Who’s “electable”?
I confess that I don’t really understand what makes a candidate “electable.”
I remember, however, that it used to be considered a big deal in the GOP. Over and over, a more moderate candidate was touted as more “electable,” and that seemed at least somewhat correct. After all, to be elected, a person had to appeal to swing voters in the middle.
At least, it seemed that way. That was one of the arguments for McCain and Romney, but both lost. However, the memory of the huge loss of someone like Goldwater was a cautionary tale. The only Republicans who had won the presidency in many decades were indeed moderates such as the two Bushes. Not since Reagan had a conservative won, and he was a special case that included intense charisma. Prior to that, I’d say the last conservative president had been Coolidge.
And then Donald Trump won. I can’t even characterize where he seemed to stand politically prior to the 2016 election, but I don’t think there’s anything especially “moderate” about him as a personality, and his presidency has played out in a way that’s further to the right than most people expected.
Now it’s the Democrats who seem obsessed with finding a candidate who is “electable.” They are handicapped in this endeavor by a seeming contradiction: they want someone electable, but if “electability” is defined as “not being too radically leftist,” then they’re in quite a bit of trouble because Democrat voters seem enamored of leftism these days.
The most passionate candidates among the Democrats are leftists, and even their so-called (or pretend) “moderate” candidates are tacking way to the left in order to appeal to the base. Their “moderate” candidates – if there are any – are just not popular or charismatic and have failed to garner much support within the party (Bloomberg can barely summon a minyan at his appearances). Biden is supposedly moderate, but sounds like a leftist most of the time and also sounds wacky much of the time.
And yet “electability” is what they seek, because defeating Trump – as Pelosi says, “one way or another” – is their tip-top priority.
I think “electable” just meant “not so easily painted as a nut by the media”. But as we are seeing in the last three Presidential elections, the media will say anything necessary, true or not, consistent or not, to make the Republican out to be a nut.
Blew up in their faces this last time…
“They were the worst of candidates”—simply, laughably, egregiously, outrageously pathetic….
“They were the best of candidates”—depending on how many dead people, non-existent people, non-registered people, will be able to “vote” in November…and how many times….
(From “A Tale of Non-Entitites”.)
It was a rhetorical game advanced by the Republican Establishment of the day.
All three presidents who held office from 1953 to 1964 had buoyant approval ratings per Gallup, commonly exceeding 70%, and Johnson’s were so in 1964. Wm. Scranton or Nelson Rockefeller or Henry Cabot Lodge might have performed better than Goldwater, but the smart money says (1) they’d have lost and (2) lost big. They’d have captured voters who found Goldwater unacceptable, but the deficit of daylight between them and the northern Democratic mainstream on policy questions would have depressed Republican turnout (Lodge arguably less than the other two, however). Rockefeller’s domestic scandals would also have depressed Republican turnout had he been the nominee.
In 1968, Richard Nixon had quite a wind at his back. Democrats at all levels had been guilty of gross mismanagement, and they almost retained the presidency anyway. Perhaps Nixon would have done better had George Wallace not been in the race; then again, Humphrey out-polled Nixon in three of the six states Wallace won.
In 1960, Richard Nixon also had a wind at his back and he lost.
In 1976, Gerald Ford loses.
All of which is to say that Nixon, the opportunistic temporizer who was more of a Rockefeller Republican than a Reagan Republican underperformed on two of the three occasions in which he stood as a candidate. Gerald Ford, a careerist who was in office because it was a more agreeable way of earning a living than practicing law in Grand Rapids and who manifested a react-and-split-the-difference disposition in policy matters, also underperformed. Thomas Dewey, the mugwump, blew the 1948 election. The liberal and temporizer dispensations in the Republican Party only did well in 1952, 1956, and 1972. Eisenhower was a man of immense and well-earned stature. George McGovern was an honest man who made a mess of unforced errors.
And how successful was the pre-Reagan Republican establishment in legislative contests? By 1975, they were down to four state legislatures. The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for all but 4 years over the period running from 1933 to 1995. The appellate judges drawn from the Republican establishment were a scandal, by and large. John Marshall Harlan and Wm. Rehnquist were the only Republican appointees over the period running from 1953 to 1985 who provided vigorous resistance to the abuses of power generated by liberal judges. (Some of the others provided occasional resistance).
You want a title for a history of the federal Republican Party covering the period running from 1929 to 1979? Call it: Fifty Years of Failure Theatre.
There is also the “diversity” issue of Iowa and New Hampshire populations which have supposedly cause Harris and Booker to drop out of the race.
If the lack of minorities in these states were really an issue, how did two Hispanics and one African-American candidates get over 60% of the Iowa Republican caucus votes in 2016?
