Can this libertarian restore conservatism?
[...] Noting that the Articles of Confederation excellently referred to powers not "expressly" delegated, Weld says, "I might have been an anti-Federalist." Imagine having a president who knows that there were anti-Federalists.
The top of the Libertarians' 2016 ticket was another ex-governor, New Mexico's Gary Johnson, who was too interested in marijuana and not interested enough in Syria to recognize the name Aleppo. Weld, however, is ready for prime time.
[...] If the florid face of today's snarling GOP wants to be renominated, he will be. Five-hundred days into his presidency he had 87 percent approval among Republicans, 10 points above Ronald Reagan's rating at 500 days. And in the autumn of 2019, upward of 20 Democratic presidential aspirants might clog the stages at "debates" that could become contests to see who can most arrestingly pander to activists — a disproportionate slice of the nominating electorate — who are enamored of "Medicare for all," government-guaranteed jobs and generally gobs of free stuff (college tuition, etc.).
If in autumn 2020 voters face a second consecutive repulsive choice, there will be running room between the two deplorables. Because of its 2016 efforts, the Libertarian Party will automatically be on 39 states' ballots this fall and has a sufficient infantry of volunteers to secure ballot access in another nine. So, if the Libertarian Party is willing, 2020's politics could have an ingredient recently missing from presidential politics: fun. And maybe a serious disruption of the party duopoly that increasing millions find annoying. Stranger things have happened, as a glance across Lafayette Square confirms. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/can-this-libertarian-restore-conservatism/2018/06/20/ed158304-73ef-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html?utm_term=.b9bec2a3720e)
Hmmm, let's see, where did I leave my ten foot pole? 8)
It could be a fatal error, if liberals are ready to do Trump's work for him.
Liberal hostility toward Trump aides could galvanize the GOP base (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/06/25/daily-202-liberal-hostility-toward-trump-aides-could-galvanize-the-gop-base/5b303f2730fb046c468e6f2c/?utm_term=.1aa4b71dd949)
Are there any electable candidates among the likely Dem contenders for 2020? Will the public elect an near-octogenarian Bernie Sanders? I think the Dems are going to misread dissatisfaction with Trump as a mandate for their own brand of knee-jerk populism and give the Donald another four years
Quote from: bwv 1080 on June 25, 2018, 10:34:49 AM
Are there any electable candidates among the likely Dem contenders for 2020? Will the public elect an near-octogenarian Bernie Sanders? I think the Dems are going to misread dissatisfaction with Trump as a mandate for their own brand of knee-jerk populism and give the Donald another four years.
That is the concern. If they didn't learn from Nov 2016 that
I'm not that narcissistic bigot who lies with every second breath! is insufficient as a strategy, then we're all buggered.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 25, 2018, 10:44:50 AM
That is the concern. If they didn't learn from Nov 2016 that I'm not that narcissistic bigot who lies with every second breath! is insufficient as a strategy, then we're all buggered.
People will understandably vote for a narcissistic bigot who they believe represents their interests over a saint they believe does not. Politics is not a Manichean struggle of good vs evil, it is a balancing of competing interests within a constitutional framework.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on June 25, 2018, 10:47:55 AM
People will understandably vote for a narcissistic bigot who they believe represents their interests over a saint they believe does not. Politics is not a Manichean struggle of good vs evil, it is a balancing of competing interests within a constitutional framework.
Yes.
Not looking for sainthood.
But decency. Yes, decency would be . . . nice.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on June 25, 2018, 10:47:55 AM
People will understandably vote for a narcissistic bigot who they believe represents their interests over a saint they believe does not. Politics is not a Manichean struggle of good vs evil, it is a balancing of competing interests within a constitutional framework.
Saint Hillary of the Satanists?
First, let's see if a moderate or traditional republican (Paul Ryan?) would try to wrestle the republican party back after it was kidnapped by Trump.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on June 25, 2018, 11:16:19 PM
Saint Hillary of the Satanists?
No one has called Hillary a saint, of course.
And, please, Lord, have her go away.
