs, a land deal.

        I’ll remind you that we won that year.

        • I disagree with that, and I am getting almost as weary of you as I am of the new know-it-all troll. I am beginning to think of you as a member of that category as well.

          • *sigh* I posted that in the wrong place, and now I can’t erase it.

            TurdPress sucks goat mucus.

            Actual response below:

            “I’ll remind you that we won that year.”

            Thank you, Recession and Ross Perot. 😛

    • The one you’ve never read?

      The actual point of the essay was that traditional gender roles can create worrying dynamics in marriages and with people’s fantasies. He wasn’t endorsing rape; exactly the opposite in fact.

      • And will that matter, once the Pretty Hate Machine gets through saturating the media with the worst possible misreading of it?

        You persist in the quaint idea that truth matters in politics.

        • You act like all this nonsense wasn’t already thrown at Sanders in 2016 (by liberals like you).

          The ‘rape essay’ is already well known. It didn’t stick. Just as Warren’s sexism lie didn’t stick. There’s power in having a consistent record stretching back decades.

          Also, you seem to have completely missed the point of claims about us living in ‘post-truth’. It’s supposed to be lament, not something you embrace.

          You have repeatedly demonstrated you can’t argue facts. Facts not mattering may or may not be true, but you’re not supposed to brag about siding with untruth.

          • I neither lament it nor embrace it.

            I shrug at it.

            Yes, I dislike it.

            I also dislike the fact that as I approach the completion of my 57th solar orbit, my body grows ever less reliable.

            However, I can do nothing about either misfortune.

          • But “all this nonsense” wasn’t thrown at Sanders by the Russopublican Pretty Hate Machine, which is the most effective propaganda apparatus humanity has yet devised–an apparatus which would make Goebbels, and his Communist equivalents, weep in envy.

            The Russopublicans were holding their fire in 2016, waiting to see if Sanders won the nomination. Since he did not win it, they never needed to attack him. They could just save the smear campaign for a later election, if they needed it.

          • I love the concern trolling that a progressive can’t win because ‘Russopublican’ (there was no Russian ‘interference’ in 2016, but whatever) propaganda will attack him, as if your beloved ‘electable’ moderates hadn’t already been tried and lost.

            By all means, let’s try that thing that already failed again.

          • And the smug naifs cheerfully trot toward their waiting doom…

          • I also dislike the fact that as I approach the completion of my 57th solar orbit, my body grows ever less reliable.

            Youngster.

            Well, Mike Bloomberg seems to have an answer for that:

            Once we get Bloomberg-care I guess you won’t have to worry about getting older.

          • I doubt Bloomberg can make it anyway, once the fanatics of both Left and Right start dredging up every stupid thing he ever said or did.

            How will your Dear Leader pay for his proposed programs, Prop? The Underpants Gnomes method?

          • He’s not my “dear leader”, IBW. The question isn’t how can we pay for M4A, the question is how can we possibly pay for not having M4A. We pay twice as much per capita for healthcare in this country as any other industrialized country. We pay $11,000 per person. A lot of that is hidden. It’s not just premiums people pay directly: it’s employer contributions (which reduce other compensation), it’s surprise billing.

            The latest studies I’ve seen (and it will take me awhile to dig them up) project $480 billion/year in net cost savings from M4A – and we don’t have to leave millions of our fellow citizens uncovered to do it.

            We can’t afford anything else.

            As for free tuition, we had that and we lost it. We didn’t experience a sudden economic boom as a result of saddling 2+ generations with unmanageable, undischargeable (thank you, Joe Biden) debt, so reversing that will pretty obviously not reduce us to penury.

            By most estimates, we spent trillions bailing out the greedy bastards who tanked the economy in 2008. Don’t tell me we can afford to guarantee the bonuses of financial criminals but we can’t get insulin to every diabetic.

            Honestly, it’s really generous of you guys to save the Republicans from having to campaign by echoing their talking points. They being so strapped for cash and all.

          • As a matter of practical political reality, how will he pay for it?

            The obvious method that your last post hints at is massive tax increases on the wealthy, and even the merely affluent, and massively restricting the profits of the people who currently make obscene profits.

            These people hold massive political power.

            How will you lot defeat them?

            Our New Friend’s answer would be to threaten to shave them with the national razor.

            You are smart enough to know that can never happen in the USA. If we ever have a second Revolution here (Ascended Madoka forbid it), it will be from the Right, not the Left.

            So how do you propose to defeat them?

            And if your answer boils down to “Enlighten the White Dumb-Asses”, I hope I have enough Super Glue around here to re-attach my butt, after I laugh it off. 😆

          • Maybe I should have said “third Revolution”, because in a way, the Civil War was a second Revolution–which came from the Right, not the Left.

            Alas, the Southern reactionaries eventually won the peace, even though they lost the war.

  9. Propertius, referencing Harry Truman isn’t likely to have any impact here. As near as I can tell, though they might frame it as a resignation that a progressive platform just can’t win (ignoring its long history of winning), the Clinton loyalist crowd is actively hostile to the New Deal. The entire political legacy of the Clintons is an active repudiation of FDR’s platform (‘ending welfare as we know it’, ‘they have nowhere else to go’, bank deregulation).

