2020 Democratic presidential primary

btw the reaction to the Root piece on what I call the Centrist Clintonite F*gg*t news site is "clearly written by a homophobe and/or Russian troll."

in both cases, though, the soviet and the american there is an idea that efficiency is more important than democracy

have linked it before but this is a fun, rangy orwell piece (and obvious early thinking-thru of lots from 1984) on what was called "managerialism" back when its ideologues were first pivoting to the corporate sector. it's not "fake" that pete feels to me but something closer to the kind of cynical described here:

The rulers of this new society will be the people who effectively control the means of production: that is, business executives, technicians, bureaucrats and soldiers, lumped together by Burnham, under the name of ‘managers’. These people will eliminate the old capitalist class, crush the working class, and so organise society that all power and economic privilege remain in their own hands....

The masses, it seems, have vague aspirations towards liberty and human brotherhood, which are easily played upon by power-hungry individuals or minorities. So that history consists of a series of swindles, in which the masses are first lured into revolt by the promise of Utopia, and then, when they have done their job, enslaved over again by new masters....

Political activity... is a special kind of behaviour, characterised by its complete unscrupulousness, and occurring only among small groups of the population, especially among dissatisfied groups whose talents do not get free play under the existing form of society. The great mass of the people ... will always be unpolitical. In effect, therefore, humanity is divided into two classes: the self-seeking, hypocritical minority, and the brainless mob whose destiny is always to be led or driven, as one gets a pig back to the sty by kicking it on the bottom or by rattling a stick inside a swill-bucket, according to the needs of the moment. And this beautiful pattern is to continue for ever.

the soviet and the american there is an idea that efficiency is more important than democracy

The only problem I see that we face atm which seems to cry out for immediate technocratic solutions to leapfrog over democratic hegemony is climate change. Even the root issue of population control could wait a bit for democracy to catch up with existential necessity without courting utter disaster, but climate change is charging down on us like the 2004 Christmas tsunami on the shores of the Indian Ocean.

A principle difference between Warren's and Buttigieg's brands of technocracy is that moderates/centrists offer no solutions to existential threats like climate crisis or emerging hereditary plutocracy. Warren, if elected, won't accomplish 10% of her plans, but we have to move the Overton window.

principle principal

Thanks for the definitions everyone. I had to mentally dissociate that technocrats from the concept of expertise.

xxxxp

a lot more than half the electorate doesn’t care about climate change

I just couldn't let this one slip by. Let's review some polling numbers.

- According to Gallup, 44% of Americans worry a great deal about climate change.
- Another Gallup poll from 2018 shows that 62% of respondents think the gov't is not doing enough for the environment.
- A recent poll from Pew shows that 67% feel that the gov't is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change.

Maybe a better statement is "a lot more than half the electorate isn't willing to sacrifice anything for climate change."

100% of people support "doing something" for climate change that they'll never notice

this drops to about 50% when people realize that something would have to change that they would notice

Citation?

Yeah, 50% seems on the high side.

Buttigieg has a serious Latino problem, too

As Iowa and New Hampshire voters boost Pete Buttigieg’s presidential hopes, Latinos in Nevada and California are asking: Pete who?

Buttigieg’s struggles to connect with voters of color, even as he’s vaulted into the top-tier of the Democratic presidential race, doesn’t end with black voters. The South Bend mayor polls in the low single digits among Latinos, too. And Nevada — the third state to cast ballots and where Latinos make up about a third of the population — threatens to deliver a blow to the 37-year-old’s campaign before South Carolina even votes.

In interviews with more than a dozen Latino activists and leader from Washington to California and Nevada, some members of the key voting bloc describe Buttigieg’s outreach as non-existent. His problem among Latinos has been largely overlooked as Buttigieg labors to counter criticism that he is out of step with African Americans. That liability became so pronounced this week that Buttigieg felt compelled to personally call an African-American writer for The Root who ripped the mayor's past comments about low-income children of color.

Buttigieg has consistently polled in the low to mid-single-digits among Latinos. In a Fox News poll of Nevada released earlier this month, he had 1 percent support among Latinos, while Sanders led with 31 percent and Biden 24 had percent. A Telemundo poll found Buttigieg at 1 percent support among Latinos in Clark County, Nevada, home to Las Vegas. Nationally, Buttigieg drew 5 percent among Hispanics nationally in a recent Morning Consult poll.

During a recent campaign swing through California and Nevada, Buttigieg gave a similar answer to questions he’s faced about his lack of black voter support: “We’re not even known to a lot of voters” and “I’m looking forward to sharing our story.”

But Latino-led groups and organizations focused on marginalized communities say Buttigieg and his campaign have been absent. The story is similar in Washington: Buttigieg has not made attempts to meet with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus through its campaign arm.

ugh how bad does this dude stink at this if he has me saying “at least biden is doing well with black and latino voters.”

Maybe a better statement is "a lot more than half the electorate isn't willing to sacrifice anything for climate change."

How bout "a lot more than half of the electorate isn't willing to make any significant sacrifices for climate change."

If you look at it in terms of enviro econ, it's a cost-benefit analysis. What cost are people generally willing to pay? A cent per gallon of gas? Maybe not. But what a carbon tax that doesn't hit them so directly. Or even a carbon dividend.

I really appreciate what Warren (or maybe it was Sanders) said about the framing of this issue. There's this intense focus on how people need to take personal responsibility for their carbon footprint but the simple fact is that we have a handful of bad actors such as ExxonMobil and the Koch Brothers who have caused most of the pollution, who profit most handsomely from causing the crisis, and who are most responsible for the spread of disinformation and funding very bad politicians/lobbyists on the issue.

