Red Mosquito

Why is Hill-dog trying so hard to claim to be a "Progressive"? Are Progressives essentially the Tea Party of the Democrats at this point?

Kasich and Sanders jumped out to early leads in NH. Insurmountable?

Spoiler: show

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/first-new-hampshire-primary-voters-head-polls-n514306

Instead of trying to guess percentages like Iowa, this time I'll try to guess the story lines coming out of New Hampshire:

-Sanders wins, and the media wonders if Hilary has to go on the attack more (because nearly everything that's Sanders-centric gets turned back around onto Hilary). Also, 96583UP reacts as if Sanders just won the general election.

-Trump wins, and the media very tepidly gets back into a discussion of him as the frontrunner.

-Rubio comes in second, but not as close to Trump as people thought he would after Iowa, so the "Is Rubio too green?" conversation heats up some more.

-If Cruz comes in third, people will begin to ask, "Is he done?" If he comes in fourth or lower, people will wonder if he's about to exit the race.

-Out of Kasich, Bush, or Christie, one of them is going to finish a very close fourth to Cruz's third or overtake him for third, and there's going to be a narrative of how the party is trying to come back to someone who has actually governed an executive position before.

-Carly Fiorina drops out. Carson does horribly, but thinks he can do well in the South, so he sticks around, and people wonder what will be the next buffon-ish thing he'll do.

Simple Torture wrote:Instead of trying to guess percentages like Iowa, this time I'll try to guess the story lines coming out of New Hampshire:

-Sanders wins, and the media wonders if Hilary has to go on the attack more (because nearly everything that's Sanders-centric gets turned back around onto Hilary). Also, 96583UP reacts as if Sanders just won the general election.

-Trump wins, and the media very tepidly gets back into a discussion of him as the frontrunner.

-Rubio comes in second, but not as close to Trump as people thought he would after Iowa, so the "Is Rubio too green?" conversation heats up some more.

-If Cruz comes in third, people will begin to ask, "Is he done?" If he comes in fourth or lower, people will wonder if he's about to exit the race.

-Out of Kasich, Bush, or Christie, one of them is going to finish a very close fourth to Cruz's third or overtake him for third, and there's going to be a narrative of how the party is trying to come back to someone who has actually governed an executive position before.

-Carly Fiorina drops out. Carson does horribly, but thinks he can do well in the South, so he sticks around, and people wonder what will be the next buffon-ish thing he'll do.

Yeah, this is pretty much it. I think the media reaction to Hillary losing will be more "SKY IS FALLING" and "IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN!!" though.

stip wrote: I'm not teaching next semester and totally checked out of the primary process once the semester ended. The debates especially.

They're just so awful. I watched the first two for each party and just couldn't keep doing that to myself. Life is too precious to spend my prime years unnecessarily watching that stuff.

4/5 wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Instead of trying to guess percentages like Iowa, this time I'll try to guess the story lines coming out of New Hampshire:

-Sanders wins, and the media wonders if Hilary has to go on the attack more (because nearly everything that's Sanders-centric gets turned back around onto Hilary). Also, 96583UP reacts as if Sanders just won the general election.

-Trump wins, and the media very tepidly gets back into a discussion of him as the frontrunner.

-Rubio comes in second, but not as close to Trump as people thought he would after Iowa, so the "Is Rubio too green?" conversation heats up some more.

-If Cruz comes in third, people will begin to ask, "Is he done?" If he comes in fourth or lower, people will wonder if he's about to exit the race.

-Out of Kasich, Bush, or Christie, one of them is going to finish a very close fourth to Cruz's third or overtake him for third, and there's going to be a narrative of how the party is trying to come back to someone who has actually governed an executive position before.

-Carly Fiorina drops out. Carson does horribly, but thinks he can do well in the South, so he sticks around, and people wonder what will be the next buffon-ish thing he'll do.

Yeah, this is pretty much it. I think the media reaction to Hillary losing will be more "SKY IS FALLING" and "IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN!!" though.

I could see that, without anyone focusing on NH's pasty whiteness or its closeness to Vermont. There's also this stat floating around that only 3 candidates since [insert long time ago here] have lost NH and then won the general election; but those three people are Obama, Bush II, and Clinton, i.e. the last three fucking presidents.

b_i_revisited wrote:Why is Hill-dog trying so hard to claim to be a "Progressive"? Are Progressives essentially the Tea Party of the Democrats at this point?

It's because she's been exposed as a corporatist hack so she's desperately doing damage control

It is interesting to watch the Democratic establishment turn against Sanders, now that he is seen as a semi-credible threat.

stip wrote:It is interesting to watch the Democratic establishment turn against Sanders, now that he is seen as a semi-credible threat.

They turned on him the moment he really started to pick up momentum. They are terrified of him because he exposes them for what they've been for so many years: the party that tries to fight for social and environmental issues but cozies up corporate leaders to maintain their tenuous grip on power.

I think it's fascinating to watch them twist themselves into knots arguing that less change is somehow better.

I liked this read. Stip, I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/0 ... ple-think/

4/5 wrote:

stip wrote:I'm not teaching next semester and totally checked out of the primary process once the semester ended. The debates especially.

They're just so awful. I watched the first two for each party and just couldn't keep doing that to myself. Life is too precious to spend my prime years unnecessarily watching that stuff.