    • Take a look at what happened to Clinton’s $16 billion stimulus package in 1993, it was filibustered. It is not 1933, when FDR, a great president, was elected in the midst of the Great Depression, with a third of the country out of work, and the Democrats held working majorities in the House and Senate, and things were so bad in the country that even Republicans were scared. And even so, the Supreme Court struck down most of his legislation for the first few years.

      The idea that in this country at this time, there is going to be a powerful Democratic majority in the Senate which will push through Medicare for All, and massive wealth taxes, and “breaking up the big banks,” and free college for everybody, is wildly fanciful, to put it kindly. Look at what happened to McGovern, who was a nicer person than Sanders, and a genuine war hero, in 1972. The populace is not one bit more liberal economically than it was in 1972, most likely less so. No one who identifies literally or in terms of policy as a Socialist, can come close to winning. Why do we have to find this out in every generation? This time, there will be no coming back from the horror that a Trump victory will cause.

      As far as I am concerned, the “Left,” and their anger and fantasies, have virtually ruined us; from Nader giving us GW Bush, to Sanders giving us Trump, maybe twice. But they never learn, or more likely, most do not care; they want their anger, their self-righteousness, their feelings of moral purity and superiority. There was a site called “Fire Dog Lake,” which I used to look at during the Obama years.. And they had some good writers, and they had legitimate criticisms of Obama’s tendency to conciliate with Republicans. So it made me feel a little better, until I realized that the founder and most of the posters there were pushing for a third party, saying it was the only answer. And I stopped reading it. The only reason Hillary did not dump the opposition research on Sanders were that she is a nice person, and that she and many Democrats were afraid that if they did, Sanders would run as a third party candidate. Republicans have no such compunctions. Run one series of ads showing how Sanders praised Castro and criticized JFK for not appreciating his great work in Cuba, and the race is over. Complex Hegelian historical or psychological analyses of that, or his rape fantasies essay, are not going to cancel out a word of it.

      • Oh look, the Nader lie again. Gore ‘lost’ (he actually won, but Democrats don’t believe in fighting for anything so they let the Supreme Court overrule democracy) Florida because nearly 200,000 Democrats preferred to vote for Bush. Even if every vote that went to Nader went to Gore he still would have had a deficit.

        https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth

        And Sanders didn’t give us Trump. A garbage candidate who millions of previous voters couldn’t even bother to show up for gave us Trump.

        Oh I’m sure you stopped reading. Your thoughtbubble was threatened and you chickened out.

        Obama didn’t ‘conciliate’ with Republicans. He was a moderate Republican, who ‘negotiated’ with them by giving them 99% of what they wanted and then conceding further from there. The only reason we never had a ‘Grand Bargain’ assault on Social Security under Obama was because the GOP had invested so much political capital into hating Obama that they couldn’t work with him even on something they long desired.

        Hillary Clinton is not a ‘nice person’. Hillary Clinton is a monster. Just ask the mountains of dead Iraqis and Libyans.

        • “Hillary Clinton is not a ‘nice person’. Hillary Clinton is a monster. Just ask the mountains of dead Iraqis and Libyans.”

          BENNNNGHAAAAAAAAAAAAZIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!1!11!111!3.14159!!!!!!

          Another support for the Horseshoe Theory. 😈

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

        • I never said anything about Benghazi.

          Are you seriously this ignorant of recent history?

          • I can’t afford to subscribe to the pseudo-liberal New York Times, or the sweatshop lord Bezos’s Washington Post, so there is no use in asking me to read a link to either newspaper.

            Your privilege is showing.

            The mention of Benghazi was a method of equating the fanaticism of your kind to the fanaticism of Internet reactionaries who are obsessed with the alleged evils of Those Horrible Clintons. I suppose next you’ll tell us about all those rapes and sacrifices of children which took place in a non-existent basement of a pizza parlor.

            The Horseshoe Theory prevails.

            Ascended Madoka help this country if the Democratic Party is taken over by cultists of a sick old man, as the Treason Party (fka GOP) was taken over by the cultists of another sick old man.

          • Now this is genuinely funny. The NYT isn’t liberal enough for you. Which is fine, I’m assuming ‘liberal’ here means ‘left’ (liberals aren’t the left, and the NYT is thoroughly liberal). I could direct you to many actually left wing outlets, but I’m sure you’d like them even less.

            Also, my privilege? I don’t subscribe to them either. You don’t need to pay them to read them.

            Regardless, that Clinton was the deciding voice in the ‘intervention’ in Libya in 2011 is well established history. You don’t like NYT? Fine, how about Foreign Policy? https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hillary-the-hawk-a-history-clinton-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/

            So I guess post-truth really is where you like to live. Facts just don’t matter to you.

          • “Now this is genuinely funny.”

            I am pleased to have amused you. 😀

            As a wise man (OK, it was Bugs Bunny) told me:

            “Don’t take life too seriously; you’ll never get out of it alive.”

          • IBW,

            The NYT paywall was implemented by idiots. All you have to do is clear all of their cookies and you’re golden.

            Bezos, unfortunately, can afford better help.

          • Propertius, I am a relic from the era where children were not yet taught in school how to operate computers. (IIRC, the TRS-80 came out during my high school years.) I did not start getting on the Internet regularly until August 2004.

            IIRC, I have tried to find the cookie file on my own computer, and it said I was not authorized to access it, or something to that effect.

            I have more important things to do with my limited time than wrestle a recalcitrant artificial intelligence.