Quote from: springrite on June 25, 2018, 11:51:43 PM
First, let's see if a moderate or traditional republican (Paul Ryan?) would try to wrestle the republican party back after it was kidnapped by Trump.
Ryan's trouble, is his history of having enabled El Tupé; he is terminally damaged goods.
By now, with all their complicity (not all of it unwilling) the GOP has become the Party of El Tupé. The GOP's failure, in terms of serving the country, is complete.
If the Democrats cannot get their act together, their failure, too, will be complete, and America will continue to descend into darkness.
Opinion: Ocasio-Cortez just did Democrats a big favor
In her shocking primary upset of Nancy Pelosi's heir apparent, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just did Democrats a big favor.
I mean no disrespect to Rep. Joseph Crowley, the New York Democrat she beat. The head of the House Democratic caucus is by all accounts a nice guy, and he might have made a competent speaker of the House.
But now he won't be speaker. And this, in a very concrete way, clears the way for a new generation to take the reins of the opposition — leaders who appeal to the emerging electoral majority that already dominates the party and will soon dominate the country: progressive, young, female and nonwhite. It is no accident that Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old Latina, is all four.
A majority of House Democrats are either women, people of color or gay. A disproportionate number of their strongest candidates in November's election are women, and many are young. Of the 54 on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's most competitive "Red to Blue" list, 19 aren't yet 40 years old, and 26 are women. The Cook Political Report sees Democratic women outperforming Democratic men by 15 points in primaries. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ocasio-cortez-just-did-democrats-a-big-favor/2018/06/27/dafdc498-7a4c-11e8-aeee-4d04c8ac6158_story.html?utm_term=.78ecf600c21a)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 28, 2018, 03:03:04 AM
Opinion: Ocasio-Cortez just did Democrats a big favor
In her shocking primary upset of Nancy Pelosi's heir apparent, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just did Democrats a big favor.
I mean no disrespect to Rep. Joseph Crowley, the New York Democrat she beat. The head of the House Democratic caucus is by all accounts a nice guy, and he might have made a competent speaker of the House.
But now he won't be speaker. And this, in a very concrete way, clears the way for a new generation to take the reins of the opposition — leaders who appeal to the emerging electoral majority that already dominates the party and will soon dominate the country: progressive, young, female and nonwhite. It is no accident that Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old Latina, is all four.
A majority of House Democrats are either women, people of color or gay. A disproportionate number of their strongest candidates in November's election are women, and many are young. Of the 54 on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's most competitive "Red to Blue" list, 19 aren't yet 40 years old, and 26 are women. The Cook Political Report sees Democratic women outperforming Democratic men by 15 points in primaries. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ocasio-cortez-just-did-democrats-a-big-favor/2018/06/27/dafdc498-7a4c-11e8-aeee-4d04c8ac6158_story.html?utm_term=.78ecf600c21a)
QuoteAs for the insurgency, Crowley is the only Democratic incumbent to be ousted this cycle. Of the 29 candidates on the "Red to Blue" list that the DCCC endorsed during their primaries, 27 have prevailed. The Center for Responsive Politics tells me that in 85 percent of Democratic House primaries this year, 252 of 296, the winner was the candidate who raised the most money; of the 44 exceptions, 31 were women — suggesting the reason is gender, not ideology.
QuoteThe ouster of Crowley, who, fairly or not, had the aura of an old-time party boss and a conventional pol, gives the Democrats a vital chance to own the emerging electorate of young, female, nonwhite and progressive voters. This coalition can beat Trump in 2020 — and thwart Trumpism for years to come.
