And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[SimonNZ]

I too was thinking of Howard Zinn as a recommendation for 71db if he could sustain book-length information, and for the very reason you state.

But then I figured he'd just watch some YT bobblehead's bowdlerized version.

[JBS]

I too was thinking of Howard Zinn as a recommendation for 71db if he could sustain book-length information, and for the very reason you state.

But then I figured he'd just watch some YT bobblehead's bowdlerized version.

The main problem with Zinn is that his magnum opus was published in 1980, so of course it misses out on all the research and developments of the last 40 years. I haven't read Jill LaPore, but what I've seen regarding het suggests she's a worthy successor to Zinn.

[71 dB]

The elites get to boss people around.

In oligarchy they do. In democracy not so much.

The Young Turks want to replace the current elites with themselves and their allies, and get to boss people around.

No, they don't. You'll see it yourself if Cenk Uygur gets elected to Congress. Instead of bossing people around he will fight for (regular) people.

I don't want to be bossed around by anyone.

Of course you don't! That's why you should support progressives who try hard to make American a (real) democracy.

[71 dB]

I too was thinking of Howard Zinn as a recommendation for 71db if he could sustain book-length information, and for the very reason you state.

But then I figured he'd just watch some YT bobblehead's bowdlerized version.

Thanks for the book recommendation!

I don't think Kyle Kulinski is an expert of New Deal. I watch him for the US politics of today rather than the past.

We don't have the knowledge of how the US would have done without the New Deal so in the end it's speculation.

[JBS]

Thanks for the book recommendation!

I don't think Kyle Kulinski is an expert of New Deal. I watch him for the US politics of today rather than the past.

We don't have the knowledge of how the US would have done without the New Deal so in the end it's speculation.

But we do know what happened during the New Deal, and it's less impressive than popular myth makes it be, and much less successful than Kulinski thinks it was.


At the start of the Great Depression, unemployment was below 5%.  At its height, unemployment was, according to some sources, almost 25%.  By 1939, the New Deal had brought the rate down to about 15%.  Which means it was still at that point three times as high as it was preDepression.

The name of the book by Jill LaPore I referenced, btw, is These Truths.

[JBS]

In oligarchy they do. In democracy not so much.

No, they don't. You'll see it yourself if Cenk Uygur gets elected to Congress. Instead of bossing people around he will fight for (regular) people.

Of course you don't! That's why you should support progressives who try hard to make American a (real) democracy.

Because I don't share your biases in favor of leftism, I remain skeptical that Mr. Uygur's ideas will actually help regular people, I remain skeptical that Mr. Uygur want to do anything more profound than make himself and people like him a new segment of the elite, and I seriously doubt they will make America a "real" democracy.  Besides, the US system is not meant to be a democracy.  It's a system designed to make every group have a veto on government action, to force compromise and deal making, and to force people to persuade each other, not force their ideas on each other.   

[Ratliff]

And what are your malleable ideas?

My malleable idea is that no on knows who can or cannot beat Trump. People with huge databases of demographic data, voting records, social media scrapings, cannot predict who can or cannot beat Trump. It is impossible to have an informed opinion on that question. A person could conceivably have an informed opinion on which policies would benefit them, and the country as a whole.

I support Klobuchar, because Corey Booker has already dropped out.

[71 dB]

But we do know what happened during the New Deal, and it's less impressive than popular myth makes it be, and much less successful than Kulinski thinks it was.


At the start of the Great Depression, unemployment was below 5%.  At its height, unemployment was, according to some sources, almost 25%.  By 1939, the New Deal had brought the rate down to about 15%.  Which means it was still at that point three times as high as it was preDepression.

The name of the book by Jill LaPore I referenced, btw, is These Truths.

Unemployment was about 20 % when FDR took office and started New Deal in 1933. By 1935 unemployment had reached the highest point (things don't happen instantly in macroeconomy). When New Deal ended in 1939, unemployment was lower than when New Deal started and the good trend continued so that unemployment dropped under 5 % under FDR's presidency. Unemployment is not the only thing to look when evaluating the success of New Deal. It was also about improving the infrastructure in the country.

[Karl Henning]

My malleable idea is that no on knows who can or cannot beat Trump.

Fully agreed.

[JBS]

Unemployment was about 20 % when FDR took office and started New Deal in 1933. By 1935 unemployment had reached the highest point (things don't happen instantly in macroeconomy). When New Deal ended in 1939, unemployment was lower than when New Deal started and the good trend continued so that unemployment dropped under 5 % under FDR's presidency. Unemployment is not the only thing to look when evaluating the success of New Deal. It was also about improving the infrastructure in the country.

I know you Finns were focused on the time on fighting the Soviet Union, but that 5% was a direct result of so many men being drafted into the military to fight WWII, and most of the rest  (and a whole bunch of women) working in the factories that armed those men. Without WWII unemployment would have been a lot higher.

[71 dB]

Conservative Host Endorses Bernie Sanders?

https://www.youtube.com/v/6LrYCcdmeVw

[71 dB]

I know you Finns were focused on the time on fighting the Soviet Union, but that 5% was a direct result of so many men being drafted into the military to fight WWII, and most of the rest  (and a whole bunch of women) working in the factories that armed those men. Without WWII unemployment would have been a lot higher.

Hopefully you don't suggest WWII was a good thing?

[JBS]

Conservative Host Endorses Bernie Sanders?

https://www.youtube.com/v/6LrYCcdmeVw

I heard the full interview on Meet the Press. He said Bernie was the only "authentic Socialist". Did Kyle include more of the interview, the answers that demonstrated he's a full throated conservative hack who is hsppy to support Trump?