      • So we shouldn’t stand for anything because we might lose? And, in fact, we should just acquiesce in crap like this:

        http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cancer-patient-debtors-prison/

        because we just can’t get anything better and if we try the Republicans will call us bad names?

        So what’s your best case alternative, William?

        What are you *for*?

        I know you’re “against Trump”, but what’s your positive agenda? Keeping *only* 80 million Americans uninsured or underinsured? Maybe only letting the Republicans cut SS and Medicare a little bit? Maybe we can get Jeff Bezos to pay a whole dollar in income tax next year!

        • Yes, it all sucks.

          But until enough of the irremediably mean and stupid ofay honky mofos die off, it can’t be changed.

          Deny that all you want; it remains the truth.

      • The idea that in this country at this time, there is going to be a powerful Democratic majority in the Senate which will push through Medicare for All, and massive wealth taxes, and “breaking up the big banks,” and free college for everybody, is wildly fanciful, to put it kindly.

        The only word I can think of after reading this is “pusillanimous”. Let’s not ever try to do anything. Let’s let the poor starve. Let’s roll over when they come for Social Security and Medicare. Let’s destroy the middle class. Let’s sentence every generation from now on to debt peonage. Let’s throw out antitrust law. All of it. Let’s keep ripping babies from the arms of their mothers at the border while we’re throwing another trillion or two at the .01%. The Republicans really love us. They only beat up on us because we advocate bad things, like not throwing people into bankruptcy when they get sick.

        Why vote for anyone, William, if it’s all so hopeless? Why not stay home, crack open a beer, and wait to die?

        Here, let me sell you a clue (and I’m not even going to ask you for the $150 Bloomberg is paying his wu mao for favorable tweets):

        Next time we gain control of the Senate, let’s not pick an ovine catamite like Harry Reid as majority leader. That will go a long way towards accomplishing an agenda.

        • “pusillanimous”

          Oh, courage solves everything, Prop?

          Tell that to the Native Americans, who never lacked courage.

          Tell that to the Confederates, who never lacked courage.

          Tell that to the warriors of Imperial Japan, who never lacked courage. (*cough*kamikaze*cough*)

          You know what reality calls courageous people without power?

          LOSERS.

        • He also doesn’t understand either the concept of using executive power, which has grown like a cancer over the last twenty years, to actually do good, or the idea of pressuring Congress with protests in the street. I can only imagine what he would have said about the Civil Rights movement, or protesting against Vietnam.

          Woodpecker’s message is literally one of defeatism. “Don’t even try.” And what’s more, the position he’s adopted for saying there is no hope is based on the idea that these ideas have no genuine popular support, when there is in fact significant evidence to the contrary.

          He can claim he just doesn’t believe that Sanders is actually that popular, but from where I’m standing it looks like he is actively opposed to the notion that Sanders is popular, to the extent that he is manufacturing fictitious Russian bots and trolls to convince himself Sanders support is illusory.

          • The Civil Rights movement was lucky to have an opportune moment in history: Segregation and discrimination against non-white Americans had to be abolished, at least officially, in order to make the USA look better in the eyes of newly independent nations, most of which had predominantly non-white populations–because we were engaged in a propaganda war with the USSR to bring those nations into our camp, or, failing that, at least keep them out of the Soviet camp. The Cold War made the Civil Rights reforms possible, because they had become necessary to the Cold War effort. This fact is grimly reinforced by the slow erosion of those reforms after the Cold War ended.

            North Vietnam just flat kicked our asses, because they had one overwhelming military advantage:

            They did not need to win; they only needed to avoid complete, final defeat. As long as they could fight, they would eventually wear the quasi-imperial power into deciding the gains of possible victory were no longer worth the expense in blood and treasure.

  10. We have Richard Nixon on steroids in the white house and we’re thinking about running George McGovern. Like Carville said the party has gone stupid.

    • Comparing Benedict Donald to Tricky Dick is an insult to Tricky Dick.

      Oh, Dick and his gremlins might sabotage peace talks with Hanoi, in order to win the White House, but Dick would never have sold himself to the Soviets to win the White House.

    • Carville is a moron who thought *squint* Michael Bennet was worthy of an endorsement.

      • Dude, Bernie just took an endorsement from the terribly unpopular mayor of NYC and is going to bring him campaigning with him. I think I’d take a Carville endorsement over that. ROFLMAO.

    • Nixon was much too far to the left for the likes of today’s Democrats. That OSHA thing is practically socialist!

    • Richard Nixon would be a left-of-center Democrat now.

  11. Plenue, once again, thank you for explaining what i think. I had never read the Truman quote before but thought it accurate, succinct and powerful. I never thought those Democratic objectives unachievable or not worthwhile; as a Clinton “loyalist,” i never thought of either of the Clintons or myself as being against the New Deal and the social safety nets, but rather for them. I haven’t had time to look into the parenthetic references, but as to bank dereg i believe you are referring to Glass Steagall and the Gramm et al Act that was veto proof and would have passed with or without Clinton’s approval. Yeah, yeah he could have disapproved it but would it have made a difference at the time or now to a Bernie Supporter? Surprised you didn’t throw in DOMA and don’t ask don’t tell.

    • Oh really? Well, if you believe in those ideals, you might want to reexamine the Clintons. Because Bill Clinton literally campaigned on ‘ending welfare as we know it’, a promise he delivered on when he destroyed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program in 1996. And Hillary was there every step of the way with him.

