Ha Ha...Oh, Wait, You're Serious?

I'm glad others find the whole red baiting thing with Sanders monumentally stupid, and I don't expect better from the actual red scare in this country (GOPers), but that stupidity coming up in Democratic debates, and from the moderators isn't just stupid, it is actively harmful to honest debate.  I'd like to hope they'll stop it, but I'm fairly certain the media organization is approximately 90% made up of children who just happen to be 50+ years old.

Good Dem Candidate Rundowns

Not sure how far Vox is going to go with these, but they have three up now, one each for Sanders, Warren, and Biden.  They are trying to make the "best" case for each candidate.  Reading them all, I think the one for Warren makes the best case for president (i.e. that she would be the most effective president of the bunch), the one for Sanders makes the best case for ability to win [the 2020 general election] and the one for Biden is just, well, weak--it may be right, but it's a weak argument.

At some level, it probably doesn't matter too much who wins, but of the candidates left I like Warren and Sanders both--I had hoped one would drop out to support the other by now but they're both too high up in the polls for that.  I think Biden is a bad choice, I don't really care for Buttigieg either, Klobuchar is fine but there are better options no matter what your big issue is, and I've no idea why Steyer or Bloomberg are even in the race or, for that matter, if they still are (also not sure if Gabbard is still in, though she does/did at least have a different perspective on some things even if I disagree with her on those differences).

The Joe Rogan & Bernie Sanders Thing

First, read this.

I don't think he should have so publicly accepted/commented on the "endorsement" but I don't think he should [have] reject[ed] it either.  What I'm really seeing here is that anti-trans sentiments are far more toxic today than just a few years ago.  The LGBTQ community has, in the past 6 years become much more broadly accepted--yes, particularly on the left, but even somewhat on the right--to the point that expressing anti-[any of those] sentiments makes you the bad guy among a sizable portion of the population. 

That is, IMO, a good thing. 

Still, a lot of the rage directed at Sanders does feel off.  How many of the haters were Clinton supporters--the Clinton-Kissinger thing was far worse? How about Obama supporters--among his foibles, he was anti-gay marriage (until he wasn't), his actual actions as president on the war front were less than stellar and his team's reaction to the financial crisis was to bail out banks and screw over homeowners? 

I get that Joe Rogan has regressive views that shouldn't be championed, but between Clinton, Sanders and Obama, I'd put Sanders on the highest moral ground (that does not mean I think he would be the best president, I'm not really sure the most morally good person can be a good president).  If the backlash seemed like people disappointed that Sanders would do something bad--and some of it may be--that would be more appropriate, but it really seems like people who don't like Sanders seeing an opportunity to pounce. 

...it doesn't help that so many Sanders supporters are assholes, but the man himself doesn't seem to be.

Wait, That's Real?

I thought this Politicon post was a joke [image].  It seems to be a real thing.  And it looks horrible.  Why would anyone subject themselves to that?

Shout Out to a Good Read

This is all correct.  Also, very frustrating.

Pelosi Wants the Republicans to Contol the House

At least that's what it seems like from her stupid "no impeachment unless it's bipartisan" comment.  I can think of some good reasons for her to be publicly hesitant to endorse impeachment right now, but I can't think of any good reason for her to say that it must be bipartisan to proceed.  That's just a complete abdication of responsibility. If she's serious, then she's worse than the all the bad things people say about here are not bad enough.  If she's not, she's just handed Republicans something to hit back with if impeachment does happen.  Either way it was a monumentally stupid thing to say, and I generally think she's a pretty damn good politician and a very good Speaker of the House. 

Please Don't Run Joe

I don't really have a particular favorite among the declared Democratic candidates for president, but I really do not want Biden.  I'm not as sure as everyone else seems to be that he'd win the nomination if he ran, but I really do not want him, and I really hope he doesn't run.  He's basically all the bad aspects of Clinton and Obama without either of their upside (oversimplified: he's a pro business Dem who is also a white dude). 

Shorter Klobuchar...

Vote for me because...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I know very little about Amy Klobuchar, but what I have read/heard in the past was that she was a very competent legislator and that people in MN like her.  (For this I'll ignore the possible mistreatment of staff issue...I suspect it's true, but not sure it's actually any worse than how many people--men--in power mistreat their staffs). 