Speak no more of socialism
The trouble with left-wing Democrats is that they lack a proper respect for right-wing demagoguery. Hence, at the moment, many of them extol socialism — which is to American politics what curling is to sports — and are calling for the abolition of ICE, generously giving [El Presidente Tupé] yet another opportunity to demagogue on immigration. They will, if allowed, declaim their way to another defeat. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-win-could-revive-american-socialism/2018/07/02/0dafc8b6-7e24-11e8-bb6b-c1cb691f1402_story.html?utm_term=.cd57dc354101)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 28, 2018, 03:03:04 AM
Opinion: Ocasio-Cortez just did Democrats a big favor
the emerging electoral majority that already dominates the party and will soon dominate the country: progressive, young, female and nonwhite.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ocasio-cortez-just-did-democrats-a-big-favor/2018/06/27/dafdc498-7a4c-11e8-aeee-4d04c8ac6158_story.html?utm_term=.78ecf600c21a)
Take heart, then: according to WaPo, as soon as this electoral majority will dominate the country the Dems will rule the US for at least a generation to come. Be careful, though, what you wish for.
Why, you almost seem to suggest that you know my wishes 0:)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 03, 2018, 07:56:02 AM
Why, you almost seem to suggest that you know my wishes 0:)
I believe I am not far off the mark in thinking you would quite like the Republican Party to be badly defetead in the next Congress and Presidential elections --- and in thinking that you don't expect the Libertarian Party to replace the Democratic Party for this. 0:)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 25, 2018, 10:15:50 AM
It could be a fatal error, if liberals are ready to do Trump's work for him.
Liberal hostility toward Trump aides could galvanize the GOP base (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/06/25/daily-202-liberal-hostility-toward-trump-aides-could-galvanize-the-gop-base/5b303f2730fb046c468e6f2c/?utm_term=.1aa4b71dd949)
The Trumpets are in a feeding frenzy.
The hostility toward the reasoned is a giant factor in Trump's popularity and will give him the next election as well.
Quote from: Florestan on July 03, 2018, 08:00:17 AM
I believe I am not far off the mark in thinking you would quite like the Republican Party to be badly defeated in the next Congress and Presidential elections --- and in thinking that you don't expect the Libertarian Party to replace the Democratic Party for this. 0:)
In that much, you do not exceed reason 8)
Quote from: eljr on July 03, 2018, 08:07:40 AM
The hostility toward the reasoned is a giant factor in Trump's popularity and will give him the next election as well.
Arguably, it is nearly the Democrats' race to lose. But, of course, 2016 was Clinton's to lose—and she did.
There are numerous ways in which the Democrats can lose what ought to be their advantage.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 03, 2018, 08:25:54 AM
Arguably, it is nearly the Democrats' race to lose. But, of course, 2016 was Clinton's to lose—and she did.
There are numerous ways in which the Democrats can lose what ought to be their advantage.
Dem's are not motivated across the board as Trumpets are.
Trump dictates what the Trumpets want and who they are. He defines who the Democrats are too!
the dem's have shown no answer to Trump defining them. Until that changes and I have no reason to think it will, the Dem's will not win dog catcher.
We just had a 28 year old women, a socialist, win the primary in the bronx. Good grief. If anyone thinks this is the way to beat Trump I got a bridge in another borough to sell them.
Kyle Kulinski vents about Alex Jones for smearing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
https://www.youtube.com/v/uQTUhqqbFxA
Quote from: eljr on July 03, 2018, 08:35:02 AM
We just had a 28 year old women, a socialist, win the primary in the bronx. Good grief. If anyone thinks this is the way to beat Trump I got a bridge in another borough to sell them.
Actually not a socialist, but a social democrat supporting the furthest left type of capitalism which happens to be the most popular system among American people and has proven to be a very succesful model in the World. If Democrats want to beat republicans they need to move left many many steps. This 28 year old woman is waiting for them there.
Quote from: Florestan on July 03, 2018, 07:54:04 AM
Take heart, then: according to WaPo, as soon as this electoral majority will dominate the country the Dems will rule the US for at least a generation to come. Be careful, though, what you wish for.
NOPE!
Quote from: 71 dB on July 03, 2018, 08:52:50 AM
If Democrats want to beat republicans they need to move left many many steps. This 28 year old woman is waiting for them there.
I totally disagree.
I wish it were true, it's just flat out not.
BTW, there are no republicans any longer. There are Trumpets who have sold their souls.