Cruz 27.6% 51,666 (Winner)
Trump 24.3% 45,427
Rubio 23.1% 43,165
Carson 9.3% 17,395
I understand that right now Nikki Haley is considered popular in the state right now for consideration in 2024 for the Republican race. My relatives in Iowa I have spoken with are not too impressed with most of the Democrats running right now.
“. . . if ‘electability’ is defined as ‘not being too radically leftist,’ then they’re in quite a bit of trouble because Democrat voters seem enamored of leftism these days.” [Neo]
I think that this contradiction between electibility and leftism provides a window into the raison d’etre of the left. Note that none of their arguments ever claim “we can makes things better than Trump has.” They realize that they can NOT! They offer Medicare for all, open borders, gun control, abortion on demand. etc.. They imply that this creates a better society, a “paradise on earth” but it is an unspoken belief; they never come out and directly say that. My take: They know they lead NOT to a Utopia and they don’t care because, as many others have observed, it’s simply a lust for power and control.
Again C.S, Lewis’ omnipotent moral busibodies comes to mind (emphasis mine).
IMO the left never proceeds from kindness but rather visciousness. Lewis uses the terms infants, imbeciles and domestic animals; the left today uses the term “Trump voters.” These leftists, these self-anointed moral superiors, treat the unanointed ever as such.
“…the ‘diversity’ issue…”
Darn tootin’. Shouldn’t at least one of ’em have any common sense at all?
Moderate, schmoderate. Meaningless label, especially in this era of partisan hostility. You want a bridge-crosser into cockroach land?
I would label Trump as “decent”. Decent, as in keeper of his campaign pledges to the maximum extent possible; decent, as in doing the morally correct thing despite the interference run by the Deep State, its tenured leakers, its obstructionists, its Comeys and McCabes, its Strzoks and Pages. Decent, as in the President who has deleted two regulations (each often several hundred pages long) for every new one published in the Federal Register. Decent, as in undoing the crass and corrupt Obama deal with Iran. Decent, as in taking out the bloody Soleimani and texting Iranians in Farsi.
Decent means right-wing. Yes, it does!
I appreciate the reference to “minyan”.
John Kerry had difficulty achieving one while campaigning for Mr. Dementia in Iowa.
None of the democrat candidates are electable. The more sane democrats know this to be so.
Former Rep. Trey Gowdy has an ‘outside the box’ view as to the goal of the dems regarding impeachment. It ties in nicely with the more sane dems view that Trump is unstoppable. Gowdy asserts that Trump’s impeachment is a ploy to regain control of the Senate. Impeachment, Iran, the MSM’s incessant denigration of Trump and any actions he takes are all tactics designed to limit Trump’s political ‘coattails’ in the 2020 election.
As a Congressional majority will allow the dems to effectively hamstring Trump in his second term, limiting him to Executive Orders, easily reversible by the next dem President and barring him from appointing ‘originalist’ judges.
The dem candidates are window dressing for the base, while the Scumer/Pelosi wing concentrates on a less obvious… survive and hamstring Trump strategy.
No conservative presidents between Coolidge and Reagan. I suppose if Coolidge sets the high bar and Reagan the low, then yes. If we’re willing to lower the low bar, then there are interesting honorable mentions.
Herbert Hoover was no Coolidge, but by today’s standard he might have been seen as a reasonable conservative. Of course, no one wants to praise Hoover because of his genuinely poor handling of the depression.
I can’t say I know much about Truman, but he at least had a bit of that honesty and integrity thing, that in today’s Democrat party would seem like garlic and crucifixes are to vampires. Not to mention that rather decisive end to WWII.
Kennedy did a number of relatively conservative things economically, only to negate much of it by allowing much of the fed. workforce to be unionized.
____
Yes, I agree that much of the so called electability of a McCain or Romney is just a con utilized to put a turncoat in the Whitehouse. And just enough people are on to the scam that it didn’t work, even then.
The scariest electability scam now is that Bernie seems to have perfected that angry earnestness posture so that increasing numbers see him as honest, especially against a backdrop of obvious snake-oil peddlers. Ooooh, he’s so authentic! He’s just as dishonest as a Warren or a Buttigieg.
What is electable? It’s hard to say. Probably differs for different people. Charisma counts. Reagan and Kennedy had it. Ike had it in a grandfatherly way. (In person Ike was a tough realist, with an ability to manage difficult people and issues.) FDR had it in a patrician way, but also with a common touch. Obama had enough of a smoothness that he was adulated by a large segment of the population. Most of our presidents are elected based on their likability quotient coupled to some extent on their policy positions. McGovern was more likable than Nixon, but his leftist policy proposals and extreme anti-war stance didn’t resonate with most people.