If you want to run for president you should probably, you know, stand for something...have some vision of what America could do or be.  She just seems to want to knock down others' visions, and that's ok if you've got your own but she just doesn't.  This is actually a gripe of mine from Obama in some ways (he was really good at laying out better-nature-of-ourselves type aspirational cases, but when it came to policy aspirations he was not so aspirational at all).  Also pretty sure I complained about this with Clinton last election. 

Yea, maybe a single payer health care plan for the US (e.g.) isn't going to happen in the next 4-10 years, but that isn't a good reason to say it shouldn't.  Also, we're the biggest, wealthiest country on the planet...to the extent that something like that "isn't possible" it's because politicians won't fucking try, not that it isn't actually, you know, impossible. 

Future Failure

Not sure what's going to happen, either with the supreme court [monster] nominee nor with elections this fall, but I do know that, if Democrats gain power in the house and senate, and they don't impeach Kavanaugh (assuming he'll still be confirmed), then they will have failed miserably.  They won't likely have the votes to remove him, but if they allow that horrible human to get a free pass (again, assuming he's confirmed) then it is going to further erode what trust Americans (particularly women) still have that there is anyone in Washington that actually gives a damn about them.

"Our Revolution" Mess

I'm very not surprised that "Our Revolution" is a bit of a mess.  The Sanders campaign was a bit of an odd duck.  In advance of the 2016 primaries the Democratic party (DNC) effectively cleared the field for Clinton.  There was some token opposition, either there to nudge the party or to get a platform for themselves for future [potential] runs or whatever, but the script was basically that Hillary would be the nominee.  Bernie really had no obvious chance, but the problem is that lots of Democrats have not been very happy with the party (or the Clintons) and Sanders was a way for them to give the finger to the establishment (not unlike Trump, though in a more aware-of-reality way).

Bernie probably would not have been as successful if the DNC hadn't tried to make Hillary the nominee in advance of anyone actually voting.  The very nature of the coalition that supported Bernie is a bit of a mess, and so trying to form a group out of that is, at best, going to be a challenge.  There are a handful of things that kinda unite them (Medicare for all, maybe free college, probably more generous social security...) but they got a boost from the large number of anti-[Hillary] Clinton people that exist within the Democratic party.  To the extent that those people are anti-Clinton because of her positions (Iraq war vote, big business/bank support) they probably fit well into a post 2016 progressive activist group, but even in the Democratic party a lot of anti-Clinton is really irrational anti-Hillary Clinton, in a similar vein to the Republican anti-Clinton idiocy. 

Without Hillary Clinton on the ballot, even with the DCCC being horrible, there's not as much anger to harness for primary battles as there was in 2016--there's a LOT of anger, but it's pretty much all directed against President Fucking Moron.

There's a Word for That

Hmm...an article at Vox from a "conservative who cares about climate change".  There's a word that describes that person: a Democrat. 

Democrats are the more liberal of the two parties, but there is a more relevant divide: Democrats are pro-fact and pro-reality.  Republicans are neither.  No matter what your opinion on the free market, abortion, even guns, so long as your opinion is based on reason, logic, facts, science and not bizarre fantasies about things that don't describe reality, there is one party that is a fit for you: the Democratic party.  You can look at pretty much any issue and find a wide range of nuanced opinions held by Democrats (lawmakers and voters alike) and a singularly crazy opinion held by Republicans.

Gun control: Democratic opinions range from "ban all guns" to "maybe we should have some very minor gun control laws, that won't do much, but may prevent at least a couple crazy people from getting weapons they could use to kill children".  Republican position: everyone should have a gun on them, probably prominently displayed, and possibly a high powered assault rifle, so they can be the hero in case a bad guy with a gun comes around!

Abortion: Democratic opinions range from "abortions for anyone, on demand, at anytime during pregnancy, and for any reason" to "abortion is wrong, but should remain legal, though making it more difficult is acceptable". Republican position: people who get abortions are murderers and people who kill abortion doctors [you know: actual murderers] are heroes, also women shouldn't be allowed to have sex whenever they want anyway, that should be for men to decide (their actual opinion range actually runs to far worse than that).