      More recently:

      “People who have health emergencies can’t wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea [single-payer healthcare] that will never, ever come to pass.” – Hillary Clinton, Des Moines Iowa, 29/01/2016

      • You left out how the Clintons sacrificed children to Satan, then snorted cocaine off the bloody corpses.

        Or maybe our new friend is just still mad at Hillary for short-sheeting his bed that one time. 😉

        • Again, what I’m saying is objectively true. These are the Clinton’s words, and their policy records. If you want to try and argue that they were the right decisions, do so.

          But if all you can do do is engage in hyperbole and straw-manning, that’s just pathetic.

        • Do I need to care if I am “pathetic” or not (which, just in case you’ve forgotten, is a mere matter of opinion)?

          And if yes, why?

          As for what your knickers are twisted about, political realities can be grim. The White Dumb-Asses had to be appeased. Unfortunately, that is still the case, as not enough of them have died off yet.

          You fail to realize that there are not enough people in this country who share your views, or even can be persuaded to share your views.

          THAT, not some oligarchic conspiracy, is why you can’t get the programs and policies you want–at least some of which I would like, if they were possible.

          Before you invoke yet another poll *roll* to say that enough people DO support your views, how many people say they will support Policy X, and then change their minds after the enemy’s Pretty Hate Machine gets through flooding the zone with propaganda? And/or how many say they will support Policy X, then either are prevented from voting by dirty tricks or bad luck, or are just too damn lazy to go vote?

          • *sigh* I put asterisks instead of colons around the “roll”, and of course, I can’t fix it. I hate TurdPress.

    • Yeah, none of what you said regarding deregulation is true. Full stop. Clinton actively championed it, as did his advisers.

      https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/bill_clinton_the_republicans_m.php

      • Neither Clinton was, or is, a Pure Leftist. Our New Friend is correct about that.

        Our New Friend’s fundamental error, which is perhaps the source of all his other errors, is that he believes a majority of white Americans are secretly Pure Leftists, or at least can be talked into voting for Pure Leftists, despite decades of election results to the contrary.

        Lest we forget, FDR could not get his New Deal programs passed without accepting exceptions which had the practical effect of denying the benefits of the programs to non-white Americans.

        As soon as the Great Society programs started expanding those benefits to non-white Americans, the White Dumb-Asses of Real Amurka started voting to shred the social safety net, rather than let people they did not like use the net as well. Once again, let us remember that the White Dumb-Asses started voting Rethuglican BEFORE the economy started turning sour for White Dumb-Asses in the 1970s.

        Davis X. Machina, in the quote-image I posted above, understands their psychology (or psychopathology) better than Our New Friend does.

        Again, that psychopathology is the #1 reason why We Can’t Have Nice Things in the USA.

        • It’s nothing to do with purity. If I could snap my fingers and magically create my ideal country, it would be significantly to the left of anything Sanders wants. Sanders ‘radical’ ‘far left’ ideas are an updated New Deal.

          The problem with the Clintons isn’t that they weren’t ‘pure Leftists’ who didn’t champion things I liked hard enough. The problem with the Clintons is that they solidified Republican ideology as the new core of the Democratic Party and *actively undermined the New Deal as it still existed*. They deliberately destroyed things that had already been in place for decades.

        • Again, you over-estimate both the virtue and the intelligence of the Average White Amurkan Dumb-Ass, if you think you can actually talk a sufficient number of them into supporting your preferred candidates, policies, and programs.

          You keep invoking the New Deal. FDR could not have gotten the New Deal programs passed without making the devil’s bargain that grim political reality compelled him to make, which included booby-trap provisions which effectively excluded most non-white Americans from the benefits of those programs.

          As soon as the Civil Rights reforms opened government benefits to non-white Americans, the White Dumb-Asses decided they would rather shred the social safety net AND LIVE WITHOUT IT THEMSELVES, rather than have a net that people they did not like could also use. Also, once again, the White Dumb-Asses did that BEFORE the economy started to turn sour for them in the 1970s.

          But, you do you. Ideologues gotta ideologue, I guess.

  12. Who is this “Plenue”

    It just took over this blog space to release obsessive love for the Bern and hatred for the Clinton s.
    ???

    • That may be my fault; I suspect he/she/it (“it” if it’s a bot) followed me here, as I go slumming occasionally at the blog of St. Ian Welsh, where our new “friend” hangs out.

      I guess that’s what I get for not using condoms. 😈

      • Actually I first became aware of this swamp from a mention on naked capitalism. I’m sooooo sorry I’m ruining your smooth brain convention.

        Nothing’s ever going to persuade any of you, because you exist entirely in a world devoid of facts, endlessly repeating memes back to each other as if they were actually true:

        ‘Sanders didn’t support Hillary’, ‘Sanders doesn’t have minority support’, ‘Russia hacked the election’, ‘Nader stole Gore’s win’, etc etc etc. Any attempt to provide evidence that all these things are objectively false is met with denial or image macros and smugness.

        The fact that you people are now circling around towards Bloomberg is more of a self-own than any insult I could ever come up with.

        • “Nothing’s ever going to persuade any of you…”

          Ah, so the poor troll lacks self-esteem, and so must venture here to score what he perceives to be victories, to reassure himself of the superiority of his intellect and/or formal education.

          He probably just needs a Big Internet Hug

    • I would like to know “why” more than “who,” Belle. He or she does seem to be on a mission to bully and intimidate rather than persuade and win over. Actually, makes me dislike Sanders more.

