What was supposed to be a coronation for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic contest has turned into such a tough fight that the former Secretary of State may end up losing in both states to Bernie Sanders. Sanders refused to affiliate himself with the Democratic Party throughout his twenty-five years in Congress, preferring to call himself a Socialist.
If anything, both appear to be gaining momentum as the contests approach. Donald Trump picked up a big endorsement this week from Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin who joined Trump on the campaign trail in Iowa. Sanders has managed to leverage his hostility to super-PACs and deep-pocket donors into a small-ticket fundraising machine strong enough that Clinton’s campaign now openly frets that Team Sanders could outraise in hard money.
A year ago, the possibility of a general election in which two outsiders ended up with major-party nominations seemed like bad political fiction, a fantasy dreamed up by pundits. Now, a Trump-Sanders showdown in November isn’t just possible, it’s one of the more likely outcomes. That would guarantee a populist, anti-establishment outcome and could even become the greatest shock to the American political system since the advent of the two-party system in the mid-nineteenth century.The article goes on to tell the cautionary tale of woe that was Minnesota's experimentation with the election of Independent Jesse the body Ventura as Governor. Closing the article with "the ancient Minnesotan proverb"... be careful what you wish for, uff dah – you might just get it, you betcha.
For obvious reasons this may not be the best time to be experimenting with Bernie's Socialism or Trump's brand of National Populism. In terms of having their house in order in a 'first of it's kind' comprehensive "Best Countries" report the United States in now #4 in the world.
Link to source
30 comments:
Sanders might win the first two, but after that a lot of voters won't be white, and then that's to Clinton's advantage.
Sorry... I had to pull back the post to include the ratings part. Back on now.
Every country on that list depends on the United States for it's protection, it's economy, it's freedom, and it's communications. If any of those countries suddenly was sucked of the earth by aliens, the rest would be fine, but if that happened to the U.S. they would all be plunged into chaos and poverty. So if I depend on you for my existence, how can I say I have my house in order better than you. That's like saying a 12 year old child has their house in order better than the parents that provide it. Let any one of them provide the military and police the world for the rest of us without stealing our resources, and then we'll see how well off they are. We had to force two of them into unconditional surrender and occupation just to save the others from their greed and inhumanity. What a load of history-blind crap.
Hillary need to layout her plan to hand over 67% of the land in the U.S. and where we will get the 41 million mules.
If not for the United States and the USSR, only two of those other nations would even exist today: Germany and Japan. Wouldn't that be a nice neat house? We wouldn't have any of those messy Jews, Blacks, Gypsies or Chinese around, and imagine how advanced medical science would be after all those en vivo experiments. Tidy, tidy, neat, neat, neat.
Populism is simply the expression of frustration with the out of touchness of the ruling class on the part of the people. It's not as though populism had not made appearances in American political history before the Trump phenomenon. William Jennings Bryan, who ran for president I believe three times, was a heartland populist railing against the moneyed interests ofs the robber baron era. He failed but likely prepared the ground for anti-trust legislation. In other words he was portrayed as dangerous by the establishment of the day, which then co-opted and enacted some of the reforms he had advocated. Populism is not only not a danger, it is a way of prodding the elite into responsiveness to the will of the people (or at least of a significant portion of the people).
Populism is a form of panic. The herd feels threatened by predators, and just runs off in a direction telling itself "well, we have to do something!" Of course we do, but not just anything. We can't stay here, but there might be a cliff in that direction.
If we can't get enough of the herd pointed in a smart direction, then I'm willing to risk the cliff, because the predators we are surrounded with here are eating us alive, and there is no future in that.
This is more hysteria from the Trump phobes. Trump is a highly accomplished businessman and developer with an economics degree from Wharton, and as such is probably better qualified for the presidency than 90% of those who have been president over the last 226 years. He's no populist and certainly not a Jesse Ventura.
The befuddlement and confusion of the party establishments and their scriveners and parrots has been a joy to behold. I STILL have friends who send me the NYDN "I'm With Stupid" front page ("lol") and "Trump is like Hitler" charts. Deep! Congratulations, friend, you're not just a parrot, you're an aged and irrelevant and uninteresting parrot. I cannot believe that the GOP establishment has been this blind for so long. I used to defend them as somewhat intelligent for hanging around grifting off Dem leftovers for so long. Nope. Dumb as rocks.
The obtuse albeit talkative establishment and ancillary parrots are fuel to Trump's fire. The more they talk, the more popular Trump gets. All the people who have felt silenced by PC Kultur Enforcers for years, including Palin, are now being heard via Trump. Every stupid "Trump is like Hitler" post reinforces their dislike for the "elites" and renews their support for Trump.
