Never Trump

46 comments on “Never Trump ”

• Comments are now closed

1. KJT 1

   23 November 2019 at 8:39 am

   In other words, a repeat of don't scare the establishment, Chardonnay socialist non-policy that lost to Trump, last time!
2. Dukeofurl 2

   23 November 2019 at 9:22 am

   Louisiana Governor wasnt a flip, he just was re-elected. As the office is limited to 2 terms it commonly alternates between Republican and democrat in the last decades. (or the Governor swapped parties ). Unlike other deep south states it has what is called 'jungle primary' for the first election with multiple democrats and republicans competing. then a runoff of 2 highest candidates occurs if the highest vote isnt 50% (that system has some elections for congress democrats (or republicans) are the only ones competing in highly gerrymandered boundaries.

   Example of 2nd district

   For your other point: "Warren and Sanders have the most to lose going for high-concept policy goals when the mainstream media really start to rinse them in the debates "

   The trouble with that view is from NZ , that commonly the MSM is the telescope you are looking through to see distant events and having a rose coloured filter of 'electability' as well will not provide a clear view.

   For a non MSM and diverse views of a 'community of democrats' try https://www.dailykos.com
3. Booker 3

   23 November 2019 at 10:00 am

   " Or Buttigieg’s political wonkery of abolishing the electoral college "

   To be fair, that system is a complete mess and even John Oliver did a whole segment on how undemocratic it is, and that the democrats absolutely needed to abolish it before the next election came around (which hasn't happened). Or even in Stephen Colbert's interview with Jacinda he pulled out "Do you have an electoral college?" followed by "do you want ours?". It's the butt of jokes and a bad look for the party that tries to portray itself as the sane and rational choice.
   • Sanctuary 3.1

     23 November 2019 at 4:11 pm

     "…" Or Buttigieg’s political wonkery of abolishing the electoral college "

     To be fair, that system is a complete mess and even John Oliver did a whole segment on how undemocratic it is…"

     Another excellent example of the sort of fantasy politics centrist establishment candidates like to parade in order to appear left(ish), when we all know who the real radicals are in this race.
   • McFlock 3.2

     23 November 2019 at 4:34 pm

     The electoral college is constitutional.

     Which means 2/3 of both houses have to separately agree to change it. That's theoretically conceivable, at the extreme edge.

     Then 38 states have to agree, most of whom will be voting against their electoral interests. There are "theoretical possibilities", but I have no idea how to describe that particular proposal.
     • Dukeofurl 3.2.1

       24 November 2019 at 9:10 am

       I agree with you on unlikelyhood of it happening , even made more difficult by the non entity proposing it.

       The 27th amendment took 202 years to ratify while the 26th took 100 days
4. soddenleaf 4

   23 November 2019 at 10:43 am

   So you think that Senators will vote to keep the corrupt practice of asking for favors against rivals by leveraging national security procurement contracts? As, like, they have always wanted to do to Democrat challengers, where would it stop? Sitting Democratic Senators… ..they don't want to pay for the witchhunt of a political foes, so put it on the foreign national to do. Yeah, and these foreigners invited to interfere in the U.S, not illegal now…

   I think the Senate will need to impeach him, but will decide to just stop him running for a second term, this ticks all the boxes and stresses how Trump is not owed a second term, not by the voters, or his party, or even the law. It's not a dictatorship.
   • Dukeofurl 4.1

     23 November 2019 at 11:20 am

     Senate cant stop Trump , or indeed anyone else for running for President (for a second term). Even if removed by the Senate , I dont see him even being stopped from running for President again.
     • soddenleaf 4.1.1

       26 November 2019 at 10:09 am

       Criminals can run for President, surely! Impeached is a crime, no?
       • Dukeofurl 4.1.1.1

         26 November 2019 at 10:48 am

         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings

         He was impeached and removed from office as a federal judge ( they most common category) then ran for Congress and won where he still is .

         There doesnt seem to be bar to someone who is convicted of any crime from running for President

         But it seems this is what you are looking for and confirms your view

         Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases, the Senate has the option of disqualifying convicted individuals from holding federal office, including that of president
5. Adrian Thornton 5

   23 November 2019 at 11:20 am

   Aahh Advantage, spoken like a died in the wool, full noise centrist liberal, reads almost like a text book on how to lose to Trump again…but then as has become obvious to anyone with half an interest in politics, the Neoliberal Freemarket center 'left' have shown again and again that they would rather lose to the Right than see any real progressive Left wing transformative project win.

   So in other words the third way centrists are so dogmatically tied to their own laissez-faire freemarket ideology, that they would rather watch the Right destroy the entire planet than lose their own path to power..and too think not long ago we were being told that centrist (Neoliberalism) was post ideology.. turns out these guys are dangerous extremist fundamentalists.
6. Stuart Munro. 6

   23 November 2019 at 11:31 am

   Mealy-mouthed centrism sheds and discourages voters.

   Even if, like Obama, they won't do what they promise, people vote for Yes we can, and hope that some of it will happen. Be grateful for our non-performance doesn't have the same pull.