It almost makes you yearn for the not-too-distant past of party bosses picking their candidates. There were some real problems with that, of course, but its replacement has come with its own problems.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I liked this read. Stip, I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/0 ... ple-think/

The left in the 1930’s understood rising inequality as the core cause of the Great Depression.

Edit:
That's an interesting take.

I shouldn't have commented before I finished reading.

4/5 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I liked this read. Stip, I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/0 ... ple-think/

The left in the 1930’s understood rising inequality as the core cause of the Great Depression.

Uhh...

go on

cutuphalfdead wrote:

4/5 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I liked this read. Stip, I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/0 ... ple-think/

The left in the 1930’s understood rising inequality as the core cause of the Great Depression.

Uhh...

go on

Sorry, I'll answer when I have time.

It was an interesting read for sure.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I liked this read. Stip, I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/0 ... ple-think/

I think it's a pretty interesting perspective regarding the focus of the Democratic party and he makes a compelling argument that Sanders is more of an FDR Democratic than the party has seen in decades.

On the other hand I think his reading of the great depression and 1970s oil crisis is extremely one-note and ignores most of the story of both cases. I also think that his insistence that this particular primary is vitally important for the direction of the party for the next generation is an overstatement. I think he'll say the same thing 4 or 8 years from now when Elizabeth Warren is the candidate (man did she ever miss a golden opportunity by not running right now!) and it'll be more accurate then than it is now.

Good piece, thanks for sharing.

Right off the bat I think he is correct about the different approaches to left leaning politics, and that it makes more sense to focus on the larger structure of politics in this election. Both potential presidents will only have the ability to operate through executive actions anyway (to say nothing of the fact that Hilary Clinton, the devil incarnate, somehow being able to build bridges with republicans is nonsensical on any progressive issue). So what matters is how each candidate approaches the idea of who politics should empower and the context in which policy is debated.

The left in the 1930’s understood rising inequality as the core cause of the Great Depression. Because wealth was concentrating in the hands of the top 1%, the amount of investment steadily increased while the amount of consumption stagnated.

This was ultimately true, though it is inaccurate to say that the left started there. this was gradually learned over time, with plenty of prominent democrats resisting these ideas. There was a learning curve, with one of the major early dividing lines between Democrats and Republicans (or more accurately conservatives (formerly liberals) and liberals (formally progressives) dealing more with what the appropriate response of the government should be for the alleviation of suffering, rather than dealing with structural questions about the distribution of wealth (and many early economic policies focused more on trying to empower groups that were underrepresented in the marketplace rather than stripping power from those who already had it).

4/5 is also right in that the gradual ascension of conservative ideology has to do with a lot more than just the oil shocks. The story is just as much about technological changes (such as improvements in things like plastic that made international shipping much cheaper) racial resentment and a backlash against identity politics, the rise of a religious base that could be used as foot soldiers in a pro-corporate economic agenda, democrats misunderstanding the populist base underneath progressive politics and losing the ability to talk about it in a compelling way, the rise of ideological parties, the rising importance of money in politics codified in the buckley v valejo decision.

The actual economics behind the conservative economic philosophy that would ascend actually had very little to do with that ascension. It piggy backed into political prominence on the back of other issues and concerns.

He's also right to note that this process begins with Carter and accelerates with Clinton, and that mainstream democratic leadership, for decades, has been blind to the fact that the most important variable in political economy is power. When you ignore that you set into motion the factors that lead to an expansion of inequality. Instead they were swept up in this belief that growth exists in a context outside of power, and that the results are likely to distribute themselves in a way that is fundamentally fair.

That's one of the cardinal differences between these sorts of centrist democrats and the democratic populist socialism that built the welfare state. The later understood that in the United States you cannot have discussions about growth without also having conversations about distribution, and that in the US distribution is more important than growth, as we have long ago conquered the problem of scarcity (how do we make enough to provide everyone with a decent standard of living).

He is also right in that we are living through a period of institutional failure, where the ceremonial actions we take to cover up the decline/failure of those institutions are increasingly overwhelmed by the magnitude of those failures. It is during these windows that large scale shifts in governing philosophy are possible. Sanders understands that. The Clinton camp is squandering this moment, though 4/5 is right. This discussion will be every bit as salient in 2020 if it fails to win out now.

In fact, outside of the Supreme Court issues, 2020 is by far and away the more important electoral year than 2016 since it will be the first chance in a decade for democrats/liberals to make significant gains at the state level, which will in turn influence what is possible at the national level. Given how much easier it is to build a movement out of power then in power (unless you have a commanding majority) losing in 2016 wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for progressives looking for something bigger.

Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal building on the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. She doesn’t understand the pivotal role inequality plays in creating economic crisis and reducing economic growth. She has been taken in by a fundamentally right wing paradigm, and if she is elected she will continue to lead the Democratic Party down that path.

That has historically been the case, and I suppose it is truer than not. She won't offer any serious challenge to the overall structure, and she does represent the left side of a right wing paradigm, as opposed to a truly different alternative. But that's not to say active social movements can't pressure her in that direction. Left to her own devices that's where Clinton ends up, but there's no need to leave her there.

Thanks to both of you for helping me dissect that.

stip wrote: That's one of the cardinal differences between these sorts of centrist democrats and the democratic populist socialism that built the welfare state. The later understood that in the United States you cannot have discussions about growth without also having conversations about distribution, and that in the US distribution is more important than growth, as we have long ago conquered the problem of scarcity (how do we make enough to provide everyone with a decent standard of living).

Not the thread for this discussion, but this is simply not true.