Trump has a great appeal to a certain segment of the population. He comes across as more genuine and was certainly more likable than Hillary. I dislike his style, but his list of judges that he would appoint was enough to make me choose him. His alpha male persona makes many believe he is an authoritarian. Most of the left still brand him as a fascist authoritarian. That characteristic also turns off many suburban women He does get things done. Many blacks and Latinos are noticing that. He is hated, yes, hated by the left, and no matter his accomplishments, he has a tough race ahead.
Looking at the top four leaders of the slate of Democrat candidates, it is very difficult to be analytical. Their extreme positions actually frighten me. That such positions could be proposed when those very policies are in the process of ruining Venezuela and have never succeeded anywhere they have ben implemented, seems like la la land to me. However, if I don’t look at their policies – only their likability – it appears that Buddha-judge has an edge. But being an old curmudgeon myself, Bernie actually seems somewhat likable to those of a certain age. Biden is spooky. Warren is energetic but seems like the nagging teacher you dreaded back in school. No matter how likable, I could never vote for any of them because of their policy proposals.
So, what do I know about electability? Not much, but I’m guessing that this election might be like the 1972 election where issues matter more than likability.
If “electable” means anything it would have to be “most like the stereotype people are supposed to want.” I doubt too many people in 2004 thought a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name would have been “electable” as President just four years later. There are people who still don’t think Donald Trump is “electable” after being President for three years.
As for the current Democratic field, this is what happens when you let the crazies run wild. There are actually some perfectly “electable” candidates out there (Delaney, Bennett) but they can’t get any traction because the grassroots have been fed nothing but “Orange Man Bad” for three years and can’t think straight anymore.
Mike
Yes, I agree that much of the so called electability of a McCain or Romney is just a con utilized to put a turncoat in the Whitehouse. And just enough people are on to the scam that it didn’t work, even then.
Neither McCain nor Romney were ‘turncoats’, just irritating and disappointing now and again. A fair assessment would be that they won the nomination because about 1/3 of the Republican electorate votes for the-guy-who’s-turn-it-is. Among the few runner-up contestants who did not bag the nomination the next time were Pat Buchanan (too outre; the-guy-whose-turn-it-is caucus reached back to the previous competitive contest for a runner-up to nominate, and served up Bob Dole) and Rick Santorum (who appears to have been an anti-Romney magnet without much of a constituency of his own, even though he’s a fairly principled politician who worked to rally SoCon voters).
The scariest electability scam now is that Bernie seems to have perfected that angry earnestness posture so that increasing numbers see him as honest, especially against a backdrop of obvious snake-oil peddlers. Ooooh, he’s so authentic! He’s just as dishonest as a Warren or a Buttigieg.
No he isn’t. And, unlike Buttigieg, he was a consequential figure in Burlington as Mayor. People used to deride George HW Bush as a walking resume, but Bush had built his own business, raised a large family, and gambled that you could build a vigorous Republican organization in Texas, and got in on the ground floor. Buttigieg is the real walking resume. I doubt he’s ever done anything that wasn’t calculated to build that resume. I doubt the McKinsey employee with the Harvard degree ever gave a rip about Afghanistan or municipal services in South Bend.
I would add a “D” and say my wife.. she is Delectable… Delightful… Delicious…
there is a song there somewhere…
Trump’s drift right was forced on him by the Democrats.
He wasn’t popular with many Republicans when elected, and if the Democrats had worked with him, then they would have found that he could be negotiated into supporting some of their policies — many of which were his. Ignoring their left wing (the Squad et al) they could have had a huge majority with the moderate Republicans, and ignore the Never Trumpers.
But having painted him as literally Hitler, Trump was forced to tack right. He could only get conservative people to be his VC, in his cabinet etc so he got Pence and his cabinet was full of conservatives. He would have selected much more moderate advisers if he could have.
It’s their fault. They need to suck it up.
“Bernie seems to have perfected that angry earnestness posture so that increasing numbers see him as honest” TommyJay
Trump will eat Bernie for lunch. Bernie owns 3 expensive homes and has never had income sufficient for that achievement.
Sanders owns three houses, has “a net worth now estimated at up to $1.9 million, and income exceeding $1 million in recent years, Bernie is now in the same 1% he rails against.”
That hypocrisy will be easily exploited by Trump.
Who can draw a crowd. That’s electability in a nutshell.
Who tells believable stories.
Trump’s got it. People will wait in line for hours for an opportunity to join the Deplorable Tribe.