Get a damned clue, Democrats: "We ain't El Tupé!" wasn't enough in 2016, and it won't be, in 2020.
Canned crab? Elizabeth Warren is unfit to lead. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/join-my-tribe-elizabeth-warren/2018/10/16/3fb0867e-d181-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html?utm_term=.919495c0db37)
Quote from: eljr on July 03, 2018, 01:53:23 PM
BTW, there are no republicans any longer. There are Trumpets who have sold their souls.
More precisely, there are no real opposing political parties in the US. The Reps and Dems are locked into paying back favors to the powers that helped them get elected. The people get shuffled out of the equation. As an example, George W Bush actually voted for Hillary Clinton. To me, that is not a surprise.
Quote from: eljr on July 03, 2018, 01:53:23 PM
I totally disagree.
I wish it were true, it's just flat out not.
BTW, there are no republicans any longer. There are Trumpets who have sold their souls.
I think it's part true, but Dems should be accepting of local differences and make common cause with centrists who mostly want the same things on jobs, health care, the environment, and infrastructure investment. I think a left-leaning Dem candidate can stake out a progressive platform that isn't inflammatory. Remember that while the designation of liberal/progressive/socialist isn't popular, the programs are.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 21, 2018, 10:05:21 AM
The top of the Libertarians' 2016 ticket was another ex-governor, New Mexico's Gary Johnson, who was too interested in marijuana and not interested enough in Syria to recognize the name Aleppo. Weld, however, is ready for prime time.
"Aleppo" was a clear gaffe by Johnson. But was it any worse than a candidate declaring (among a flood of nonsense and lies) that Putin would not go into Ukraine
after that had already happened? The candidate who said that, Donald Trump, eventually won the overwhelming support of the so-called conservatives. "Aleppo" became an excuse to not vote for somebody they weren't voting for anyway.
Weld's level of polish is completely irrelevant. He needs support from people who care about their team winning more than they care about the differences between Trump and him. He won't get it even if he runs a perfect campaign.
I once had some hope that the Libertarian party could eventually become a legitimate factor by gradually peeling supporters from both major parties. But after seeing how thoroughly the Republicans closed ranks around even Donald Trump, and even when the Libertarian candidate had relatively strong credentials, I now realize how completely futile that cause is even in the long term.
I don't think the mid-term elections will change the balance of power in Congress and I think Trump will win re-election.
Nothing could make me happier, except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire and allow Trump to create a 6-3 Conservative majority Court.
Quote from: Pat B on October 17, 2018, 03:33:47 PM
"Aleppo" was a clear gaffe by Johnson. But was it any worse than a candidate declaring (among a flood of nonsense and lies) that Putin would not go into Ukraine after that had already happened? The candidate who said that, Donald Trump, eventually won the overwhelming support of the so-called conservatives. "Aleppo" became an excuse to not vote for somebody they weren't voting for anyway.
Weld's level of polish is completely irrelevant. He needs support from people who care about their team winning more than they care about the differences between Trump and him. He won't get it even if he runs a perfect campaign.
I once had some hope that the Libertarian party could eventually become a legitimate factor by gradually peeling supporters from both major parties. But after seeing how thoroughly the Republicans closed ranks around even Donald Trump, and even when the Libertarian candidate had relatively strong credentials, I now realize how completely futile that cause is even in the long term.
Your points, all well taken.
Quote from: San Antone on October 17, 2018, 05:35:08 PM
I don't think the mid-term elections will change the balance of power in Congress and I think Trump will win re-election. Nothing could make me happier, except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire and allow Trump to create a 6-3 Conservative majority Court.
The thought is so comforting, all is not lost!
It's more likely than not that Democrats will win the House. I suspect they'll see a net gain of one seat in the Senate; control would in that case be determined by who offers Lisa Murkowski the most lucrative committee assignments. (She won in her most recent re-election campaign as an independent endorsed by the state Democrats, then switched back to Republican because McConnell gave her a place on the Energy Committee and Alaskans are one-issue voters.)
