The Frog has Been Boiling for a While Now
Pelosi Warns Democrats: Stay in the Center or Trump May Contest Election Results. -Via the NYT.
How did the Germany not see it? Hitler had written a book about his intentions. How did they let it go so long without doing anything? Why didn’t they see that compromise with the regime was untenable?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is concerned President Donald Trump will not voluntarily step down unless Democrats win by a “big” enough margin in 2020 that he doesn’t contest the results, the New York Times reported Saturday.
In an interview with the newspaper this week, the Democratic leader expressed worry over a scenario where Trump would not accept the election results if he were to lose re-election by a slim margin, the Times reported
Pelosi is a fool if she thinks Trump will accept any repudiation – large or small. Dictators don’t look at that shit.
Yep. The Rethuglican Party has been a criminal conspiracy for some time now. They are now enabling the complete breakdown of constitutional checks and balances:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-subpoena-obstruction-has-fractured-constitution-s-system-checks-ncna1002101
Pelosi’s advice. Nominate a centrist so that Trump won’t contest the election if he loses??
Right. Centrism will be a modifying influence on Trump.
Pure unadulterated idiocy.
I wonder if centrism is the mantra of corporate Democratic contributors. “Above all, do NOT advocate for any abrupt or transformational change” rings in the ears of “moderate Dems” as they accept funds from the people who usually get what they want. We get little to nothing.
It’s a cool cyclical thing. Each Democratic president is exactly the same and each Republican president is worse exponentially. It’s how things are done, dammit! What don’t you understand?
One thing is for sure – Democrats always accuse the opposition of what they are doing, or will try to do themselves. Remember when they said Trump wouldn’t accept the last election results if Hillary had won….Now, who is still to this day trying to hamper the “smooth transition of power” from that election?
Are you drinking this early?
Yeah but… the Democratic Party has a very large problem. It’s not the plethora of candidates, which is good thing in that it shows there is depth and breadth to the party. It’s that it is too much of a good thing. It used to be called “the big tent” with room for everybody. Now, it’s just a large pool with each candidate in their own lane. You gots the center lane, the left of center, the left, left of center, the near left, the far left, the so far left they aren’t even in the pool left.
The fans are expected to cheer their favorite as they go through the heats, quarter finals, semi finals. The problem you (they) have is that when their champion doesn’t make it past the quarter final, they are so bummed that they just go home in a snit and pout.
I always thought the big tent concept was that the party attempted to attract voters from different points of view and ideologies. In fact the GOP was once more of a big tent but devolved into one where only a single point of view is tolerated.
There are any number of Democratic candidates that have a chance, but I’m not convinced any of them can build the broad coalition necessary to prevail.
There are two things we know for certain. One is that Trump’s base if fervent and dedicated and there is almost nothing he can do that will change their minds. Second, is that base of support is a minority of the electorate. The question is, can the Democrats build the coalition necessary to overcome Trump’s base?
Democrats have a history of building coalitions (New Deal, Blue Dog). Those were different times and different people. Now, it’s my way or the highway. Mostly what I see these days is vitriol, which once upon time was directed outward but now is directed inward.
The lanes and vitriol are much more pronounced online and among those passionate activist than among the common voting populace, even of primary voters. Trump is bad enough to unite the party in a way a different opponent may not.
a history of building coalitions… hahahaha
You mean Democrats won with narrow constituencies? I never knew! It will be interesting to see the results of “my way or the highway.” I’ll put in a good supply of smokehouse almonds (and popcorn). It should be fun! Not Game of Thrones fun, but maybe Seinfeld-type fun.
(from twitter) What is the center between a White, Facist, Ethno-State, and not that? What would a middle of the road candate sound like running for that middle ground?
No. The Pelosi cure for poisoning is more poison. If we only nominate Clinton, Kerry, or Gore, the middle will rise up and a great surge of resignation will sweep our candiate into office with a resounding shrug.
won. Hahaha. The those victories lead to so much material change for….
…oh, sorry, they didn’t actually do much of anything. Just bandaged up the wounds in the status quo and handed gov’t over to overt fascists and thieves.
Narrow electoral victories! Hahahaha. Great plan!
NB. What is interesting is observing these narrow constituency victories accomplishing next to nothing. See, we know that doesn’t work. You probably don’t have real material issues. You don’t need structural change to improve your life. You just need the person who wins to have a D next to their name so you can go back to watching TV or having brunch.
TV or brunch or pretty much anything without the burden of Trump’s weight sounds good right now. Not the only thing that counts, of course. But it’s something. “Structural change,” important as it might be, is not the go-to issue for most people. Doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll resist it when there’s opportunity.