Trump holds court with his savage. They all cheer for him. He boasts of his exploits, says “to Hell with wizards” and “Woe unto those who oppose our tribe!” and then brings out his beautiful wench and the savages cheer some more.
He’s Conan the
Commander inChief.Conan, what is best in life?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hikLjcwFdD8
FEAR HIM.
The democrats have nothing like this but they still have to oppose him. Who can make supporters appear?
Warren is the most wizard-like of those who can win. I give her an outside shot. Waaaaay outside, like Pat Paulson outside.
Somebody has to outsmart Trump. Trump is brilliant so as a baseline trait… to even have a shot, necessary but not sufficient… you need the smartest one, and I believe that’s her.
Well, Bloomberg is probably smarter; but I don’t think their coalition will hold together enough to even have a shot if they nominate him… cuz reasons.
Left-wing populism is riddled with anti Semitism. Can’t risk a flair up.
Joe Biden’s still chuggin among, making the same ol moves. Sokay. It’s working.
They sure like ol Joe. He can hand-rape a prog’s family right in front of him… and everybody else… and nobody says shit. Except maybe “that’s just ol Joe. He’s does that.”
Blacks don’t hate him so that helps.
Likability can only take you so far. You have to be worried about the bloody-eyed old fool’s lack of integrity. I still think a caterpillar’s worth of shoes will drop on him before he gets to November 2020. He’s risky. Beware the Hunter.
Buttigieg is a figment of the media’s imagination.
Bernie is the next best choice; but he also has a long, embarrassing history. Lots of surface area to attack. And his campaign has a lot of overlap with antifa. Sanders no doubt has a preponderance of Democrat supporters with the full-on heebee-jeebies. The violent ones love Burn-ee.
I read Veritas will take a shot at Bernie later this week. My guess is there will be more. We’ll see if this makes a dent but regardless: he’s a fucking bum. He represents something dirty to the elite.
Warren is the remainder. She’s already gotten through Trump’s Pocahontas fusillade. She’s kinda sturdy and she’s smart. Gotta go with her.
Elitism can be good. That whole “Ima get me a beer” shit was worse than the whole cultural appropriation thing… which was very bad.
She’s a former professor, published something about bankruptcies and medical debt or something. She am smarts. She should go back to trying to talk over people’s heads.
Signal I’m highly educated and if my nonsense confuses you then it’s because you’re not as highly-educated as me. Fall in!. That’s like the progressive theme song. They like the sound of that more than the smell of their own farts.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9jhGiIAFM
My thoughts have always been that Trump is not a “conservative.” I suspect that if the Democrats had properly approached him follow the election, his “Art of the Deal” would have had him doing major “compromises” with them (the House was squishy enough and the Senate was razor thin enough that a couple of senators would have gone along with the Democrats just to be seen as “doing something.” With the Democrats’ vitrol following the election, though, if Trump wanted *any* “deals,” he had to lean to the Right and at least appear to be conservative. He *is* pro-capitalist and apparently pro-American.
Lizzy should use a proxy to attack Bernie over his connection to congress-shooter James Hodgkinson.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/congressional-shooter-loved-bernie-sanders-hated-racist-and-sexist-republicans
Turn Bernie into Trump’s mirror image. Bernie’s fighting hate with hate! We’re better than that!
Who can draw a crowd, so true, plus Who can play first base!
‘Sanders owns three houses, has “a net worth now estimated at up to $1.9 million, and income exceeding $1 million in recent years, Bernie is now in the same 1% he rails against.”‘
The man is an incompetent investor. With the income he had his net worth should be many times more than that.
Any bozo could have put $2000 a year into a passively managed IRA S&P 500 index fund and done nothing else for the last 40 years and accumulated more than half of that.
And if the bozo had made some additional – non IRA, i.e. taxable – passive investments when he had some extra cash his total would be even greater.
That clown wouldn’t have needed to make anywhere near $1,000,000 a year to have been able to do that. He never would have had to earn even 1/10 as much.
Just done a ‘buy and hold’.
The man is an incompetent investor. With the income he had his net worth should be many times more than that.
I keep hearing people make claims like that. The thing is, you sum the outstanding value of real estate, equities, bonds, commercial and municipal paper, mortgage backed securities, asset backed securities, bank deposits, and currency in circulation in this country and you come up with about $950,000 per household, a great deal of which is held by corporate bodies of one sort or another, not individual households. Asset distribution is more skewed than income distribution. In re income distribution, about 1/3 of the population has an income above the mean. I believe in regard to assets, fewer than 10% are above the mean. Seems like nearly everyone is incompetent. Hmmm..