Personally I see this as part of the big picture of how our political process has largely been captured by corporate bad actors and the 1%, but maybe that's a story for another day.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/602755/

I'll likely condemn myself by saying I didn't like that original Root article at all for a variety of reasons, most of which are addressed in that Atlantic piece. The biggest one was that it was a willful misreading of the original quote. I don't see how you can read what he said and have the takeaway that he's basically blaming lack of role models in the black community. He pretty clearly states that when a system is racist and doesn't work for people, it's rare for people to succeed, and when you don't see people succeeding in a racist system it's hard to feel the urge to try to overcome it. That's not blaming a lack of role models. It's blaming a racist system. I've seen this exact thing happen repeatedly for decades in and around the Pine Ridge reservation. Lack of decent schools for a population have resulted in very few success stories. Some kids rise above it through monumental effort; the ones who do best are the ones who escape the area or come from families who already did. It shouldn't take monumental effort to rise above.

Michael Harriot's read was disingenuous and brings me to my second problem with it, which is that titling your article "Lying Motherfucker" is just trying to be provocative and frankly annoying. Save the MFer stuff for Trump where you can look at his actions and words are overtly racist.

My final point is these hot takes are wearing me down and pissing me off and making me hate everyone.

actually, almost anyone who publicly talks of role models in this way intends, via implication, that the lack of role models is due to larger societal factors.

This is really really not my experience at all

Interesting deep dive on the flailing Harris campaign. Ultimately, I think her prosecutorial record has hurt her more than she ever anticipated, which actually reflects well on the Democratic electoratehttps://t.co/IdiA26NfuT

— Natalie Shure (@nataliesurely) November 29, 2019

Except that her votes have gone to Biden instead...

“her votes”

oh cool

Seriously though @MikeBloomberg, something just isn't adding up here. @nytimes @karaswisher @Google @facebook @Twitter @FEC pic.twitter.com/wgdrrG03vC

— Dave Ravicher (@Whtapl) November 26, 2019

Google, define "oligarchy"

michael bloomberg can fuck right off. all his journalists should quit.

uh... the first result is a paid placement. what’s the explosive revelation here?

but yes those people don't seem to have the faintest idea how paid ads work, dummies

the issue is that it is bad to serve ads in this way, not that the ads are ads

Google's revenue model for the past 20 years. I use more targetted searches, or regularly ignore the first three results, and I assumed most ad-aware people did likewise.

^ same

I agree that ads are bad, but I'm also confused about what's being protested here. The tweeter seems to think Google has banned political ads--they have not and even their recently announced restrictions on targeting aren't going into effect until January. Is the issue that no one should be allowed to purchase certain keywords? All "political" ads should be banned (so what's a political ad then)?

if they're protesting Bloomberg trying to buy the nomination then I agree

I think the tweeter is protesting Bloomberg being a giant cunt and/or prick

xpost

Re Harris above, I think her lagging performance has more to do with her campaign being a complete mess.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-suffers-blow-aide-165844171.html

This fits well with what I said many months ago (and was eviscerated for here), that I was told by people who worked with her while she was the DA that she was severely lacking as a leader.

A white gentleman in a fleece vest at the bookstore coffee shop had a Kamala Harris sticker on his laptop, I felt sorry for him and his imminent need for a new sticker.

mayor pete sucks but so did those root articles

the first root article was good, shut up

Saw a rich person at the library the other day @PeteButtigieg pls take action

— the facebook hater (@onekade) November 29, 2019

This fits well with what I said many months ago (and was eviscerated for here)

Wait, there were pro Kamala people here? I thought the consensus was always that Kamala was trash?

"the consensus"

I should have worded that better, sorry! Just meaning to say I don't remember having seen anyone defending Kamala here!

oh she has her stans here

I don't remember having seen anyone defending Kamala here!

There were several attacks on Kamala within a couple of weeks of her announcing her candidacy that I called out as rather stupid and rather broad and dredged up from deep enough in her past as to be of questionable relevance. Outis did so as well.

Since then she has run an unimpressive and unfocussed campaign that hasn't merited my support, but it's not because "she's a cop" or some of the decisions she made as a DA in San Francisco or the policies she ran on for CA's AG. She's just never made a good case for why she even wants to be president.

"Trash" is coming it a bit high, even now.

I retract use of word "trash". You are correct and it is too strong. Can I replace with "poor candidate"?

I was just surprised because I don't recall anyone here saying they thought Kamala was a suitable choice. Though with a high volume of posts its more than likely I missed some, particularly if they were a while ago when she was doing better in the polls

tbh i had a vaguely positive/neutral-ish view of kamala a while back and even expressed annoyance w/ the "kamala is a cop" stuff, but after reading some in-depth articles about her record as DA i was pretty embarrassed by what i'd said. i'm glad her campaign has tanked.

I'd probably rather kick it with her than any of the other candidates

Shakey loves Kamala

Mayor Pete fans revealing themselves to be as deluded as Yang Gangers over the last couple of days.

Can I replace with "poor candidate"?

I don't think anyone could have argued that convincingly a year ago - by all rights, she should have been a near-perfect candidate for the current Democratic coalition (which demands high turnout from minorities and needs more white women to win shit) and amenable to the party establishment. Hillary with 2012 minority turnout wins the election.

Unfortunately (for her) Harris's record precludes her from running to the left and the senile uncle and Child of the Corn offer white alternatives to the centrists she would have needed.

I was pro-Harris for ugly realpolitik reasons that I still stand by. She also does seem like someone who’d be fun to hang out with. Unfortunately, she’s a bad campaigner.

I don't think anyone could have argued that convincingly a year ago

Oh, in terms of being able to win the nomination? In that case I agree, and a year ago I thought she was the most likely to win!

But in terms of being who you would want to win? Definitely not, and I don't remember seeing many pro-Kamala posts here, though there are now a couple of muted ones!