Yeah, no shit. I mean if we could just get back to doing coups, allowing US companies to ship jobs overseas, deport massive volumes of refugees, lock up poor and black people, slash social security and Medicare and generally perpetuate the oligarchy the usual way, like the way Clinton and Obama did it, you’re good. Sure.
Yeah, I know. There’s nothing about this scenario I don’t understand.
When you say “most people” you mean most people like you.
“You just need the person who wins to have a D next to their name so you can go back to watching TV or having brunch.”
I don’t even need that. I can go back to watching TV and having brunch whenever I please. I personally do not need Trump to lose. But the nation and its people will continue to suffer, and for that reason I have an interest in the outcome.
But yeah, you are partially right I want a D to win, not just rail against the system, giving the Man the finger in defiance, fighting the good fight, getting drunk afterwards with fellow revolutionaries, all flush with the excitement and stories of the glorious battle against all odds.
I get that you have already picked your ideological horse and placed your bets. What you really need to be able convince people that your horse is the one they want and need. If Democrats were monolithic, it would be easy. But since they aren’t, you need persuasion skills that don’t involve 2 x 4s.
REV: I mean it’s not the go-to issue for most people of any kind. Even the oppressed sometimes have other things to think about. Maybe not you, but then you’re not really oppressed.
And even the “oligarchy” you describe is not worse than what Trump wants to do to us.
The one who knows the political “go-to” motivation of all people of any kind has logged back on. Thanks god he’s here.
Imagine the bollocks it takes to state you know what isn’t the motivation of most people of all types. Hahahahahaha. Classic.
I like how you think you know exactly what I’m doing. Putting a little hypothetical story together. It’s very presumptive and silly and incorrect, bit it’s neat also. It makes me laugh.
The only way the people of the country do not continue to suffer is to elect representatives that will clarify the conflict within US politics. The establishment works to hide these because the barriers to power are what they need to keep people suffering.
Listen to this upcoming Friday’s episode (just for you, Dave, I’ll tell you Kowalko is the guest). The barriers holding back change need to be exposed not reinforced.
Clarify the conflict. Don’t run away from it. Heighten the contradictions. You’re fine playing the same rigged game because you have no stake in it either way. Same as Nathan.
I find that immoral so I’m going do something else.
Pelosi thinks that Dems need to nominate a centrist moderate in order to hedge against Republicans “making us look bad” by calling our nominee a socialist. That is an insanely ignorant reading of recent history.
If you don’t see why…you are beyond help. And yet, being a liberal I must try to help, so here it goes: Republicans are “making us look bad” by calling our nominee a socialists NO MATTER WHAT. There is no nominee that Republicans will not try to cover in pig shit. There will be no fair fight. You are only giving up ground when you try to strategize around what Republicans will do.
Pelosi has a vested interest in the status quo. It’s incredibly vested, if you catch my drift.
I gotta run to a meeting, fam. I can tell you that the Kowalko ep is going to be straight hot fire.
Some are more easily covered in pig shit than others.
That is the kind of insanely ignorant reading of recent history I’d expect from a dummy like you.
Jason. 2016 never happened.
2016 never happened.
2016 never happened.
2016 never happened.
2016 never happened.
2016 never happened.
….
Clinton never happened.
Kerry never happened.
Gore never happened.
Dukakis never happened.
Mondale never happened.
They were never covered in right wing pig shit. Their moderation served as a pig shit force field.
What a fucking dope this nathan arizona is. I mean, really.
The best candidate to beat Trump is a former neoliberal centrist Senator who had a high ranking position in the Obama administration.
Fucking, Duh…. It’s so obvious …
Just trying to save you guys from yourselves.
Re: 2016: Hillary didn’t lose because she was a moderate. The other Clinton (more “likable”; yes I went there) drew voters. He had his problems, but you wanted GHWB? Bob Dole? I understand you wish somebody farther left had won. Me too, but it was not going to happen.
You forgot McGovern, the farthest left of the bunch and the biggest loser. Doesn’t fit your theory. I was a proud McGovern voter but not surprised he lost.
Hillary lost because she was a centrist corporatist who took money from conservative groups for speeches and was buddies with Kissinger.
I’ll tell you, for real, all this “I’m trying to save you from yourselves.” If you condescend or patronize me again I’m not going to be nice to you. Trust me.
Don’t be a motherfucking boomer baby sniviling douche. There’s is nothing you or Dave are going to teach me or save me from. Don’t fucking do that again. I’m serious.
Fucking Boomer cunts are going get us all killed. Fucking gave up after 1968 and did nothing. Now they teach us from their fucking wisdom. You and yours got us here.
I’m will fucking burn these threads down. Stop doing this.
Seriously, there are times when you are so full of shit that it’s not even funny. I don’t know whether you have your performance artist, and/or your provocateur hat on, but you are apparently only writing for an audience of one.