I’ve heard these claims made about Trump, by Scott Sumner among others. Now you examine the Forbes 400 and attempt to find someone who came by their money by tossing funds into passive vehicles and you’re hard put to find an example.
Artfldgr:
MBunge on January 13, 2020 at 6:37 pm said:
If “electable” means anything it would have to be “most like the stereotype people are supposed to want.” I doubt too many people in 2004 thought a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name would have been “electable” as President just four years later. There are people who still don’t think Donald Trump is “electable” after being President for three years.
* * *
Neo earlier today linked an old post of hers about the 1968 riots, but some of the comments there kind of fit here.
Little did we know….
A failed prediction.
A shrewd observation.
How about this: At least 90% of the voters are going to go with their team. Accepted wisdom states that there are a number of voters in between these two teams – they’re undecided moderates and to capture their vote, Republicans have to tack left and Democrats have to move to the right. Except Reagan, Clinton, Obama, and Trump didn’t follow that path and won. What if the deciding vote belongs to the dissatisfied voters – the voters that want to “shake the box.” They don’t follow an ideology. They just know that “something has to change.” They voted for Carter and then for Reagan. They can (and did) vote for Bernie and for Trump.
What makes candidates electable is the ability to convince the dissatisfied voter that they are agents of change. Which means that the same voters that gave us Pres. Trump are just as capable of giving us Pres. AOC.
Artfdgr, Neo:
I’ve been hearing that joke since I was a kid, along with “oh what a lovely name” any time I introduce myself (it’s just reflex, I’ve stopped holding it against people). So I decided to embrace it.
The title of my semi-moribund house renovation blog, and the name of one of my two wifi networks is “Casa de Lovely”.
(The other, of course, is “NSA Surveillance Drone”.)
“They were the worst of candidates” etc. made me laugh.
Trump will eat Bernie for lunch.
There are Democratic voters, a slightly smaller population of Republican voters, and swing voters. Trump is having problems closing the deal with the swing voters, who are usually idiosyncratic low-information actors in the political process. He’s not eating anyone for lunch, because about 48% of the electorate would vote against him if he were running against Hugo Chavez. I wish our political culture was better than that, but it isn’t. I’m rooting for Trump, but not expecting much. The Democratic electorate accepts whoever the primary process serves up, and Democratic primary voters consist of people who don’t care much about executive experience, personal accomplishment, or integrity and are often motivated by questions of identity or by discourses of resentment.
Eva Marie,
“What makes candidates electable is the ability to convince the dissatisfied voter that they are agents of change.”
That’s somewhat true. All ‘independents’ are not ‘dissatisfied’ voters. Arguably, the majority of independents are not dissatisfied voters. All independent voters support the candidate that most closely matches their values.
“Which means that the same voters that gave us Pres. Trump are just as capable of giving us Pres. AOC.”
Not the same voters, again values. Trump’s appeal is a promise to work toward the restoration of the values of like minded Americans and to correct the course of our ‘ship of state’.
AOC’s appeal is at base Marxist in nature.
In each camp, those dissatisfied have diametrically opposed values, the individual versus the collective; “life, liberty and the (individual) pursuit of happiness” VS “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”.
Art Deco,
You are 100% correct that most assets are held by less than 10% of population. And it is absolutely true that income is not the same as wealth.
But we’re continually told by the MSM and their allies in academia about how much smarter they – and Comrade Bernie – are than the rest of us.
I’ll even concede that Comrade Bernie is more brillianter than I is. But if he’s so effing smart why is his net worth lower than stupid lil’ me’s is?
Mike Bloomberg, OTOH, is worth about $50BILLION. I know who I’d rather have with his fingers in the cookie jar.
I think when the Democrats refer to “electability”, they are trying to figure out which candidate will bring the maximum amount of their disparate factions to bear. Take Pete Buttigieg. He’s not going to get any of the Muslim vote, which although still relatively miniscule in the country as a whole, would play a part in a swing state like Michigan. Ditto for Buttigieg with the black vote (and the Hispanic vote to a somewhat lesser extent), which is much more important overall, although this cannot be discussed. So while the elites and media may love him as a candidate, there are electoral truths to be faced with him as a candidate–that he may not get effective turnout in voting factions that Democrats need to win. Muslims, blacks, and Hispanics also cannot be shamed (with the threat of being labeled as “bigots”) into voting for a gay candidate as white people were with Obama, nor do they care about “virtue signalling” with who they vote for like white people do. Buttigieg is more suited to be a VP candidate to be sent strategically to limited parts of the country to rally the vote before the general election.
Elizabeth Warren, her policies and beliefs and past history aside, will face similar to more of the electoral challenges Hillary faced as a condescending old white woman. Bernie Sanders, an often-angry old white Jewish man, will be problematic to a lot of Democrat vote factions, truth be told.