In 2020 Democrats will probably nominate either some boring centrist senator like Cory Booker or Amy Klobuchar, who will lose to Trump unless there's an economic recession, or they will nominate Oprah, who will win in a 49-state landslide and then probably make scientology the national religion or something.
At this point, the odds of the Democrats losing at least one seat are much greater than the odds of them actually gaining any seats. Senate elections are staggered, and the rhythm of history means that in this cycle, there are more Democratic incumbents running in Trump supporting states than Republican incumbents in not Trump supporting states.
Recent polling suggest that GOP voters are returning to their tribal roots, and thus filtered see Democrats as dangerous and Trump as not.
GOP voters never left their roots. 91% of them approve of trump as far as I recall. However turnout and enthusiasm seems to be higher among Democrat voters, so the only Democratic senate seats in danger are those where the number of Democrats available to turn out has dropped significantly since 2012 (North Dakota is the main one). High D turnout means Nevada is a very likely pickup and Arizona is also possible, and I don't see them losing in eg Missouri (due to St Louis and Kansas City), Indiana (due to Indianapolis & the Chicago burbs) or even Montana (lots of small but blueish cities). West Virginia is a special case bc the Democrat running there is basically a Republican in all but name & a Trump ally who was considered for a cabinet position, which gives the actual Republican not that much to run on, but he might still pull it out on pure party recognition. Also Ted Cruz is unpopular enough in Texas that he might actually lose just because no one likes him (whereas Texas would have been a sure bet for basically any other Republican).
Quote from: amw on October 18, 2018, 06:51:48 PM
GOP voters never left their roots. 91% of them approve of trump as far as I recall. However turnout and enthusiasm seems to be higher among Democrat voters, so the only Democratic senate seats in danger are those where the number of Democrats available to turn out has dropped significantly since 2012 (North Dakota is the main one). High D turnout means Nevada is a very likely pickup and Arizona is also possible, and I don't see them losing in eg Missouri (due to St Louis and Kansas City), Indiana (due to Indianapolis & the Chicago burbs) or even Montana (lots of small but blueish cities). West Virginia is a special case bc the Democrat running there is basically a Republican in all but name & a Trump ally who was considered for a cabinet position, which gives the actual Republican not that much to run on, but he might still pull it out on pure party recognition. Also Ted Cruz is unpopular enough in Texas that he might actually lose just because no one likes him (whereas Texas would have been a sure bet for basically any other Republican).
That is the optimistic case.
I am more pessimistic.
I will be happy, however, to be proved wrong here.
Quote from: amw on October 18, 2018, 06:51:48 PM
GOP voters never left their roots. 91% of them approve of trump as far as I recall. However turnout and enthusiasm seems to be higher among Democrat voters, so the only Democratic senate seats in danger are those where the number of Democrats available to turn out has dropped significantly since 2012 (North Dakota is the main one). High D turnout means Nevada is a very likely pickup and Arizona is also possible, and I don't see them losing in eg Missouri (due to St Louis and Kansas City), Indiana (due to Indianapolis & the Chicago burbs) or even Montana (lots of small but blueish cities). West Virginia is a special case bc the Democrat running there is basically a Republican in all but name & a Trump ally who was considered for a cabinet position, which gives the actual Republican not that much to run on, but he might still pull it out on pure party recognition. Also Ted Cruz is unpopular enough in Texas that he might actually lose just because no one likes him (whereas Texas would have been a sure bet for basically any other Republican).
Other issues:
- Heidi Heitkamp, Democratic incumbent in ND has made some notable late campaign errors, eg a mailer where she "accidentally" outed victims of sexual assault who hadn't consented to have their names revealed, but Republicans were clearly worried enough about the seat that they made the Supreme Court rule in favour of ND's voter suppression laws targeting the Oceti Sakowin reservation communities. She's already been in trouble for a while because her pro-pipeline, pro-oil drilling stance—basically the sole issue she's championed in the Senate—has turned off the few remaining Democrats in ND, and she'd only won her first race by a margin of a few thousand votes. I think putting her 30,000 votes behind, as the polls do, is underestimating her, but I doubt she'll win again.
