[HoosierDaddy]

Yeah, don't worry. Rubio's shock in Iowa means there won't be an absolute bat-shit insane person in office.

Fucking LOVE Trump being just barely 2nd. Hahahahahaha.

[Terez]

Yeah, Rubio's 3rd place showing really IS a win for him. He's barely behind Trump, while all the polls showed him 15 points or more behind Trump. Big win for the Establishment.

[HoosierDaddy]

Rubio really needs work on his oratory.

Rubio as Floridian: "We need to let immigrants in!"
Rubio as Candidate: "These people aren't Americans! We need to make sure we keep America for the rightful Cuban immigrants!"

[Terez]

His hydration issues drive me crazy. All that smacking...

[HoosierDaddy]

Trump has no fucking idea what to do with his consolation.

[HoosierDaddy]

And, Iowa remains batshit for Democrats.

[Terez]

I don't know why I was expecting MSNBC to cover O'Malley's suspension announcement.

Hillary claimed victory a while back but her lead keeps getting smaller.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 02 February 2016 - 03:57 AM, said:

I don't know why I was expecting MSNBC to cover O'Malley's suspension announcement.

Hillary claimed victory a while back but her lead keeps getting smaller.

I watched W. and Gore live. I believe nothing. Nothing! Lol.

[Terez]

I stayed up all night to watch Bush v Gore. Of course, no one expected it to turn into Bush v Gore a month down the road.

[Terez]

Cruz victory speech peppered with cheers and applause. When he said "Yes we can!" people seemed uncomfortable. They didn't know whether they should cheer or not.

[HoosierDaddy]

Awww. Bernie. I love your enthusiasm. I like your idealism.

Presidential politics are for big boys who have actual wins, not dreamers who wish they did without an actual national campaign.

[Terez]

What makes you say he doesn't have a national campaign?

Everyone is saying that we aren't going to know who won the Dem vote tonight, and with the way the Iowa Dems caucus, we'll never know the actual vote count. Oh well; Bernie clearly exceeded expectations, and he'll probably win New Hampshire. If he doesn't get killed in SC, he'll be in good shape going forward. Still plenty of time to improve his numbers in SC.

[Mezla PigDog]

Up until today news in the UK has mostly been Hillary and Trump centric. Just how much of a "socialist" is Bernie Sanders? I'm assuming he could never win a Presidential election simply by being branded one. I'm also assuming he isn't very "socialist" by European standards. Are they fair assumptions?

I find it interesting how much political allegiances are fragmenting over the Western world. UK used to be 3 party politics but the last General Election was kind of a 5 horse race that was eventually run by what may be described as a "moderate" right party (personally I think they are fecking fascists). The new UK Labour party leader is someone from the left fringes of the party. Spain and Greece have veered left in terms of who is in power but at the same time most (all?) European countries also have resurging right. From the outside the Republican party looks like it doesn't have much time left in this world before a split between "moderate" Republicans and "extreme" Tea-Party and/or Libertarian's. Is Sanders popularity a hint that the Democrats could have the same issues soon? I watch modern politics with a hope that "the old way is dead" but results don't tend to follow yet (I'm blaming vested interests here). Is it a blip or is it a sign of things to come?


/Random musings from a lunch break.

[Obdigore]

@Mez, for the US, he is pretty socialist, but I think the relevant term in Europe is 'social democrat'

Bernie is for things that the US needs in order to continue to compete in what becomes more and more an information economy, unless we want to start depressing wages and working for literal peanuts, which is what the GOP's economic 'plans' entail.

Could Sanders win? I'm right on the fence on that one. The Democratic Party has a large (for an election) majority of voters, it all depends on how much the base will come out.

Yes the GOP is going to splinter, and soon I think. The democrats probably will as well, eventually.

Without a change to our political system however, we wont see a move away from a two 'big-tent' party systems. There will be a time of a number of parties and then they will all converge as they have in the past.

[polishgenius]

Mezla PigDog, on 02 February 2016 - 12:48 PM, said:

Up until today news in the UK has mostly been Hillary and Trump centric. Just how much of a "socialist" is Bernie Sanders? I'm assuming he could never win a Presidential election simply by being branded one. I'm also assuming he isn't very "socialist" by European standards. Are they fair assumptions?

From what I can tell, he's not as far left as Jeremy Corbyn but probably a little bit more left than Ed Miliband.