That is why Joe Biden, despite his gaffes and likely corruption, continues to tread water near the top of the polls. Most of the Democrat voting factions can vote for him as “generic Dem candidate” without getting too upset about him vis a vis identity politics.
I’ll even concede that Comrade Bernie is more brillianter than I is. But if he’s so effing smart why is his net worth lower than stupid lil’ me’s is?
There’s no particular indication (other than a degree from the University of Chicago) that Bernie’s general intelligence might impress. He was quite the n’er do well prior to age 40. He was 47 years old at the time of his first marriage. He and his wife had no children together; she brought three children to the marriage. He produced a ba*tard child around 1971. Supposedly, he’s on congenial terms with the guy, but he hardly functioned as his father. He was married prior to that; his 1st wife left him because he was a lousy earner and had her bunking in a sugar house. He failed at learning the building trades. At the time he was running for mayor, he had a wage job in the employ of the local historical society. If he was intelligent, he had no clue how to put it to work to support a family. (His brother is a lawyer; his father prospered in wholesale sales).
Except she says stuff like she is the only minority left…
And then says things like she will bypass congress to forgive all student debt…
NEO: I didnt know they used that for the Desoto! though i do remember the song..
on another note… maybe D Soto for president? 🙂
Darren Soto (D Soto)..
The U.S. Representative for Florida’s 9th district. He defeated Republican Wayne Liebnitzky in the 2016 general election, 57-43%.[1] Prior to being elected to Congress, Soto served for four years in the Florida Senate and five in the Florida House of Representatives, representing parts of the Orlando area.
at least his campaign would have a snappy jingle
[like Tom Lehrer said of Oedipus Rex the movie]
Elizabeth Warren says her plan to eliminate student loan debt can bypass Congress
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/elizabeth-warren-says-she-can-forgive-student-loan-debt-without-congress.html
The Democrats (who aren’t actual Marxists) probably never thought their support would take things this far, and are now really really stuck…
If she can do it, what could stop trump from doing it BEFORE the election? Making her promises null.. in fact, that’s an option they probably are not thinking of… “i would have done it but he did it first” – new democrat slogan.
Warren said she will direct her Secretary of Education to begin to “compromise and modify” federal student loans up to $50,000 for 95% of those with outstanding student debt, or 42 million people.
2.1 Trillion (2,100,000,000,000) in play without congress…
oh this is going to be interesting… lets spend everything everyone makes to save the gender studies feminists from themselves…
and she will then promise what?
Afford? I dont think she knows what that means..
not to mention if college students are that dumb, and that selfish, we are in a sh*t load of trouble way beyond this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and we will be Venezuela faster than Venezuela was Venezuela
She is going to have to explain to the men who couldnt go to college thanks to so much leftism, why they should pay for unprofitable courses like gender studies, basket weaving, etc..
not like they arent 75% of suicides
or 93% of deaths on the job
or the highest majority of homeless
or the lowest number in college now
or many many other things we dont care about the disposable sex as long as a few of them make out like bandits
take the red pill.. right?
[The Red Pill – A Cassie Jaye Documentary]
Though the colleges doing this will deserve it… especially the pale fat cats firing lower people to win diversity awards which skirts that they were not only the problem, but should have been the targets..
I did warn a long time ago to watch out for the executive orders and so on..
that it was going to be the big future problem akin to writs by Queen or King
that would have been prescient if anyone noticed in the Obama regime… heh
can you imagine the stock market sell off on her election prospects?
And Bernie wants to make everything old new again in the re-education camp area.
Project Veritas: Bernie Sanders Field Organizer Suggests Gulags to Help ‘Nazified’ Trump Voters
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/14/project-veritas-bernie-sanders-field-organizer-suggests-gulags-to-help-nazified-trump-voters/
An undercover video published by Project Veritas on Tuesday shows a field organizer for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s 2020 campaign saying Soviet gulags were actually a positive phenomenon, suggesting that some similar program could re-educate Trump supporters and billionaires.
The video begins with a Project Veritas journalist asking an individual identified as Sanders organizer Kyle Jurek if “MAGA people” could be re-educated if Bernie wins the White House. “We gotta try,” Jurek replies. “In Nazi Germany, after the fall of the Nazi Party, there was a shit-ton of the populace that was fucking Nazified.”
“People were actually paid a living wage in the gulags, they conjugal visits in gulags, gulags were meant for re-education,” he says.
REALLY?
“That’s kind of what all Bernie’s whole fucking like, ‘hey, free education for everybody’ because we’re going to have to teach you to not be a fucking Nazi,” he added.