You can see him in your mirror.
You won’t burn ANY threads down if you don’t post here any more. I, for one, am getting sick and tired of your verbal conflagrations. Dial it back or go somewhere else.
More Boomer shit. He’s going tell me what the folks out shopping at a high end grocery store think.
I would like to suggest banning me.
If you don’t see the condensation that on on you. I’m not fucking putting up with it. It’s a goddamn insult.
So if you’re offended just fucking ban me.
OK.
see, Jason, El…. this is where gifs and memes are useful. Rev is a shitposter and a troll. (only lame-ass GenXers whine so much about Boomers.) The only response he deserves when he gets all huffy like this is a gif of a monkey yelling, or a raccoon tossing garbage everywhere.
Why should you listen to me? I’m an Elder Millenial… i don’t like labels and I know everything about social media because i was a teenager when they invented it.
But it’s so easy to piss you off!
You’re no spring chicken either.
Hillary was one of the few democrats who could have lost to Trump. Too many people just didn’t like her. Not as many people worry about corporate money as you think, even though they should.
Not even mad. Like a zen rage.
Your ideas mean nothing to me. You claim to know things you don’t know. There will be folks voting born after 9/11. You know zero about these people. I don’t know much either but I’m trying to organize them.
All of your Boomer wisdom is dog shit on my shoe.
“I don’t know much either but I’m trying to organize them”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH*inhales* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
wow what a perfect, perfect…. and honest, slogan for what you’re about.
Like you know what people care about. You know what constituency does what. I’m just trying to teach you guys!
Fucking Boomer cunt mentality. Hey we have a year or so till the primaries. If we’re lucky you’ll be dead by then. Who knows!
Patronizing piece of fucking Boomer trash.
Note to readers: Political activism and organizing isn’t concerned with engaging the already engaged. Or the folks who have a financial stake. Or the people who have a very clear sense class consciousness. Those people already wield political power.
These are people you know. These people can’t help me. We need new people.
So if you think it’s smart to “teach me” what upper-middle class white Boomers do or think, it’s funny to me. Because I already know. That’s the problem.
The politics that are “acceptable” to these people aren’t nearly good enough. Hence, since new people are always turning 18 and old folks are shuffling of the mortal coil, I’m going to rally some new people, because you people are fucking diseased scum.
Are we all clear? We good? OK, cool
Some recent polling data I’ve seen is quite telling about the American people and which type of candidates for the Dems are likely to succeed. Most Americans think Trump did something illegal respecting Russiagate. But do they care? One half oppose impeachment proceedings and Trump has an approval rating of about 43%. That doesn’t speak well for the American people. But what does it tell us about the Dem candidate they are most likely to elect over Trump?
The American people want someone who offers a clear and better advantage for them over Trump. That’s why this whole play-it-safe, moderate view of a Dem candidate makes no pragmatic sense. If the Dem candidate has a family resemblance to Trump in what is offered to the American people, then Trump will probably prevail again. But if a Dem candidate offers tangible benefits that Trump will not–like universal health care, free college tuition, higher wages, etc–then the voters will see it’s to their advantage to vote for the Dem. A clear progressive Dem candidate is obviously the most pragmatic choice to make to run against Trump in 2020. Pelosi and company have it backwards.
Pelosi and company are doing what benefits their fundraising mission… which is 4 more years of trump.
“But if a Dem candidate offers tangible benefits that Trump will not–like universal health care, free college tuition, higher wages, etc–then the voters will see it’s to their advantage to vote for the Dem. ”
And yet Jason has for a number of years lamented that people consistently vote against their own self interests. Generally, I agree with him. They aren’t a monolithic group of course, but enough of them do it. So the larger question is, how do you keep them from voting against their own self interests?
I think that people vote based on their emotions; anger and fear being the two strongest motivators followed by warm and fuzzy along with whatever keeps them in their comfort zone. Trump effectively created a bogyman, the immigrant, the Muslim, Sharia, gumint coming to take away their guns, and of course the libertards, who will take away your super size soda. So of course they would vote for someone who is going to build a wall and keep the evil hordes at bay.
Give people an alternative to fear? Well, Maslov says that’s a non-starter. I honestly don’t know what messaging would work. I would hate to think that you have to fight fear with fear. Hopefully the Ds will find effective counter measures.
That’s a lot of words. We know one thing that we know for sure. It is what DOESN’T work for Democrats and that is running as Republican-lite corporate shills.
Correction. That has worked exactly once, for Bill Clinton. Since Clinton, it has proven to be a sure-fire loser. And yet we STILL have Democratic idiots like nathan arizona and scores of Democratic consultants clamouring for MORE Republican-lite corporate shills candidates.
it is astounding.