- Phil Bredesen, Democratic candidate in TN, has picked up the coveted Taylor Swift endorsement, but like fellow centrist ex-governor Evan Bayh in 2016 he will crash and burn because there aren't enough white moderates in Nashville to make up for the black voters in Memphis who despise him (for good reasons; as governor he was basically a Dixiecrat) and will be sitting the election out.
- Bill Nelson, Democratic incumbent in FL is a charisma black hole with no particular appeal to anyone, but luckily he's running against Rick Scott who is some kind of terrifying demon wearing an ill-fitting human skin and whose lacklustre response as governor to Hurricane Michael has corresponded with increasingly worse polling outcomes. I suspect Nelson will pull it out & somehow manage to become even more boring over the next six years.
- I mentioned Ted Cruz already, but special note to the attack ads he released against Democratic challenger Beto "Robert" O'Rourke portraying the latter as a cool college kid who played in rock bands and smoked weed and Cruz himself as a preppy debate club nerd who every Texan man over 40 has memories of stuffing into a locker in high school. Also campaign appearances where Cruz tries to put on a Texan accent in the most patronising way possible and treats his voters with absolute contempt. Polls still show Cruz ahead, and he'll probably win, but I put a 33% chance of Beto winning just because otherwise loyal Republicans vote for him out of pure spite.
- I also mentioned Joe Manchin already. Worth noting that he planned to retire in 2018 before being convinced to run again by Chuck Schumer—presumably with the implication that if Democrats win the Senate he'll get something out of it, whereas if Republicans hold onto their majority & offer him some good committee assignments, he might well pull a party switch, just as the WV governor did last year.
- Jon Tester (Montana D incumbent), Claire McCaskill (Missouri D incumbent) & all of the Midwest Democrats are more secure than polling numbers suggest; not only because of the presence of numerous Democratic voters who can be activated but also because they've raised a lot of money and are largely either running against no-name opponents, or (in the case of Indiana's Joe Donnelly) extremely incompetent ones. McCaskill also has on her side the extreme unpopularity of Missouri's Republican ex-governor, an actual rapist who was forced to resign after months of inflicting continuing damage on the state Republican party, and whose attorney general is her opponent; similar circumstances to those in which Doug Jones won the Alabama special Senate election.
- My forecast is that Democrats lose ND, pick up NV and one of either AZ or TX, and hold the remainder of their seats, based on my extremely scientific method of "heaping value judgments on politicians" and "counting lawn signs". I think it's also likely that they could both lose AZ and TX and remain at 49-51, or 48-52 with a Manchin party flip. 50-50 without a Murkowski party flip (ie continued Republican control, with lots of Mike Pence tiebreaker votes) is my prediction though.
- In the House, Democrats will win control but I don't really care unless they make Maxine Waters the House Speaker >_>
I tend to agree with most of that, but I think Nelson will benefit from the Gillum effect. Gillum, the Democrat running for governor, is youngish, has the blessing of Sanders and the goodwill of Clinton, and is black. He is running against a GOP congressman whose main virtue is adherence to Trump. I expect a lot of people to come out to vote for him, and while they are at it, vote Nelson.
Yes, Gillum's popularity is definitely not going to hurt either. And Ron DeSantis is definitely no Trump—Trump is at least entertaining and says wacky things, whereas DeSantis is just a washington insider nerd and says things that sound like they were force-fed to him by the Chevy Chase Institute of Subtle Racism and Deficit Studies.
Quote from: JBS on October 18, 2018, 11:52:57 AM
At this point, the odds of the Democrats losing at least one seat are much greater than the odds of them actually gaining any seats. Senate elections are staggered, and the rhythm of history means that in this cycle, there are more Democratic incumbents running in Trump supporting states than Republican incumbents in not Trump supporting states.
Recent polling suggest that GOP voters are returning to their tribal roots, and thus filtered see Democrats as dangerous and Trump as not.
I see your point.