Ah… so if you voted wrong, your going to be forced to vote right…
A vote for Bernie is a vote for people like this?
Jurek is then seen suggesting that the most effective way to re-educate the billionaire class is to order them to “break rocks for 12 hours a day.”
now this is the part i actually like… oh, not, that this would happen
given the historical ignorance its insane…
but maybe, just maybe, the billionaires might stop supporting a change to communism? nope… cant fix dumb…
and being wealthy (and of self guilt) is a different kind of smart
“If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination or it goes to a second round at the DNC convention, fucking Milwaukee will burn,” says Jurek. “It’ll start in Milwaukee and then when the police push back on that, other cites will fucking [explode].”
They are foaming at the mouth for a revolution of the proletariat..
Will Virginia and its gun control be the model?
“Be ready to be in Milwaukee for the DNC convention. We’re going to make [1968] look like a fucking girl’s scout fucking cookout,” warns the Sanders field organizer. “The cops are going to be the ones fucking beaten in Milwaukee.”
This is the way to a peaceful utopia… right?
Cause with people like this in the lead, what else would we end up with?
we just need a new school system, run by Glavnoe Upravlenie Lagerei…
Maybe he is a feminist and believes its going to be a Happy Gulag like the soviet writier Naomi Goldstein wrote about, i mean Betty Friedan…
Maybe this was why women were not in politics…
They certainly did a swell job in education!! needing bailouts
for how many hundreds of years with men there did we NOT need bailing out?
kind of like a woman with a credit card of a husband who cant stop her, but married to the state..
Why Men Are the New College Minority
Males are enrolling in higher education at alarmingly low rates, and some colleges are working hard to reverse the trend.
[the Atlantic]
Poor Girls Are Leaving Their Brothers Behind
As a college education becomes increasingly important in today’s economy, it’s girls, not boys, who are succeeding in school. For kids from poor families, that can make the difference between social mobility and a lifetime of poverty.
[the Atlantic]
Let them pay, they have the jobs…
they work more, they get more of the jobs for being women, they are in control of the colleges hiring and firing..
Women Now Hold More Jobs Than Men In The U.S. Workforce
Not like the men have anything to say…
we are disposable…
[tongue was firmly planted in cheek]
Harvard Address
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuVG8SnxxCM
The left thinks his work and all the negs are fictional..
“Jedem das seine” fits them…
“to each what he deserves”.
Over the entrance to the Buchenwald like Abandon all hope…
My dad never thought he would live to see the wall fall
I am glad he never lived to see what ideas the womens movement and the left are promoting…
The Communist Women’s International was launched as an autonomous offshoot of the Communist International in April 1920 for the purpose of advancing communist ideas among women.
They seemed to have liberated themselves to only enslave everyone…
Soviet Gender Equality and Women of the Gulag
https://spectator.org/soviet-gender-equality-and-women-of-the-gulag/
Crazy is as crazy does… not thinks..
Third-wave feminism was derived from Communist doctrine and both have a great deal in common, including the shared goal of the destruction of the family and the promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity (via Goal 26 of the 1963 Communist goals for America).
The building of socialism will begin only when we have achieved the complete equality of women. – V.I. Lenin
Time for neo to start a new thread…
It’s Trump’s election – vote for him or against him. If against, most (90%+) Dems will vote for the Dem whoever. Most Reps (93%+) will vote for Trump. How big, really, is the WalkAway movement? Will Trump get more than 20% of the Black vote?
Trump is already the “moderate, Jacksonian” Democrat – big spending gov’t, ok with gays (he personally far more than many Christian Republicans), ok with blacks, in favor of America First in trade, reducing the trade deficit, supporting US jobs, against illegal immigration.
Still unknown Sen. Michael Bennet, not yet gone from the Dem race, might still break out if he gets enough publicity. I’d call him more electable, if he gets publicity. Not at all clear that he will.
Who will the normal non-aligned folk vote for? Lots will vote Trump, despite Dem media and so much hate. Lots will vote against Trump, because of the Dem media spin, lies, and Trump himself. Lots will lie to pollsters about who they will support, so the polls could be unreliable.
The 2008 election had a summer surprise Recession Crisis of home values dropping. It’s still quite possible (20%) that some big negative event happens that hurts Trump & Reps, so the Dem becomes far more electable because more undecideds decide against Trump.
If Dems win the House, again, Trump will continue to be far less effective.
Artfldgr:
For some reason I remember that ad very very well. Maybe because my father drove DeSotos.
The 2008 election had a summer surprise Recession Crisis of home values dropping. It’s still quite possible (20%) that some big negative event happens that hurts Trump & Reps, so the Dem becomes far more electable because more undecideds decide against Trump.