[Terez]

Mezla PigDog, on 02 February 2016 - 12:48 PM, said:

Up until today news in the UK has mostly been Hillary and Trump centric. Just how much of a "socialist" is Bernie Sanders? I'm assuming he could never win a Presidential election simply by being branded one. I'm also assuming he isn't very "socialist" by European standards. Are they fair assumptions?

As to how much of a socialist he is, what Obdi said, though he was a member of legit socialist organizations in his youth. Socialism has an interesting history in the US, but there have never been very many people advocating for state ownership of the means of production. It's always been democratic socialism, incremental socialism, libertarian socialism, worker-owned means of production, etc. Bernie fits well with that tradition. He just doesn't often articulate his position in that history very well.

That leads me to his electability. The polls right now (see drop-down) show him doing very well against Trump in a general election, and fairly well against Cruz and Rubio, about as well as Hillary (sometimes better) in all three cases. But the polling on the general election this far out is not incredibly reliable when it comes to predicting the actual election in a closely-contested race. Hillary's supporters argue that Bernie's numbers would drop after his hypothetical nomination because of his extreme policy proposals and unkempt persona. Bernie's supporters argue that Hillary's favorability will only get worse after the nomination because the GOP is saving all of their best attacks against her until then and they're probably planning something substantial.

I think Bernie's positions would go over a lot better if he focused less on taxes and more on the systemic problems that allow the 1%ers to siphon off wealth from the middle class, because ultimately taxes, while important, only play a small part in that larger picture. It's the other elements that can appeal to the middle, the disaffected white blue-collar voters who migrate to Trump and Cruz because they don't understand why the economy sucks. They think it's because black people and Mexicans. Some portion of that constituency will always blame it on Others, but some portion of it has a brain and can be convinced otherwise.

Mezla PigDog, on 02 February 2016 - 12:48 PM, said:

I find it interesting how much political allegiances are fragmenting over the Western world. UK used to be 3 party politics but the last General Election was kind of a 5 horse race that was eventually run by what may be described as a "moderate" right party (personally I think they are fecking fascists). The new UK Labour party leader is someone from the left fringes of the party. Spain and Greece have veered left in terms of who is in power but at the same time most (all?) European countries also have resurging right. From the outside the Republican party looks like it doesn't have much time left in this world before a split between "moderate" Republicans and "extreme" Tea-Party and/or Libertarian's. Is Sanders popularity a hint that the Democrats could have the same issues soon? I watch modern politics with a hope that "the old way is dead" but results don't tend to follow yet (I'm blaming vested interests here). Is it a blip or is it a sign of things to come?

I don't know what to think of it. I have friends in Poland who have kept me somewhat apprised of the situation there. It seems crazy to me, but then, I guess the possibility of a Trump president is at least as crazy. I just don't see how Trump could win. In the unlikely event that he does get the nomination, it would take a miracle for him to win the general, whether against Bernie or Hillary. You guys don't know Cruz as well as Trump but in some ways he's worse. I have been hoping they would nominate Rubio even though Rubio has a better chance of beating the Democrat. I don't agree with him on much of anything, and his victory speech last night was hard to watch. (Yes, it was a victory speech, even though he came in third. He came closer to Trump in Iowa than he has in any of the polls thus far, anywhere.) But I would be more comfortable with him as president than any of the other candidates, I think Kasich included.

Sanders' popularity comes from a few different places. One is the financial crisis of 2008. Obama's Third Way approach to the problem was unsatisfactory for many, which led to Occupy Wall Street, which dove-tailed with Elizabeth Warren's bid for the senate in 2011/2012. Then Warren emerged as the favored candidate among that subset of progressive voters, i.e. those who cared more about financial corruption than any other issue, because it was obvious that Hillary was going to run again in 2016, and as progressives we are uncomfortable about voting against the first viable female candidate for the presidency. Obama's blackness made us more comfortable with it. Hillary is not a very popular politician. She has her loyalists in the Democratic Party but there is also a large contingent of the party that does not like her. Obama gave those people an option in 2008. Elizabeth Warren could have given them a strong option this year, but Warren didn't run, so now we have the OWS remnants and those who don't trust Hillary lining up behind Bernie. Those are often the same people.

There was always a contingent that preferred Bernie to Elizabeth Warren. That contingent largely became the Berniebros, a small but very loud and obnoxious subset of Bernie supporters.