      • If he actually thinks he can bully or intimidate any of us, I will be compelled to lower my estimate of his (her? its?) intelligence.

      • Cats,

        There were a number of sites that turned virulently anti-Hillary during the course of 2008. They went from either neutral or mildly positive to shrill hatred almost overnight. Several are still on RD’s blog list.

        One of these was, improbably enough, an economics goto site for one of the most intelligent, thoughtful and steadfast pro-Hillary bloggers, Anglechael. Go figure.

        One thing that stood out from the blogs that turned against Hillary either during or after the 2008 primaries was that they were always fairly sexist in general. I had posted a gentle request to one that was doing excellent coverage of the perfidies of Bush/Cheney in 2005 or so, to ask them to refrain from sexist hate speech, and the blog owner’s only response, if you could call it that, was to load up her next political comment with several of the most common expressions of hatred towards women. Several of that blogs front-pagers were among the leading anti-Hillary voices in 2008 and afterwards.

        Many of these Hillary haters from 2008-9 and earlier have been showing up recently on the twitter feeds and blogs of moderate pro-Hillary Democrats. Don’t know the “why” exactly, but there does seem to be a pattern.

      • Cats,

        There were a number of sites that turned virulently anti-Hillary during the course of 2008. They went from either neutral or mildly positive to shrill hatred almost overnight. Several are still on RD’s blog list.

        One of these was, improbably enough, an economics goto site for one of the most intelligent, thoughtful and steadfast pro-Hillary bloggers, Anglechael. Go figure.

        One thing that stood out from the blogs that turned against Hillary either during or after the 2008 primaries was that they were always fairly sexist in general. I had posted a gentle request to one that was doing excellent coverage of the perfidies of Bush/Cheney in 2005 or so, to ask them to refrain from sexist hate speech, and the blog owner’s only response, if you could call it that, was to load up her next political comment with several of the most common expressions of hatred towards women. Several of that blogs front-pagers were among the leading anti-Hillary voices in 2008 and afterwards.

        Many of these Hillary haters from 2008-9 and earlier have been showing up recently on the twitter feeds and blogs of moderate pro-Hillary Democrats. Don’t know the “why” exactly, but there does seem to be a pattern.

        (apologies if this shows up twice. Doesn’t seem to have posted the 1st time)

        • Now you know why I call it TurdPress. 😛

          • Yep – either feast or famine. I swear, I sometimes think there’s a virtual one-way mirror with a bunch of WP personnel behind it, laughing their a$$’s off.

  13. And now for something completely off-topic:

    (Clockwise from top left) Miyuki, Kagami, Konata, and Tsukasa of Lucky Star.

    Happy Valentine’s Day! 😀

  14. IMHO, this album track from 1986 should have been released as a single. From their 2nd album, Welcome Home.

  15. Bad news for Bloomberg hopers:

    https://www.gq.com/story/bloomberg-sexism

    *sigh* This means if he won the nomination, he’d be even more vulnerable on gender justice issues than St. Bernard.

    Maybe we can draft Michelle Obama?

    Or talk Hillary into trying again?

    Well, at least if we can take the Senate back, we’ll have more effective restraints on Benedict Donald during his second term.

    • And of course, that asinine “stop and frisk” policy makes him vulnerable on racial and ethnic justice issues as well. I guess he did not realize, soon enough, that he might run for Prez someday.

    • These things are done by the Bernie supporters. They’ve utterly trashed Warren and Buttigieg, they’ll go after anyone who threatens their idol. One can find things about any public official, he said this, or someone complained about this. Somehow this is turned into a metaphor for who that person is. Klobuchar screamed at staff, she is the most unpopular senator as rated by staff, etc. As soon as she becomes a threat to Sanders, you are going to see that all over the internet.

      I’m not going to even bother to read the link. I do know that Bloomberg was married for a long time, got divorced, and says that his ex-wife is his best friend. People should read about the elegant and accomplished Diana Taylor, who has been his significant other since 2020 who is helping to campaign for him, who says that she always thought that he would make a very good president. If Bloomberg were some kind of a jerk toward women, Taylor would not have been a love interest and staunch supporter of Bloomberg for so long. Anna Wintour, who is a close friend of Taylor, says that her relationship with Bloomberg is perhaps the least interesting thing about her, because she has so many of her own accomplishments and attributes..

      There are a variety of hit pieces now coming out against Bloomberg, just like the NYT wrote the hit piece on Klobuchar which stymied her candidacy from the beginning. By the time the Democrats get through with ostracizing all the people who had an affair, said something sexist, treated staff badly, lied on an employment application, plagiarized a speech and kissed women on the neck, put his arm around a woman for a photograph, there will be no one left, and we can turn to a one-party system, proud of our virtuousness.. Or, we can turn to Bernie Sanders, the incorruptible, who wrote essays about b___h teachers stifling men’s sexuality, women fantasizing about rape, Castro being a hero; who was a deadbeat father, who stole his neighbor’s electricity, who never registered to vote until he ran for election, who voted against the Brady Bill five times, and voted against the Magnitsky Act. Or just give up and let Trump and the Republicans run the country.