Home values peaked in August of 2006. Problems began to emerge in the market for collateralized debt obligations in August 2007. The concatenation of factors the NBER considers put the country into recession in December 2007. Angelo Mozilo’s Countrywide (with a loan portfolio which was subsequently discovered to be 46% sour) was the subject of a distress sale in March 2008. There was a run on Bear, Stearns that same month, prelude to another distress sale. Real estate prices had been careering downhill for 19 months at that point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrFxaJxMyGA
This voluptuous Flower of Tennessee, this exemplar of Southern Jewish Womanhood, knew how to sell cars.
I would add a “D” and say my wife.. she is Delectable… Delightful… Delicious…
there is a song there somewhere…. [Artfldgr @ 7:17 pm, 1/13/2020]
Best post I’ve read of yours ever.
Not because it’s short! No, no, no.
No, no, not because it’s short.
No. Because it’s….. it’s funny. Sweet.
And uh brief.
I feel a sudden urge to sing the kind of ditty that invokes the Spring
So, control your desire to curse while I crucify the verse
This verse I’ve started seems to me the “TinPan-tithesis” of melody
So to spare you all the pain, I’ll skip the darn thing and sing the refrain
C. Porter
Tom Grey: The 2008 election had a summer surprise Recession Crisis…
This should give a heads up https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SAHMREALTIME
Thanks Andy (welcome to Neo!), I like probabilities but don’t believe Fred (best Fed gov’t, St. Louis FED) for “prediction”. That graph shows, clearly, that real recessions accurately predict a big increase in that Sahm-rule recession indicator. Which goes up only after the recession starts, and keeps going up until it ends, then peaks. Peaking at the end of 8 (of 8) US recessions since 1960. Too bad we don’t know of any rule that peaks BEFORE the recession starts.
In closer looking, it seems there was a small uptick in 2008 just before the FED called it a real recession.
Art Deco is more right, that house prices peaked in 2006. Which set off a slow house construction drop, and lots of illegals were laid off; and didn’t get re-hired, unlike prior years since around 1993. The 2001-2 recession was more dot.com bubble popping than housing, so fewer illegals were laid off.
Official stats don’t officially track the illegals. It’s my very minority opinion that the US recession really started in 2006 with the house construction crash, which continued with reduced support services, all of which hurt illegals first, and most, but their statistics weren’t being captured by the data.
The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers was the lagged response to the Mortgage Backed Securities which were following house construction down the tubes.
Real estate prices had been careering downhill for 19 months at that point.
Certainly prices going down, but most of the rest of the economy had seemed OK, towards even growth. This graph shows the flattish peak 2006-2008 (in a 2018 scaremongering post).
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4196850-last-time-housing-market-this-was-in-2007
The key point is that Trump WILL be blamed for any major economic problem before the election, and there is significant likelihood (20%; or ??) of some kind of big problem before November.
With any major econ shock, the “electability” of the Dem goes way up, whoever the Dem is.
As the American demographic continues its considerable decline into secularism and selfishness, the American Democrats will rise. That they are all immoral, lying cockroaches matters not who.
My friends and I are not selling our AR-15s, not when a Democrat is talking about the need for American gulags, claiming the Soviet ones were not all that bad and that billionaires might find hammering rocks 12 hours per day beneficial. He never heard of Solzhenitsyn and his Nobel Prize, apparently, nor read the book. Ignorant pig.
“One of the things that really worries me is that America is not a confident country,” says @CondoleezzaRice. She acknowledges many people feel like globalization hasn’t benefited them but says, “It doesn’t mean that we turn away from the world order that has served us so well.”
She acknowledges many people feel like globalization hasn’t benefited them but says, “It doesn’t mean that we turn away from the world order that has served us so well.”
Trump is more cussed in dealing with foreign governments. In the minds of the foreign policy establishment, that’s equivalent to isolationism and autarky. That’s because they identify with people like themselves working for foreign governments, not with the people with whom they share citizenship (but no real sense of kinship). I’ll vote for Trump to fire people like Marie Yovanovich and Col. Interagency Vindman and people vain about being ‘Americans by Choice’.
FB sez, ““One of the things that really worries me is that America is not a confident country,” says @CondoleezzaRice. She acknowledges many people feel like globalization hasn’t benefited them but says, “It doesn’t mean that we turn away from the world order that has served us so well.”
Condoleeza is and has been FOS. She did George W and the USA a world of harm as a counselor, and continues her false blather now. The “world order that has served us so well”? The world order that parasitically lived off the good ol’ USA? That sucked employment out of middle class America, the backbone of the country?