Global warming and what to do about it: Democratic opinions range from "ban drilling and fracking, and any new energy development that isn't at least carbon neutral" to "we can't stop this but should really try to slow it down and figure out how to deal with the coming crisis".  Republican position: global warming is a Chinese hoax.

Capitalism vs. Socialism: are you fucking kidding me?!?  Aside from Bernie Sanders (and maybe Elizabeth Warren, though I don't think I'd give you her) name one prominent Democrat that champions socialism over the free market.  Republican position: say "free markets" and "small business" a lot then give tax cuts to the richest people (individuals and corporations) in a fashion that distorts free markets and does nothing for small business. 

The fact is that the Democratic party has for a long time (and to the frustration of many liberals) welcomed all types of conservatives, and the Republican party for a long time and to an increasing degree has rejected all forms of reason/science/evidence/logic/facts, in favor of a tribal world view with the primary goal of winning elections so they can cut taxes of rich people. 

Needing "Leaders" is a Problem

Ignoring my many disagreements with French toward the end of this pretty good interview he's talking about a solution and he says:

...I think leadership really, really matters. I think what's needed now is compelling, bold leadership to help repair a rotting political infrastructure...

I'm not sure that he really understands the problem.  Donald Trump is, for all his many faults, "compelling, bold leadership."  He compelled a truckload of mostly [politically] uncaring people to get to the polls for the Republican primary.  He compelled people in states that were considered locks for Dems, who had voted for Obama, to switch to vote for a "Republican" and he is so bold that he not only commits sexual assault but then brags about it.

The problem, fwiw, is that the GOP leadership has, for decades, cultivated their supporters to be particularly stupid.  It's pretty much the only way to win elections when the platform your party stands for boils down to "tax cuts for rich people and whatever the moral outrage of the day is so we can keep the plebes in line/distracted".

The health care thing is the perfect example.  The complaints from the GOP is that people have to spend too much for crappy coverage, but their "fix" is to cut taxes for rich people and make it so that everyone else will have to spend more for worse coverage or go uncovered.

Good Take, Odd Title

More and more appearance for Hillary Clinton and apparently more people piling on.  I really like Ezra's take though I think the title is a bit odd.  It sounds like he's going to go and talk about how good a candidate she was, and he really doesn't.

Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate, but that was mostly through no fault of her own.  There were two big fuck-ups that tarnished her badly for me: her vote for the Iraq war and her paid speeches to Wall Street bankers.  Those were only relevant in the primary.  She was a flawed candidate for the general election, not because of those things, but because of years of anti-Clinton (and specifically anti-Hillary Clinton) bullshit that Republicans had been flinging.  None of it was true, but enough stuck in the minds of many voters that one of the more honest politicians we have was regularly rated as less trustworthy than the most dishonest hack we've ever seen.  That isn't her fault, but that should have been a very obvious issue for everyone (including her) going into the election.

There is a weird notion among Democrats that being right and good and competent count for something in a general election.  They should, I agree, but after Reagan and Dubbya and now Trump it should be really fucking clear that being right and good and competent don't count for much.  That's a problem, but it's one that all Democrats should understand well, but quite a few clearly fucking don't.

The Horrible, it Burns!

It seems that Republicans don't actually want the pile of shit that is the ACHA to pass but no one wants to be blamed for it failing.  The Senate Republicans, if they were smart (some actually are) would bring the the House passed bill for a vote as is, vote it down dramatically, and then blame the House for handing them a pile of shit to vote for, pushing it back to them to fix.  Not looking like they'll do that but that would be their best move.

Science Advocacy

Ah for the shared science perspectives in the decades before I was old enough to vote.  There is certainly a lot of noise around scientists becoming increasingly "concerned" with the way science is viewed and treated [by politics/politicians] in this country.  Deciding what to do isn't easy for reasons pointed out as part of this post a few weeks back.

Basically science and scientists, while knowing full well, that science is inherently political (funding from government, initiatives and tax exemptions for R&D...) it has not, historically, been partisan.  Sure Reagan liked his science explodey, but everything else got funded along with it.  Things started changing in the 90's.  Initially this was part of the GOP's strategy to court evangelical voters (creationism good, evolution bad!) but that embrace of some anti-science views made it easier for anti-science ideas and points of view more generally to gain traction among Republicans (politicians and voters).