      For my part, I have confidence that Bloomberg is, all in all, a good person, who has literally given ten billion dollars to philanthropic causes, who cares deeply about somehow arresting climate change, and getting gun safety legislation through, and who was a quite popular mayor of the most difficult city in the country to run. The rest of it, to me, is just scandal sheet stuff, the kind of thing that virulent right-wingers Walter Winchell and J. Edgar Hoover used to use to get rid of people they didn’t like, and which now is the staple of the social media universe. Imagine if it were around during the time of FDR or JFK, or WJC, none of them would have gotten elected, we would have had Hoover some more, Nixon earlier, Bushes without end. Wake up, America. Russia is going to own this country unless people stop letting them and their pawns the Republicans dupe people into voting against their opponents.

      • Taylor has been his significant other since 2000, not 2020, the first was a typo.

      • Wills, I think you’re whistling past the graveyard. Bloomberg’s past sins and blunders will come back to haunt him, if he wins the nomination.

        • IBW, my great concern is that the Democats and the incredibly short-sighted purity media on MSNBC, are going to keep Bloomberg from getting the nomination. I think he is the only candidate, except maybe for Klobuchar, who has any real chance to beat Trump. As a general election candidate, he presents almost nothing that Trump can go after. Trump said in a debate with Hillary that stop and frisk should be used in every city. He can’t call Bloomberg a socialist. What is he going to attack him on, that Bloomberg can’t attack him back ten times as hard? And with the survival of life on the planet very much a great concern, how can Bloomberg’s consistent support of massive progams to arrest global warming not be about 20 billion times more important than a policy which was originally instituted in NYC by Giuliani, and which several big-city African American mayors were able to put in perspecive and still endorse Bloomberg?

  16. Thank you, William

  17. I see Drudge is pushing garbage again but I think there may be a 3rd party in 2020 if it is Sanders vs. Trump.

    • Tell me more Ga6th. Is the 3rd party expected to draw voters from both sides or from one side? Is it “superhero” Romney? He just might be able to pull voters from both sides…

      • As much as it might be emotionally satisfying to us here to have a third party candidate to run against Trump and Sanders, if it got to that dire point, I don’t think such a candidate would have a chance of winning. Trump has at least 40% locked up, and I suppose Sanders would at least have his 25% and probably a little more. No matter who the third party candidate was, even Hillary, or Michelle Obama, they could not break that vote, and anyway, they won’t run. Anyone else gets at most 20%, and assures the Trump victory, which is why Republicans always try to encourage it.

        Republicans have Democrats right where they want them, which is the Sanders people being a threat to stay home if anyone else is nominated, and there being no chance that a third party would do anything except help Trump. I would call the threats of the Sanders people, nominate Bloomberg or Klobuchar, and hope that we could win despite them, just as Hillary would surely have done had it not been for certain things which might not happen this time. A Democratic party held in thrall to the angry and intransigent Far Left, cannot function or win. The landslide defeat of McGovern at least quieted them for a while, but they came back 15 or so years later to push Jesse Jackson, Dean, before they realized he was more conservative than Kerry; Nader, Sanders. A rout here would stifle them for a while again, but we cannot afford even a defeat, much less a rout. So if they want to be the ones who cause permanent fascist rule, I guess they will. Maybe some will think better of it. In a democracy, you always have a chance to hope for someone more to your liking the next time.In a fascist state, you do not.

        • That kind of thing wouldn’t be about winning the presidency. If Bernie is the nominee the presidency is gone anyway. Bloomberg running 3rd party would be about keeping the house and attempting to flip the senate neither of which Bernie would be able to do.

        • “permanent fascist rule”

          Oh, take your Ritalin, man.

          Cadet Bone Spurs the Very Stable Genius has neither the evil courage nor the intelligence to pull that off, even assuming his abused cardiovascular system lets him live to see next year.

      • I have no idea who it would be. Maybe it’s the plan of Bloomberg. However I think there’s an opening for a non grievance candidate who believes in common sense solutions to the problems we have.

  18. I just learned of this woman’s existence today. I think I’m in love. NSFW. 😈

    https://bravenewsblog.com/2020/02/13/oh-yes-i-can-blame-bernie-for-the-toxicity-of-his-movement-and-withhold-my-vote/

    Sister has NO fucks left to give.

    Also, one of the people in the comment thread used the term “Talibern”. I am SO stealing that! 😆

  19. There are many indications that Republicans are undertaking a nationwide effort to get as many of them as possible to vote for Sanders in the Democratic primaries. Far too many of the states have open primaries. For the ones that are closed,, all someone has to do is re-register as a Democrat. Like most of the Republican efforts to chat, and subvert democracy, it is nominally legal. 13% of the people who voted in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire indicated via exit polling that they would not vote for any Democrat in the general election. Take those votes away from Sanders (because he’s the one they voted for), and he gets maybe 12% of the vote, comes in third. The end of Sanders. Instead, he wins, and now everyone on TV says he’s the clear frontrunner.

    I don’t know what can be done about this. I don’t use Twitter, though I am tempted to join just to try to help I do visit the Twitter site of Sally Albright, who has helped organize in various political campaigns, and who absolutely detests Sanders, and expresses it very intelligently. She writes about this a good deal, and is very concerning altogether. I wish that more people would write about it, but no one says a thing on TV, they do not want to do anything to anger the Sanders people, or make it look like they are “minimizing” his “victories.” My thought would be that if the “Never Trump” Republicans all re-registered to vote for someone (yes, of course, Bloomberg, but maybe they like Klobuchar or Biden, some of them do), this would cancel some of this out. But otherwise we are going to very likely see Republicans and Russians choosing both candidates, and that’s the end of democracy. Republicans are evil, but Tom Perez is an absolute idiot, anyone with a brain would realize this would happen. Unless of course Perez is foolish enough to think that Republicans getting Sanders nominated is a good thing for the Democratic Party and the country.