Trump is no Hitler of course, but neither is he a conservative. He's a Trump, which is primarily a crony capitalist, which we definitely have enough of in Washington. The establishment is coming around to him, because they can work with a crony money guy. Now Cruz is definitely not their kind of guy. They dislike Trump's independence, and general bravado, but they don't fear he will upset the apple cart, because his apples are in there too. Cruz is the one they fear, because he has already shown he's willing bring things down and not go along to get along, even at his own political peril. Cruz is being attacked by all sides at this point, so if you want the true outsider, he's the guy nobody wants. Why is that?
Even though the establishment doesn't get Trump's popularity and holds his followers in contempt, they do know he's for sale, he has a proven track record of being for sale, so they headline his antics and paint Cruz as a loser. Trump has sucked all the air out of the room from the start. He's a known known and a popular personality in a big media market.
OK, a thought here. I did a little backtracking on Cruz and, if you look at his conduct in the Senate, you can say he's been just as "boorish" as Guess Who. you can make the point that, like another first-term Senator, he's ducked his committee assignments and has devoted his time to making himself known so he can run for President. He's proposed 25 bills, only one passed - not unlike a certain former Senator and SecState we all know and love.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/29/dana-bash/how-many-bills-has-ted-cruz-passed-senate/
My point is that nobody running this year is without original sin. You like Cruz, fine. You like The Donald, knock yourself out.
One other point about Trump from columnist Mychal Massie. He categorizes him as a pragmatist (I've seen him in this light from Day One). Trump is not a conservative... (neither) does Trump view himself as a conservative... Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He then sets about fixing it.
I submit those are the people to whom his appeal is strong and that covers a big swath of the American electorate.
Cruz is for the hardcore (as in not just "My way or the highway" - my way or no way) ideologues, as he has advertised himself as one.
YMMV
"For obvious reasons this may not be the best time to be experimenting with Bernie's Socialism or Trump's brand of National Populism."
Name an Establishment candidate (either party) that you trust.
AllenS said...
Sanders might win the first two, but after that a lot of voters won't be white, and then that's to Clinton's advantage.
"10 years ago, he'd have been bringing us coffee".
Think you might have answered your own question, there, re: Cruz's legislative success. The fact that any legislation proposed/developed by Cruz passed is a miracle given that he is not an establishment whore. Excuse me, "pragmatist." The voters who view Trump as "more pragmatic" than Cruz are just assuming Trump will keep their little subsidy/tax break/handout in place, because he's a "pragmatist."
Yeah, Cruz is JUST LIKE Hillary Clinton. Twinsies!
Hate to tell you, but he's going to have to be able to work with Congress at some point if he's elected.
Bragging he can't get anything through is not an endorsement, although it does put him in a similar boat as The Donald as far as rocking the boat goes.
As I say, Cruz seems to get the my way or no way crowd.
And where did I say Teddy was JUST LIKE Hillary Clinton. Twinsies!
I also compared him to our own little Lightworker, but thanks for making my point
"not unlike a certain former Senator and SecState we all know and love."
He and Obama are twinsies, too! Because Senate. And minimal legislation passed while there.
You're for Trump, right? I mean, you guys always hide behind how neither Trump nor Cruz are perfect and then you pan Cruz because you're really for Trump. Cruz is an "ideologue" because he's the only conservative in a field of establishment whores, plus RoboGrannyCorruptoCrat and the SenileAsshatWhoCan'tFindAmerica.
Orrin Hatch has "come around" on Trump. YAAAAAY. We have Hatch! We have Hatch!
But every time one of these establishment parasites latches onto your lightworker, you lose a little bit of leverage. They're going to want something from Mr. Bigtime Pragmatist. And he'll give it to them. Bit by bit, drop by drop, your relevance is being eliminated.
OMG, this is GOLD, pure GOLD.
BOB DOLE! Has come out for Trump. Congratulations, y'all, you have Bob Dole on your side!
"Bob Dole, the former Kansas senator and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, has never been fond of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. But in an interview Wednesday, Mr. Dole said that the party would suffer “cataclysmic” and “wholesale losses” if Mr. Cruz was the nominee, and that Donald J. Trump would fare better."
Oh, let the non-stop establishment-coordinated, erectile dysfunction advertising #winning never end!!!
Maybe Trump can dig up Gerry Ford for the ultimate establishment accolade.
While we're waiting on former President Ford, Trent Lott favors Trump, too.
Amartel said...
You're for Trump, right?
You're making an interesting assumption there.
I'm just skeptical of everybody, but the Cruzzers (if you're one) seem to take him at face value without looking a little more closely.