Yes, there are plenty of anti-science, and unscientific views that get associated with liberals (anti-GMO and anti-nuclear energy are the big two...anti-vaccination is historically party independent, though after being thoroughly discredited they are gaining ground again thanks to the current administration), but the Democratic party does not broadly embrace those views--at least not yet.

But despite the obvious situation that Democrats are better for science than Republicans, science organizations and scientists have been reluctant to push that, and for a simple reason: if scientists start endorsing Democrats over Republicans, then the GOP will see just one more reason to not support science.  So what's the fix?

Today, if you are a scientist or science fan, or just someone who thinks science is a good thing, then there is no real question that voting for Democrats is better for science.  Still, that isn't really how most people--not even necessarily most scientists--vote.  Social programs, taxation, foreign affairs, and the place of government in regulating industry/finance/trade are all things that tend to be higher on most people's mind when selecting for whom to vote.  Maybe because most people thought that it didn't really matter much for science, but it looks like scientists, at least, seem to be becoming more aware that it does--or at least more active about it.

Sure, But Only If You Disagree With Them

I get the point Atrios is making here, but leaks really do exist in a grey area.  Leaks that are vindictive, or that are trying to discredit someone based on irrelevant information are mostly bad, while those from whistle blowers are mostly not bad (not necessarily good, per se but not bad).

It's not easy to determine good from bad.  Leaking about a politician having an affair is largely irrelevant, but if that politician is having an affair with someone who is the same [gender] while fighting against legislation that protects LGBTQ people, well, it kinda becomes relevant in that case.  Leaks that endanger US operatives in foreign nations are bad, but what if those operatives are torturing and raping people in those locations?  Even more, leaks that show the US doing bad things in general do endanger other Americans that are not doing that by association.  This is why we have a court system.

It's not perfect, and there are some serious potential issues with the courts going forward, but it's the system we have.  If someone does something nominally illegal (leaking classified docs) but there are extenuating circumstances (the docs are covering up war crimes) then a judge/jury can say whether breaking the law was ok.  Or something.

Until you get to a court case all we have in the meantime is speculation which is very likely to be clouded by political priors.  Maybe that means everyone is full of shit, or maybe (more likely) it means that distinguishing between full of shit and not is a fools errand, in which case it may as well be that everyone is full of shit.

Now That's an Idea

When Republicans do something they have a nice simple phrase they can tell everyone, and make sure people know that it was Republicans that did it.  When Democrats do something it gets hidden, and is so complicated that it's not always easy to know what it is or whether/why it is good.  The ACA (Obamacare) definitely has this problem, and it is much easier to attack than defend (you actually have to understand it somewhat to appreciate it--even if you still don't really like it--and most people don't but on the other hand: "website BAD" "premiums going up!" "mandate and tax"), so I think the article at democracy journal should be required reading for Democratic politicians.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

No.

Joking aside, it seems like the past couple decades we have been moving somewhat backwards [globally] with regards to how we see and treat people that are different than us.  Some of this is fairly obvious racism like the Trump campaign and many of the hard right parties in Europe (mostly anti-Muslim, particularly Muslims from the Middle East).  But it's more than that, there seems to be less and less willingness for people to perceive others as human and worthy of respect (yes, this often includes me).  In the US there is also a lot of "Ideaism" in that people who don't agree with my position are not just of a different opinion or even not just wrong but are also bad people.

While I will still maintain that a vote for Trump in the last election can only be explained by racism or stupidity (no, there are no other reasonable explanations, if you are trying to find one, you're most likely to get back to stupid).  But, and this is somewhat counterintuitive considering my personal feelings about education, stupid doesn't mean bad.  In fact I think that most people in most things are stupid.  We do stupid things all the time, and just because someone happened to vote in a manner that I would say is not stupid, doesn't mean that their reason for the vote wasn't stupid.

I actually do understand how good people could for Trump--they vote in a stupid fashion for stupid reasons.  That doesn't make them bad people inherently any more than someone who tells you that 7*7 = 42 is a bad person.  I'll admit that I think that the fraction of Trump voters that are good but stupid is pretty small (the fraction that is stupid is high, but I think a lot of those people have more hate than not).