  20. There has been thought of maybe indeed nominating Bloomberg to be the Democratic Candidate. And it has a certain intriguingness to it.

    But I recently ran across a political video by someone names Krystal Ball who analysed the reasons why she thought it won’t work. Here is the video link.
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising

    If anyone here has seen it, or watches it, is there something to it? What do people think?

    • Krystal Ball, whom I used to actually like some years ago, when she shared that show on MSNBC, has become an absolutely vociferous supporter of Sanders, and all her arguments about anything are dedicated to the goal of getting him elected. And she doesn’t like Hillary, either.

      • If Krystal Ball is a Sanders supporter and Clinton disliker, that could certainly bias her opinion and analysis. But if her opinion and analysis about Bloomberg are correct even despite her bias, then a Bloomberg candidacy will face real problems. Is it better to think these things through ahead of time?

        Other bad stuff about Bloomberg will be brought up. If it is true, it will have to be handled. Here is an example of that from another blog.
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/michael-bloomberg-women/
        No one here has to read it if they think it would be upsetting. But if Bloomberg gets nominated, it will be brought up over and over again.
        Here is just a small sample of it.

        “It’s a fucking baby! It doesn’t know the difference between you and anyone else,” Bloomberg yelled at an employee trying to find childcare.

        “All you need is some black who doesn’t have to speak English to rescue it from a burning building.”

        Here is a 4 minute no-comedy talk from Trevor Noah explaining what the problem with Bloomberg’s stop and frisk policy really was.
        https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=sfp&p=you+tube+trevor+noah+about+bloomberg+stop+and+frisk#id=1&vid=a3b91e7e20df435a1a65f74f19fdacf2&action=click

        Again, no one here has to listen to it if it would upset them. But it will come up over and over if Bloomberg is nominated.

        Given all this, do you really want to turn to Bloomberg as the hopeful likeliest to defeat Trump? Would Bloomberg be the Captain Sullenberger who can bring this plane to a safe landing? Or would Bloomberg be the Boeing 737 SuperMax which takes the Democratic Party on a Suicide Power Dive?

        • bojang, Joy Reid brought up the Bloomberg dirt on both her weekend programs along with red lining/predatory lending, sexual harassment and the gentrification of low income housing areas. Joy clearly does not like Bloomberg and I doubt will ever forgive him or vote for him due to the harm done to POC under his mayoral purview. It will be interesting to see how the media plays it and how black voters and women in general respond. For “anyone but trump” voters, It may come down to whom do you fear more, a Prez Sanders or a Prez Bloomberg, because of course there are no women contenders (I snark). This morning, I heard those cruel and insensitive comments Bloomberg allegedly (ongoing court case?) made to women as well as a reference to his use of NDAs, apparently a staple for rich white men who behave badly.

          I am still rooting for the centrist Amy (who may also have some race issues while a prosecutor, but I don’t know the particulars); I will also vote for Liz if she gets the nomination. I just wish the latter had taken a more long term view of M4A and waited until she was in office to push it forward. That issue alone rightly or wrongly, will be used to terrify voters on both sides who don’t want to lose the insurance they have.

        • Fair enough, but do we want to revisit the NYT article about how much Klobuchar yelled at her staff, and how much they disliked her? The reality is that these articles usually mix in a few accurate recollections with some made up ones, or certainly not validated. And I would say that virtually every head of any major corporation has people who hate him or her, and people who will sue for alleged misogynistic climates there, just to get nuisance settlement money, or because they are angry or passed over. This is absolutely true, I’ve seen it. We can note that not one person has sued or charged Bloomberg with sexually harrassing them. It is all about “workplace environment.” Most of the suits have been thrown out. I remember reading about how Meg Whitman (who was running for CA governor) yelled at everyone, pushed some woman on an elevator. How people at HP cheered when Carly Fiorina (running for senator of CA) was removed from her position. It’s endemic in major corporations.

          I don’t know what Bloomberg said in this or that instance. How do you prove the negative? Under oath, he denied the one that keeps getting quoted. I will just tell you that people whom I know from NY think highly of him. Anyone who watches MSNBC 24 hours a day would never hear one single favorable comment about Bloomberg. I don’t know why; maybe it’s a combination of racial anger on the part of Reid, some Bernie supporters who are hosts. Not one single positive word about Bloomberg. He was credited with providing the healthiest air that NYC had in decades, due to programs which cut greenhouse gas emissions by 13%. Bloomberg actually paid money out of his own pocket to keep NYC programs going which would have gone broke because of the cost following 9/11. Bloomberg has signed a pledge to eventually give every cent of his money to charities. He took the subway every day to work as mayor. He actually lists his phone number. Apparently an elderly woman constituent called him at 3am one morning to discuss some issue, and he actually answered the phone and talked to her.