[JBS]

Hopefully you don't suggest WWII was a good thing?

Of course not.
I'm only saying that without its economic impacts, the recovery from the Great Depression would have stretched into the 1940s.

[71 dB]

I heard the full interview on Meet the Press. He said Bernie was the only "authentic Socialist". Did Kyle include more of the interview, the answers that demonstrated he's a full throated conservative hack who is hsppy to support Trump?

All is explained in the video, but apparently you are not interested to hear what Kyle has to say. Yes, a full throated conservative hack who is happy to support Trump. That's the whole point!

[JBS]

All is explained in the video, but apparently you are not interested to hear what Kyle has to say. Yes, a full throated conservative hack who is happy to support Trump. That's the whole point!

Why should I need Kyle to tell me what Hewitt said? As I said, I heard the full thing when it aired on MTP.  Saying he's an authentic Socialist merely is a jibe at the rest of the Democrats for being inauthentic Socialists.

If a Trump supporter thinks Bernie is the best Democratic choice, that just means he thinks Trump will do better against Bernie than he will against another candidate.

[71 dB]

Why should I need Kyle to tell me what Hewitt said? As I said, I heard the full thing when it aired on MTP.  Saying he's an authentic Socialist merely is a jibe at the rest of the Democrats for being inauthentic Socialists.

If a Trump supporter thinks Bernie is the best Democratic choice, that just means he thinks Trump will do better against Bernie than he will against another candidate.

You don't need to watch Kyle. Your choice. Please allow me to watch him. He has got 780.000 subscribers and is one of the most respected political commentators on the left.

People who think Trump will do better against Bernie than he will against another candidate are simply wrong (look at the damn POLLS! where only Biden has done as well as Bernie against Trump, but if you listen to Kyle you know Biden is more vulnerable against Trump because he is mentally declining, can't respond to Trump's fake populism and of course there's Ukraine.)

People know Bernie is strong against Trump, who is affraid of Bernie for a good reason, because "crazy Bernie" doesn't work against Bernie. People WANT a "crazy" President who is crazy enough to bring the US up to the rest of the World and finally give people healthcare. Trump's victory in 2016 showed people are willing to vote for a pussy grapper if it means populist policy. Bernie can (and WILL) attack Trump for being a fake populist, a fraud. He can do it with ease, because he is the REAL populist and that's why he will win!

[JBS]

You don't need to watch Kyle. Your choice. Please allow me to watch him. He has got 780.000 subscribers and is one of the most respected political commentators on the left.

People who think Trump will do better against Bernie than he will against another candidate are simply wrong (look at the damn POLLS! where only Biden has done as well as Bernie against Trump, but if you listen to Kyle you know Biden is more vulnerable against Trump because he is mentally declining, can't respond to Trump's fake populism and of course there's Ukraine.)

People know Bernie is strong against Trump, who is affraid of Bernie for a good reason, because "crazy Bernie" doesn't work against Bernie. People WANT a "crazy" President who is crazy enough to bring the US up to the rest of the World and finally give people healthcare. Trump's victory in 2016 showed people are willing to vote for a pussy grapper if it means populist policy. Bernie can (and WILL) attack Trump for being a fake populist, a fraud. He can do it with ease, because he is the REAL populist and that's why he will win!

You keep missing the most important dynamic.
In American politics, the decisive factor is not who or what people vote for. The decisive factor is who or what people vote against.

Trump did not win because people voted for him. Trump won because people voted against Hillary. Either they pulled the lever for Trump or stayed home and did not vote for anyone, in preference to voting for Hillary.  And they voted against Hillary not because of her policies but because of herself: her corruption and arrogance.

A lot more people will vote against Bernie the Socialist than will vote against Biden the corporatist. This time it will because of the policies.  But the effect will be the same. Nominate any progressive, and more people will vote against the Democrats.

[Karl Henning]

780.000 subscribers can't be wrong, can they? 

[71 dB]

You keep missing the most important dynamic.
In American politics, the decisive factor is not who or what people vote for. The decisive factor is who or what people vote against.

Having exciting candidates makes people vote for those candidates.

Trump did not win because people voted for him. Trump won because people voted against Hillary. Either they pulled the lever for Trump or stayed home and did not vote for anyone, in preference to voting for Hillary.  And they voted against Hillary not because of her policies but because of herself: her corruption and arrogance.

Hillary Clinton surely is corrupt and arrogant, but the problem for people is these AFFECT her poliicies. She used to be for medicare for all. That's before insurance companies and Big Pharma bought her. In fact that's the reason why I thought she was a great candidate in 2016, because I had seen her older opinions (form 90's and early 00's) which sounded good without knowing she has changed her positions since and is corporate af nowadays. That's among the first things I learned from Kyle Kulinski. Hillary was really weak in the Rust Belt. Some Obama voters turned to Trump, because his fake populist words resonated to them more than Hillary's corporate centrism while Democratic turnout was low because Hillary didn't excite voters enough. Just 70.000 more votes on the Rust Belt would have won Hillary the election!

A lot more people will vote against Bernie the Socialist than will vote against Biden the corporatist. This time it will because of the policies.  But the effect will be the same. Nominate any progressive, and more people will vote against the Democrats.

You base this claim on what? Corporate media certainly keeps up this narrative (althou lately they are panicing over Bernie), but does that make it a fact? Should we look at some polls? Opinions OUTSIDE corporate media? A lot of Trump voters would have voted for Bernie in the Rust Belt. Bernie would be in the white house if it wasn't for the DNC robbing the nomiation from him.