All this said, there are positions that are objectively harmful to others and, therefore, not just wrong but bad, and so you do still run into issues of how to treat people as human who don't reciprocate.  I'm really not sure how to.  Tyler Cowen put up a quick note in support of Black Lives Matter.  The comments are overwhelmingly racist (including one calling him a race traitor, lots of comments about black people being inherently criminal and inherently less intelligent, and arguing that segregation was good for black people--yes, people actually said and defended all of those things in the comments).  Cowen's post and position really shouldn't be controversial.  But how do we react and respond to the very racist response seen in the comments to that post?

Calling them all racists (which is true) doesn't help, and for people outside the debate it seems like name calling which is problematic, as name calling is perceived as an indicator of a weak position.  On the other hand, trying to use more conventional argument (citing statistics, and studies, and explaining why they are racist without necessarily explicitly calling them racist) makes the arguments seem to be on level ground--this is a big problem that occurs when scientists "debate" creationists, creationism is emphatically not science.  Ignoring it also problematic as it means that the dominant side heard is the racist one.

So how should a decent, intelligent person respond to positions (or individuals) that really are horrible?  I'd like to think that pointing out facts and saying that racist positions are racist would do it, but we know that it doesn't, in part because it is remarkably easy to get people to strongly believe things that are demonstrably not true.  So should it be ignoring and letting the noise pervade?  Or name calling and making it seem there isn't a rock solid counter argument?  Or countering legitimately and making people believe that factually challenged and racist opinions are on near-equal footing?

The Lead is My Concern

This Dara Lind post at Vox starts out with my real concern for the next 4 years: "It is entirely plausible that Donald Trump will succeed on his own terms, and will flourish politically for it."

I'm not so sure that I see it unfolding the same way--I think it is more likely that the economy is getting better and will largely continue to do so for at least the next 3 years despite any horrible things Donald does, and that the voting population doesn't care how or why but better means the person in charge stays.  The part that got me thinking, however, was a little lower down.  She states:

...arguments about how the Democratic Party can build a winning coalition again. They tend to bear a suspiciously strong resemblance to whatever the speaker himself thinks is most important.

I have a pretty strong feeling regarding climate change and science research being most important (the latter is very important for combating the former) but I don't think that has anything to do with building a winning coalition.  The only way science in general and climate change specifically get to be a winning coalition is if/when half of Florida finds itself underwater (literally).  Even then I'm not so sure.

I agree that economic populism is far more liberal than Democratic policy in general (and it can't even see Republican policy), but the general perception doesn't go that way.  If you ask people if rich should be taxed the same, more or less, most people say more, but far fewer people vote that way.  Similar issues arise with other economic issues, as well as with many other aspects that we talk about, like identity politics (people say racism is bad but lots of them voted for Trump).

I'm not sure how to win without pandering, or lying or disaffecting [millions] of Americans.  Those are all things that Donald did constantly, and it was pointed out by everyone, and he still won (yes, I know, he actually lost the popular vote by a fair amount, but even still).

The real difference between the parties' campaigning is that Democrats treat the voting public as intelligent, while Republicans treat them like rubes.  There isn't, therefore, anything that Democrats can do to change things short of having a better show.  So long as a sizable fraction of our electorate are, in fact, gullible rubes, it is very difficult to win them over without some form of pandering, lying, and/or showmanship.  The fact that an unqualified racist demagogue can win the presidency is proof positive that the show is of greater import than the message.  Looking back it's pretty easy to see that as a factor to Obama's victories.  It can also be easy to see it as a share of why Reagan, [Bill] Clinton and Dubbya won as well.  Their shows were better.

There is certainly a lot to blame to throw at the media for this (that is where and how the show plays out afterall) but it doesn't change the fact that looking back to recent history, the better showman wins the election.

My opionon since the start of this mess a year ago was that Hillary Clinton could be a very good president--possibly one of our best--but she was a horrible candidate.  No matter how well someone can do the job she has to win first.

I Still Like Pelosi

There are leadership issues with the Democratic party, but I think they're more DNC, DCCC, DSCC related than the top posts (not a huge fan of our incoming senate minority leader, but it seems he'll at least have to pretend to be better with Warren and Sanders owning the Dem base). So, yea, there are problems, but I'm still with Nancy Pelosi.  I think she's done a hell of a job overall.