"Oh, he's the one Pure Conservative, born of a Canadian Virgin and anybody who doubts him is an idiot and anybody who supports Trump is a rube", they all seem to say. And I must say I've never seen a bigger bunch of soreheads or whiners.
No one is allowed to question the Great Ted or prefer anyone else.
Sorry, I have my reservations about him and I'm going to put them out.
OMG, this is GOLD, pure GOLD.
BOB DOLE! Has come out for Trump. Congratulations, y'all, you have Bob Dole on your side!
He also has Phyllis Schlafly now. Or has she fallen from the One True Faith, too?
Trump has said, and this is in line with his appeal as a pragmatist, that he can get things done because he knows how to make deals (clearly, Cruz doesn't).
The samwe can be said of the greatest deal-maker of them all, LBJ. You want a reason to question Trump, that's it.
But Cruz has cast votes and proposed things that don't square with his lily-white principles. You don't like that, tough.
But I get the feeling the Cruzzers are going berserk - and they are - because their boy is on the verge of losing. and that wasn't supposed to happen.
You've foamed at the mouth through several comments about the "Establishment" liking Trump. There are a lot of news items that say otherwise.
But you tell me, if Cruz is at war with everybody in DC, how does he govern? It won't be enough to sit there and veto everything or expect Congress to do his bidding. At some point, whomever's in charge is going to have to straighten out the mess.
And that won't happen by shutting down the government which, if memory serves, is about the only real accomplishment Cruz has to his credit in the Senate.
Really? Is there any other conservative in this race?
YES ___
NO ___
If YES, please identify said conservative ____________________.
With Cruz, you know what you're getting.
With Trump, you have not the first clue. Not one.
You do have the thrill of riding the populist wave. You and BOB DOLE.
And this "Cruzzers" thing. Could you please drop the charade that you're not a big old Trump fan?
Well, actually, I'm not, but all you Cruz guys have so many epithets for anybody who supports Trump, you'd think you could take a little harmless ribbing.
With Cruz, you know what you're getting
Actually, I don't, and that's my problem.
But, if we're gushing about endorsements, I thought the coveted Bob vander Plaatz thing was supposed to sew up IA and it hasn't. Polls are now neck and neck.
Cruz was up 10 a month ago. What went wrong?
"shutting down the government which, if memory serves, is about the only real accomplishment Cruz has to his credit in the Senate."
I'm no fan of Cruz, as I mostly hate social conservatism in candidates because it's a job interview, not a marriage proposal, but if he could shut down the government as President and make half of it stick, I'd get his name tattooed on my forehead, and rename all my dogs: Ted, Teddy, Cruz, and Cruzella.
Pragmatism is a virtually meaningless word other than the understanding that you won't fight long for principles, and that's incredibly convenient when you are playing with someone else's money. The principle gets to hard to fight for, and you just cave, and let the taxpayers pay for it. I hope whoever is President is a lot less pragmatic than what we've had. Pragmatic is exactly what I thought everybody hated about Jeb. Pragmatism is the excuse for Obama's cowardice. It's a very flexible word for flexibility.
I do see Trump showing his pragmatism by abandoning everything he's said in the past if it's not helping him now. Every time he does it, I see a classic politician of the worst kind. As I've said, he's telling us nothing about what he will do as President because he won't say how other than whatever it takes, but whatever it takes to do what? Win? Win what? A deal? He makes me very uneasy as a taxpayer of the abused type. If he's nominated, it will be like Monty Hall asking me if I want to keep the Detroit vacation package or try for what's behind the gold curtain.
As far as flexibility, Trump signals he is against war. Cruz wants to nuke Syria, or wherever. I don't want that kind of crazy in the WH.
I heard on Fox tonight that everyone hates him in Congress because he came in as a junior senator, guns blazing, insulting senior Congressmen. Sorry, this dude sounds like a head case. If grid-lock is the next best thing to govt shutdown, he's your guy :)
I read an article that said while in law school he refused to be in a study group with anyone who graduated from a non-Ivy League school. 'Nite!
Zing!
bagoh20 said...
shutting down the government which, if memory serves, is about the only real accomplishment Cruz has to his credit in the Senate.
I'm no fan of Cruz, as I mostly hate social conservatism in candidates because it's a job interview, not a marriage proposal, but if he could shut down the government as President and make half of it stick, I'd get his name tattooed on my forehead, and rename all my dogs: Ted, Teddy, Cruz, and Cruzella.
I'm assuming you mean cut the size of government in half.
Again, how does he do that without the consent of Congress? (this assumes we do not have a miracle of Biblical proportion, real Wrath-of-God-type stuff, Mr Mayor, where the choices for Senate Majority Leader do not include McConnell and Dingy Harry)
"I heard..."
Great analysis.
Post a Comment