[Terez]

By the way, my "perfect storm" scenario for a brokered convention on the GOP side is shaping up now that Trump has a loss under his belt. (His momentum was getting really scary for a while there.) It's going to be a 3-man race between Cruz, Trump, and Rubio, and the way it's looking right now, I wouldn't be surprised if all three were in for the long haul, which is very likely to lead to a no-majority situation. It's too early to guess who would get the plurality in that scenario; it could be any of them. But I don't expect any of these three to drop out any time soon.

You can bet that Rubio's success in Iowa is going to make him the favored Establishment candidate in New Hampshire, and if Bush, Kasich, and Christie show badly in New Hampshire, they're going to have to drop out. Those three are showing well in the NH polls, but Bush and Kasich not much better than Rubio, and Christie worse. Rubio's showing in Iowa makes it clear that none of the others have a chance against him in the long run. It's either Cruz, Trump, or Rubio at this point, whether they like it or not, and I expect the numbers in New Hampshire to shift in the polls over the next week to reflect that new reality. (The NH primary is a week from today, on the 9th.)

2nd place in New Hampshire seems like a safe bet for Rubio at this point. 1st is a possibility, if he siphons off enough voters from Bush, Kasich, Christie, and Fiorina. Huckabee's votes will likely go to Trump or Cruz, not that his .5% is worth much. Paul's supporters will probably stay loyal. Carson's might shift to Trump or Cruz. It's mainly the Establishment voters who will shift, though, because they're the party's pragmatists.

[Mentalist]

@ Mez: There's a general identity crisis in Western politics- seems to be a bit of a trend.

I haven't been following the US election too closely (beyond hearing about Trump, which, imo is ludicrous- UA elected a millionaire as Pres, no one is happy). But I'm seeing the same in Canada- the long-standing Conservatives appear to implode under their bad ideas (the last provincial election they promised to fire 500k govt employees to create x million private sector jobs... naturally ALL govt employees in one of the most socialized provinces in the country voted against them). The latest federal election Liberals had to drag up a dynastic figurehead in Trudeau-junior (nothing personal, but even my die-hard Lib friends admit he's a figurehead and they're hoping he picks up experience fast from his strong team.)
American "establishment" is crashing, with Trump on one side and Hillary (hello, dynasty?) on the other.
EU is hitting roadblocks in its ability to deal with a EU-wide crisis, as it's trying to define what it wants to be- a confederation or a true federation. This leads to the rise in Eurosceptics, who are fringes of both left and right.

Basically, imo, the 2008 crisis still bites. And now with China slowing down growth, even more radical measures are necessary to try to revitalize the global economic situation. But very few of the "establishment" leaders in the West (the "centre" and affiliates) are willing to look past the current electoral term, so no one wants to make unpopular decisions.

Add to this the generally unstable situation in the Middle East, the recent Russian situation (which is in many ways a direct consequence of the post-2008 slump- at least the Ukrainian Revolution had its underlying causes in the slump that's gone on w/o stopping since 2008, coupled with a tense international situation), and the consequences such as the refugee crisis-and you have very much "a time of changes". Which few are willing to admit, because admitting means leaving the comfort zone, bearing bad news and making unpopular decisions.

It'll be interested to see how the American "Establishment" tries to deal with this.

[Terez]

Most presidents in the US are millionaires. Trump would be the first billionaire, though.

I think you're right that ultimately it all goes back to 2008. As I explained above, that's certainly where Bernie's popularity stems from, and I think Elizabeth Warren would probably have channeled that sentiment even more strongly. On the right, I think it's a little more complicated, but the economic woes certainly play a large part.

Something that I think is underappreciated even on the American left is the fact that much of this global turmoil can be traced back to American law and foreign policy.

[Mentalist]

Terez, on 02 February 2016 - 06:17 PM, said:

Most presidents in the US are millionaires. Trump would be the first billionaire, though.

I think you're right that ultimately it all goes back to 2008. As I explained above, that's certainly where Bernie's popularity stems from, and I think Elizabeth Warren would probably have channeled that sentiment even more strongly. On the right, I think it's a little more complicated, but the economic woes certainly play a large part.

Something that I think is underappreciated even on the American left is the fact that much of this global turmoil can be traced back to American law and foreign policy.

Lol, don't get me started on the Neoliberal revolution/the Chicago School. My uni prof in developmet theory was pretty out-there left, and he fed us a steady diet of Karl Polanyi, Mike Davis, Naomi Klein, Joseph Stiglitz and the like. Right as 2008 was happening and McKain was running against Obama with Palin as VP. His words: "If McKain dies in office, we will see a military coup in the United States". Ah, good times...