          Let’s look at it: If we nominate Biden, we will hear about Burisma, Hunter, Anita Hill hearings, plagiarism, kissing women, among other things. If Warren, we’ll see actual job application forms to Harvard Law School, where she wrote that her ethnicity was “Native American.” If Buttigieg, various complaints from Black people in South Bend that he did not step in to fire the White police chief after a very controversial shooting or series of them. If Klobuchar, all about the treatment of staff. Bernie people kept writing “Kamala is a cop” hashtags, complaining about her prosecutions, and also saying that she had an affair with powerful CA politician Willie Brown to advance her early career. These things never end. If Bloomberg had assaulted a woman, that’s one thing, but no one ever said he has.

          I would prefer a candidate who was kind, thoughtful, never told a dirty joke, never hunted, always used le mot juste, read poetry, did not consort with Zuckerberg, was loved by everyone who knew her or him. But they don’t exist, unless one wants to think that Obama was that. There were all sorts of things about Obama, including support from radical left groups, opponent’s names disappearing from candidacy in Chicago, voting “present” on multiple votes in the state legislature to maintain his electoral his viability. He was protected from all of that by his ethnicity. My fervent hope would be that the Democrats would nominate someone who could actually beat Trump, and who was not awful on important issues, and who could run the country. The rest of all of this seems to almost be a desperate need to seek some moral purity, while the world is falling apart everywhere outside it. Search like Diogenes for the one honest person, but meanwhile, can we just get a candidate who could beat Trump, and do something about climate change and guns, and surround himself with smart and capable people, while we are continuing on that search?

  21. “A lion doesn’t concern itself with the opinion of sheep” recall.
    It’s freezing here and I had Bloomberg campaign folks on my door step yesterday. I’m good with a Bloomberg-Clinton ticket if she is.

  22. Day 2 of Joy going after Bloomberg, Warren will be on later.

  23. One day after (God forbid) Sanders wins the nomination, everyone in America will know that his only child was born out of wedlock, he honeymooned in Moscow (under Soviet rule) his decades long career in Congress is pathetic, he admired both Castro and Hugo Chavez, and his wife was involved in an embezzlement scandal at Burlington College. Please tell me that Democratic Primary voters will not volunteer for a suicide mission.

    • Sue, I wake up every night thinking of the horribleness of a Sanders-Trump race, and what despair it will engender in those rational people who still inhabit the country.

      On my Sunday trip to the Encino fruit market, I actually saw a Buttigieg table for the first time, and a table for the repulsive Gabbard once again. Ignoring the table of the Russian asset, I spoke to the Pete fans, and they were friendly. I told them that I was supporting Bloomberg, and they liked him pretty well. One said that friend of his, a Republican who has his house filled with photos of Republican Presidents, went to an event last year at which Bloomberg spoke, mostly about climate change and gun safety, and received a standing ovation when he finished. He asked me who my second choice would be, and I said probably Klobuchar, but anyone but Sanders.. We all agreed that Sanders was awful. One mentioned hearing what I had recounted here, that Republicans were planning a campaign to cross over or re-register, and vote for him. It was a friendly conversation, no one called anyone an idiot, or ignorant of history, or a neoliberal, or illiterate, as is the norm with Sanders supporters. It restored my faith in democracy a tiny bit, intelligent people who are trying to make the country better. We’ve got only five months to save it from the nightmare of a Sanders nomination and the resultant Republican landslide victory.

      • “…those rational people who still inhabit the country.”

        Even many of the intelligent, well-educated people have gone more or less irrational, as we see from the sad example of Propertius.

        • Says the guy who has displayed literally zero capacity for rational or critical thought in any of these comments, and who responds to verifiable facts with image macros.

          • IYHO.

            But let’s suppose you’re correct. You have zero power to reward me, and zero power to punish me. Why, then, should I care about your opinion?

  24. Sue, should Sanders be the lucky survivor for our tribe, it will be interesting to see how the media vets him. Fox for sure will be appalled. Cable news, meh, the clash of titan wannabes will be ON. The debates between the two would be hilarious, especially if they get nose to nose. I was really wondering if there was anyone out there who could pull sufficient voters away from Sanders and trump to win a plurality. TBH, I am ashamed to say I cannot in good conscience vote for either Sanders or trump. I see epic fail for the country either way. They made a big to do about Romney voting yay to convict on the first article of impeachment. I wonder if a Romney/Weld or some crossover ticket like Romney/Inslee or Bennett might appeal…. of course, I hallucinate but I don’t have any more f*cks to give as the saying goes, so pass the bong or the bottle, either will do.

    • Perhaps you will not need to choose between them; they are both old men, with weak cardiovascular systems–and Benedict Donald refuses to exercise, gorges on junk food, and snorts Adderall (a legally prescribed amphetamine), to boot.

      • But if Sanders is nominated, and then cannot survive until the election, we’ll have his VP choice, Tulsi Gabbard, as the candidate.

      • Ah yes, my Technicolor, candy coated by the night of the silvery moon waking dream every morning. Breaking news.

    • God help us all, Cats. I’ve sort of taken “the pledge” to vote blue no matter who, but Sanders would sink our Party for decades.

      • Or Sanders might actually “win”. Why?

        Because this time, Putin might rig the election for him, in order to enrage the Trump Chumps into rioting and terrorism, maximizing chaos in the USA, which would cripple our ability to conduct any kind of foreign policy, leaving Tsar Vladimir free to conduct his dream of restoring the old USSR, and perhaps expanding it.

        Putin might do this, whether or not St. Bernard is also his stooge, as Benedict Donald is.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: