2020 Rejects & Remainders

    Ok, was trying to stay out of this, but so far the "no way Jose" list:

    - Tulsi Gabbard (Fox hawk if not Russian asset in Hawaiian hulu skirt with jackboots)

    - Howard Schultz (latte corporate vulture with an odd sense of "centrist" looking more like "blame the Dems for asking for nice things" misguided conception of "independent", while pitching a well-tarnished "businessman saves America" deficit-scold message. 15 years ago maybe - plus a business run only on young hipster easily-exploited youth hardly seems like it offers a breakthrough message for the rest of us)

    - Joe Biden (awful on women's issues and, as Warren's book notes, pushed much of the corporate entitlement that's created such inequality in 2019)

    - Hillary Clinton (I suspect someone's floating her name just to get people to pee themselves, but no, not again, sorry, just too fatiguing)

    - Beto (okay, he hasn't declared, but aside from being charismatic and knowing how to lose a Texas election, he has enough baggage over his city council support of his father-in-law, as well as his fairly wealthy lazy years as an adult. I'd rather vote Jack Black, who's roughly the same - in movies; in real life he's a raging success)

    - Bernie ("old & in the way" was Jerry Garcia's non-Dead band, and while arguably Bernie put some fire in the race in 2016 - some such as myself say too much - a repeat isn't in the cards aside from one of these aging rock star reunion tours. Besides, he lags too much with women's and minority issues, and he doesn't have the adoring crowd he had last time, plus he's getting old a.f.)

    - Trump, of course (GOP of course, & hopefully will be in Rikers by New Years at latest, but in any case, couldn't even manage the Republican Senate defections in this year's New Years stare-a-thon shutdown. Walking dead, so to speak)


    - Nancy Pelosi (she's starting to give "old a.f." a nice ring to it, what with her White House showdowns & her Cool Hand Lukette use of her shades after blowing someone away - perhaps she's the Devil  Wears Prada/in the Red Dress, but she's on our side - and with a lucky roll of the dice, she could be prez even without a vote)

    - Andrew Yang (has been in the race for a while, and has the businessman pedigree, but to claim that "the government's business is business" no longer works - and is baking in a Universal Basic Income into his program. Of course the events of the last year may put him more behind the 8-ball or firmly into irrelevance, and Elizabeth Warren has a much stronger regulatory & legislative record with stated on similar topics, but still an interesting character)

    - and all the rest - Liz, Kamala, Kirsten, Julian Castro, Buttibuig(?) - still not enough energy to look at the positive choices & their positives - too busy knocking off the easy low-hanging fruits.

    Who Knows?

    - Michael Bloomberg (old megarich white cat from New York might not be what's trending in Trump derangement/MeToo-Women's March times, but he's got credibility from being Mayor & just talking more reasonably than Schultz could ever muster. Here are some of Bloomberg's stumbles.  Are these enough to derail him, or are they already quaint by post-Trump daily insanity standards?)

    Do note that at this stage it's probably most important to keep the Democratic field from being an overstocked laughable chaotic mess like the GOP's assortment in 2016 that helped Trump, or the Dems' "7 Dwarves" in some earlier primary season. 5 serious contenders is probably the max number before it becomes a farce.



    I can't do Kamala.  Too many innocent people in jail and she's done too little about it when she hasn't been making the problem worse.  Nobody was ever going to get me to vote for a former prosecutor anyway.

    I'm down with the rest of your "no" list.  Much as I like Bernie, he's too old and has no reason to run with Warren in the race.  Warren is my personal frontrunner.

    Harris' record as a prosecutor was a mix of the draconian and the lenient. She now says she is on board with the merciful attitude that characterizes the Democrats(and some Republicans). Maybe we should believe her? Politicians can change once their constituents change.

    Pocahontas and The Rock.

    P -Warren - Dwayne Johnson, VP

    Kick ass smarts, intimidating toughness and  fame, humor (for the entertainment obsessed)

    You talking to me, Pence?

    but...sorry.....Trump made me do it..!!

    we are funning now, NCD, but your initial instinct struck me hard because I think there is great wisdom in the meme. Warren is actually a quite adequate centrist grownup to convince a majority to be open to some of her ideas that sound radical at first. But she has been tarred by the right with a label that is actually contra to what she is, a squeaky snowflake feminazi socialist lib or some such and that is the kind of label that turns off a lot of white male voters of all kinds and even "other" male voters, both white collar and working class. Put a tough talking no bullshit big masculine guy as her running mate and what I am seeing: problem solved, totally solved. Those falling for the Pocahontas narrative about her would be righted right quick. All those problematic male voters no problem any more. They start seeing Warren for the tough pro-middle class cookie she really is.

    If the Rock says she has street cred, who's gonna argue with him?

    Gabbard is too hawkish for Peracles? She opposes the war in Afghanistan and so does he; she supports the war with ISIS and so does he.

    Wow, brilliant, you nailed my whole philosophical outlook in 2 sentences/yin-yangish examples. Checkmate, I fold.

    If I don't understand your philosophy, explain it to me. How is she more hawkish than you are?

    She thinks she should sneak over to Assad to help Putin lock down his presence in Syria, and then thinkss going on Fox to brag about it is a great idea. She thinks Obama was funding ISIS rather than putting together a multiparty coalition to slowly displace them. I don't care whether i'm or or less a hawk - she's simply an asshat. And I still don't biy that working in a medical unit on athe base north of Baghdad for the Guard gives her advanced military strategic skills to weigh in as a heavy hitter on Mideast policy.

      I've only read a little about her meeting with Assad, but I don't feel that meeting with Assad means she supports him. She says that a peace settlement requires meeting with him. There may be a grain of truth in the statement that Obama funded ISIS. An intelligence document from 2012 says that we briefly provided assistance to the Syrian rebels, including Al Qaida in Iraq. But I'm sure we haven't provided any help to ISIS since then--I mean, you don't help the people you're bombing. While I want an end to the wars, I admit there is some cause for fighting ISIS. They're really terrible, and unlike some of our other enemies they have no right to rule.

    A separate matter to consider in Gabbard meeting with Assad was that she did it by herself at the beginning of the Trump administration. Because that administration was not in any way prepared to actually govern, the meeting happened in a vacuum of policy.

    I could say more things about that odd moment but I won't. I wouldn't want to make it less odd by accident.

    Will Tulsi make a statement on Assad killing journalists?


    If she can explain away this and bone saws, she just may be oresidential material. Meanwhile the disinfo on Assad held for years - "mistakes will happen". Just as he  muddied the waters just enough on use of chemical weapons and using refugees for politics to keep less than a total world condemnation. Perhaps credit Russians for helping him with PR.

    interesting point about Gillibrand:

    George Will writes a column that he likes Amy Klobuchar

    Before people do the usual dissing along the lines of: why do I care what George Will thinks?, I would like to mention a "DOH!" point that just came to me after seeing that. There is this whole new little demographic out there: I left the Republican Party. Now I want Democrats to take over, and they will affect this race, like it or not.

    I liked Klobuchar long before Will did.

    I take his point about the political football of electability and her lack of histrionics.

    But I am pretty sure he will stop liking her when progressives have more power than they do now. 

    Histrionics is a good word to keep in mind as things move forward, it's pretty likely the masses may yearn to be free of them in the foreseeable future. Sharing one thought: his beginning rant about Beto sounded stereotypically like a "hey you kids get off my lawn" kinda guy. Is a reminder for the youngins that even though they may no longer influence the way campaigning is done, old farts vote religiously.

    On a Klobuchar personal problem:

    You mean she might be a Michael Bloomberg in a skirt? Horrors. "Come back here, I haven't finished yelling at you..." Yes, the joys of the Captain at the helm.

    ah, been on both sides of this er, issue, I see; me too. wink

    Wikileaks/Glen Greenwald/Tulsi Gabbard/supposed Dem op plot/Russia (& throw in Northam for good measure). Ironies abound:

    Whatever, but if you can’t forgive Northam for past deeds, the you can’t forgive Gabbard for her hate against LGBT,

    Apologies not accepted

    — Ben the Hammerhead (@nowell_ben) February 3, 2019


    I checked out the Greenwald article. I didn't read the whole thing (any of it) but when I read the headline,

    NBC News, to Claim Russia Supports Tulsi Gabbard, Relies on Firm Just Caught Fabricating Russia Data for the Democratic Party

    I just assumed it was an anti-Gabbard article. Cause, you know, Greenwald couldn't support her since the evidence that Russia supports her was fabricated.

    Axelrod interview on topic, which I highly recommend: David Axelrod on Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and the 2020 Field by Isaac Chotiner @ NewYorker.com, Feb. 2

    Tulsi real popular topic @ Sputnik & RT:

    Experiment: download the most recent 10 days' worth of tweets linking to Russia Today or Sputnik, and see how often various Democratic presidential hopefuls are mentioned.

    Results are presented without comment.

    cc: @ZellaQuixote pic.twitter.com/QpcsuoKEXS

    — Conspirador Norteño (@conspirator0) February 4, 2019

    Edit to add: noted that he's been arguing with Greenwald about this:

    Both (1) and (2) are examples of the ad hominem fallacy, and are meaningless as arguments against observable reality.https://t.co/UGeQ0tFeez

    — Conspirador Norteño (@conspirator0) February 4, 2019

    who the other side fears at the moment, according to NYTimes' reporters sources:

    Mr. Trump is especially fixated on two well-known Democrats, speaking frequently about Joseph R. Biden Jr., the former vice president whom Mr. Trump regards as his most dangerous potential opponent, and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Some of his advisers are more preoccupied with two other would-be challengers, who would offer a starker generational contrast with the 72-year-old president: Senator Kamala Harris of California and Beto O’Rourke, the former Texas Senate candidate.

    It's not that different from my story, and I don't see myself as presidential material. Yeah, even the disapproving but supportive father though his had more pull, except I was much more adventurous. He sounds a bit (only a bit) like the "undisciplined" Bill Clinton, but Bill had much more discipline and focus, and then he had a very disciplined Hillary at his side to cover while he did free-form feel-your-pain riffs. I don't get what Beto brings to the governing table aside from the youngish white dude who can tell a speech, with ideas that only a few million have had.

    And once they realize on a mass scale what O'Rourke's silence/collusion on the El Paso city council supporting his daddy-in-law meant, his shallow underdog cred goes goes to shit [note that this 2007 article's mention of latte-drinking Starbucks fans is oddly premonitient of this year's big independent flop - do read the whole article, it's an interesting lens to all the fucked-upness of our modern conception of "urban renewal", meaning bring in the heavy hitting chain stores for a generic affluence and let local real estate developers run wild with new glass offices]

    Alright, goddammit.

    I'll run. 

    "PSYCHO AS FUCK IN 2020"

    But you're not American - how you gonna get on the ballot?

    Here's Psycho as Fuck in 1969:

    OMG. I had no idea that happened. Luckily I missed it back then.Talk about cross-cultural and appropriation!

    That was really unusual for this type of thing. I've seen a lot of this type of video with some rocker on a more mainstream tv variety show but they usually tone down the rock energy.

    I've heard a bit of Tom Jones around the time his hit What's New Pussy Cat came out. He was always too mainstream and laid back for me to really follow. But your video really intrigued me so I did some searching. Here he is in another high energy rocking duet with Janis Joplin.


    He was definitely a cultural phenomenon, I remember how much so. I just had no idea that the countercultural icons of the time were partaking of it! The culture he represented to me, to put it into two words: VEGAS, BABY! More so than where Elvis had gone. Elvis was still kinda quirky in comparison, had a little countercultural edge, still "rock n' roll" despite many of his later predilections, to the end.

    Edit to add: don't take this the wrong way, I actually enjoyed watching him on TV and the reason he was hot was clear, the panty throwing understandable. (Even made me even more puzzled about the greatest gen female prediliction for crooners like Sinatra. Because it was clear that Tom Jones was how you do sexy.And Sinatra et. al. was not that. But then, why did all the girls scream at the Beatles, they did not do the sexy shtick either. A mystery.)

    Another edit: maybe not as "off thread" as it might first appear. If we can figure this out, the Dems can find another candidate where people are fainting at the rallies!  wink

    Vegas is definitely how I saw him. I would never had thought he was Woodstock. Clearly he had some hidden depths. But musicians need to make money and he found his niche.

    [Tom Jones moved here for bigger format]

    even w his Vegs stuff Jones has this weird cred with She's a Lady, What's New Pussycat.

    But he has a great ear & enthusiasm when playing with others, plus his voice is so strong, it sometimes makes it easier to forgive the Vegasisms. [tho with the I-murdered -my-sweetheart ballad "Delilah" and all his overt sexism, it's curious to see how he survives the #MeToo age]













    Interesting Nate Silver lost his temper at Frank Rich here:

    I thought a minute on why that might be and I suspect, rather than him being sympathetic to targets of smears about personality, like, say, Hillary, it might be more that there isn't a way to quantify the effect. That it adds a factor that's not easy to analyze...

    No, vaguely remember a 538 column or 2 that dug into all the ad hoc jump thru hoops suckup behavioral tests on the campaign trail  (for media more than real people) at the expense of actual issuea. (Hmmm, like the inadvertant Latin-like plural for "issues")

    BTW, tweet-o-sphere up on arms that Trump said "Trail" to Warren that must refer to "Trail of Tears" rather than any old Indian trail/path vs her heading down the campaign trail. Sometimes people try too hard.

    I spoke too soon, I see from further tweets Silver is thinking about how to quantify such damage:

    Strikes me as nerdiness to the extreme, is like trying to quantify literature. But then, I keep reading how A.I. can eventually do everything and we are just basically a bunch of firing neurons, complex though it may be, and that it will eventually all be cracked by the nerds. So what do I know?

    I totally agree with you about 'TRAIL"!!!! (saw what u said) He had no clue,no way he even knows anything about something like the "Trail of Tears". He just meant it like Tonto and the Lone Ranger type trail This is a guy who has shown his ignorance of basic 5th grade historical facts over and over and over.

    An early look at the 2020 electorate

    By Anthony Cilluffo & Clifford Fry @ Pew Research Center, Jan. 20

    [....] While demographic changes unfold slowly, it’s already clear that the 2020 electorate will be unique in several ways. Nonwhites will account for a third of eligible voters – their largest share ever – driven by long-term increases among certain groups, especially Hispanics. At the same time, one-in-ten eligible voters will be members of Generation Z,  the Americans who will be between the ages 18 and 23 next year. That will occur as Millennials and all other older generations account for a smaller share of eligible voters than they did in 2016.

    What might these demographic shifts mean politically? In 2016, nonwhite voters were more likely to back Democrat Hillary Clinton, while white voters were more likely to back Republican Donald Trump. Younger generations, meanwhile, differ notably from older generations in their views on key social and political issues. It remains unclear how these patterns might factor into the 2020 election and, as always, a great deal will depend on who turns out to vote.

    More Hispanic than black eligible voters

    We project that the 2020 election will mark the first time that Hispanics will be the largest racial or ethnic minority group in the electorate, accounting for just over 13% of eligible voters – slightly more than blacks [....]

    continuation includes more graphs, the age change, for example, is quite striking.

    I suspect a lot of Never Trumpers would love if this happened, get them all excited about the GOP again:

    —> It Would Be Stupid for Democrats to Torpedo Klobuchar’s Campaign https://t.co/qNLWF63OPG via @BulwarkOnline

    — Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) February 12, 2019

    Sub-heading: Her integrity and thoughtfulness could make her appealing to independents and anti-Trump conservatives. Author is Daniella Greenbaum Davis, never heard of her before, looks quite young and is a New Yorker.

    Recommended to check out the pages of tweeter and re-tweeter on this one as their "brands" don't exactly scream stereotype centrist or moderate, but they seem to get it nonetheless (& the one hates Bernie as well):

    Omg she’s gonna win, I just saw it. She’s is the one https://t.co/0uPuinhMnU

    — Martín (@martinangelh) February 11, 2019

    moderate is the new radical?

    Sorry, but I saw it at the Kavanaugh hearing - she doesn't have enough edge, can't give the knife the final twist needed. She's not the only one - Dems are in general disastrous at cross-examination, let the slippery fish get away. Franken was good, Alan Grayson was good. Maybe the lady who treats her staff badly will be good. I'm watching 3 years of Brexit waiting for someone with fight in the belly to say "enough, we're taking you all to the tower and lopping off heads until we get this resolved". We're still suffering from the Obama "keep your head low" style. (and then there's Pelosi who's grown 10 feet in the last months)

    I was just surprised to see those two guys think the video was cool, if forced to guess, I would have guessed the opposite, that she was being an Obama sell out. And it was another data point about her to note, where she is going with the brand.

    "I don't understand the point of her being here" - sounds perfect - I bet Betsy de Vos is running for President - and she'd be another *billionaire*!!!

    Hilarious that here my suspicions have been confirmed, they are trying out the inclusion meme to counter the P.C. police activity on the left. Unfortunately for them, I am 100% sure he will not be compliant with staying on their message for more than a NY minute:

    Makes me think that the following tweet yesterday was probably suggested by a pro, it was out of character in general and there is dissonance with all the others before and after it:

    The Democrats are so self righteous and ANGRY! Loosen up and have some fun. The Country is doing well!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 11, 2019

    Is more like something GW Bush would say

    Here it looks like the bot kidz already got those talking points, though they may not understand how to express them in a very convincing manner:

    Gotta wonder how many people there are like this! https://t.co/vvvodZ6VuR

    — Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) February 12, 2019

    America Unity Togetherness OR ELSE! Hah.

    Nate Silver:

    Hi, folks. We're likely to end up with something like *20* Democratic candidates for president. Here's my argument that this is a big deal. I think people are neglecting the possibility of ChAoS. https://t.co/J6ciG3x14h

    — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 13, 2019


    Whine. Carter won - he just didn't portray strength in office. (And he campaigned hard for 4years - wouldve won anyway). 

    McGovern is more apropos, but not for why Nate thinks - Dems were heavily focused on the evil GOP president and found it hard to define their own wants and style. Plus when fighting fascism, it's easy to think you want soft power rather than hard-edged driven small d democratic power.

    Interesting for who is saying it as well as what is said:

    Sherrod Brown Is Not an Idiot

    By RICH LOWRY @ Politico Magazine, February 13, 2019

    Rich Lowry is editor of National Review and a contributing editor with Politico Magazine.

    The day has arrived in the Democratic Party when Sherrod Brown is a kind of moderate.

    The impeccably progressive Ohio senator who has occupied a spot on the left flank of the Democratic Caucus for a very long time is declining to sign up for the fashionable radical causes of the hour.

    Brown has not endorsed the Bernie Sanders “Medicare for All” plan that contemplates the end of private insurance in America, nor for the outlandishly expensive and eminently mockable Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “Green New Deal.”

    This marks Brown out from other Democratic senators running for president, who aren’t letting practicality or future worries about a general election keep them from putting their names to legislation that will never pass and opens them up to obvious attacks [....]

    Emerson College Polling, Feb. 16 (more including graphs @ link):

    [....] In head-to-head matchups on the 2020 ballot against President Trump, all Democrats have a lead over the President, though all differences are within the margin of error, with one exception. When asked if voters would cast their ballots for Biden or Trump, 55% said they would vote for Biden, and 45% for Trump.

    List of other hypothetical 2020 Ballot Tests:

    • Trump 47% v. Elizabeth Warren 53%
    • Trump 49% v. Bernie Sanders 51%
    • Trump 48% v. Kamala Harris 52%
    • Trump 47% v. Beto O’Rourke 53%
    • Trump 49% v. Amy Klobuchar 51%
    • Trump 49% v. Cory Booker 51%
    • Trump 48% v. Sherrod Brown 52%

    Given a choice between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, 52% said they would support Harris to Trump’s 48%. However, if Howard Schultz is in the race, Trump receives 45%, Harris 43% and Schultz 12%.

    When Schultz is on the ballot with Biden and Trump, Biden maintains his advantage at 9 points ahead of Trump with 51% to the president’s 42%, and Schultz gets 7%. [....]

    He's baaaaaaaack!

    Home Alone 3?

    eh, not home for long, they just released nationally, is on the home page of WaPo:

    BREAKING NEWS Sen. Bernie Sanders will seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020

    What was fresh in 2016 is homely and old hat in 2020. Sanders can't realistically think he has a chance, and it's either ego or agenda driving him. You know which one I pick.

    I think he thinks like he is Beowulf and only he can slay the Grendel.

    Ah, "Grendel-breaking news" - I myssed a goode lede-in

    Latest Comments