   I believe the argument is fallacious – it presented no difficulty for Labour to sell out its supporters and stampede to the Right chasing the strange elusive butterfly of freemarket monetarism – and there is no concrete evidence to suggest the converse is not equally possible.
   • Dukeofurl 6.1

     23 November 2019 at 1:42 pm

     You have clearly never read a Labour party manifesto before the last or any election. Where the sellout of its manifesto ?

     Its tiresome to hear the miniscule far left with tiny support complain about some 'lost revolution' or other irrelevant jargon…

     Isnt the Green party the great hope of the Socialist left, until they split them
     • Stuart Munro. 6.1.1

       23 November 2019 at 3:41 pm

       Spare me – I am not nor was I ever far left.

       Point to the line in the manifesto that licensed Roger Douglas to do all that he did.

       I was a deepsea fisherman – more at sea than onshore – and my modest expectation of government was that they not steal everything while I was at work. Didn't work out that way. Never heard an apology for it though.
       • Dukeofurl 6.1.1.1

         23 November 2019 at 5:32 pm

         30 years ago. Oh dear , half the population under 5 wasnt even born then.
         • Stuart Munro. 6.1.1.1.1

           23 November 2019 at 6:27 pm

           A body long-buried still indicates a crime – don't expect to be congratulated for your moral flexibility.

           The fact remains that a pendulum that swings so rapidly to the right is not structurally constrained from swinging with equal speed to the left.

           One must find another ground on which to argue the necessity of centrism.
           • McFlock 6.1.1.1.1.1

             23 November 2019 at 6:47 pm

             The fact remains that a pendulum that swings so rapidly to the right is not structurally constrained from swinging with equal speed to the left.

             Well, the defining mechanical impulse of a pendulum is actually towards the centre, so your analogy is flawed.

             But you're also comparing policies implemented via elected dictatorships and outright deception across the two major parties. The bulk of rogernomics was from 87, being followed up by the nats in 90. In 93 they were as bad as each other and the only real vote at that time was the switch to MMP.

             So now any government can lose its majority and the people who cross the floor lose almost nothing – they still have party structures at electorate and national level, they still have their party leader bonus, they don't lose funding, they basically just lose a minister's salary boost if they had it in the first place.

             It's a better system, but and because it means government policies need broader support than a few people plotting over fish and chips.
             • Stuart Munro. …

               23 November 2019 at 8:09 pm

               Well, the defining mechanical impulse of a pendulum is actually towards the centre, so your analogy is flawed.

               No, it's downward. Pendulums decay toward the centre only as they lose energy through friction.

               All I am pointing out is that claims of an inability to move left are palpably false. There are clearly other reasons that centrism is preferred, but for some reason these are not up for discussion.

               By all means let us see genuine arguments for 'centrism', but remember, the masses who have been impoverished or unhomed by it may not find them particularly convincing.
               • McFlock …

                 23 November 2019 at 8:30 pm

                 Discussions about where a pendulum inevitably rests aside, you missed the bit where I pointed out that in 1993 we elected to have a system that essentially rules out a 1980s-level of change for most governments likely to form.

                 And it works. It moderates lab6 (via NZ1 conservatism), but it also moderated Shipley's government.
                 • Stuart Munro. …

                   23 November 2019 at 10:56 pm

                   And it works.

                   That is a positional perception.

                   Those of us impoverished by illegal policies like the slave ships might differ.
                   • McFlock …

                     23 November 2019 at 11:30 pm

                     It is an assumption (that people voted for MMP to remove the ability of individual governments to impose revolutionary change that was unsupported by the electorate) followed by an assessment of how well the objective in that assumption is being met by MMP.

                     Slave ships are no doubt an interesting discussion, but one separate to the debate as to whether revolutionary change of the scale of Lab4 is even possible for an MMP government.
                   • Stuart Munro. …

                     24 November 2019 at 12:03 am

                     You're wriggling like Gosman.

                     You assert that swinging NZ's electoral pendulum well to the right, and pinning it there, without a public mandate, can be interpreted as something that "works", when the changes have resulted in the fastest growth in inequality in the OECD, and a precipitous decline in that core measure of societal wealth, home ownership.

                     Slave ships are interesting as a representative immorality, a kind of corruption characteristic of the self-styled "centrist" left. They will break the laws of NZ, and shit on the worst paid and hardest working New Zealanders, and expect to be praised for being progressive.

                     Epiphenomenal governments do not deserve praise – and a remotely adequate response to rising challenges such as AGW will require action very much on the scale of the execrable Douglas government – ineffectual flailing won't cut it.
                   • McFlock …

                     24 November 2019 at 12:21 am

                     Read the last few comments again.

                     MMP had nothing to do with lab4 "swinging the pendulum to the right". That was FPP that enabled a single party to govern with a 10% majority in the House. That's like Labour or National getting 73 seats today.

                     Today, if they're lucky, a governing party might get a majority by itself. Even then they'd be wise to compromise their policies in case someone in their caucus gets ill or something.

                     Which means that the era of a single party being in a position to implement its entire manifesto without compromise is gone, dead. That doesn't keep the pendulum to the right, it slows the swing over multiple elections. Because it might suck that Labour isn't a position to do more, but on the flipside imagine if dunnokeyo had been in a position to do everything he wanted. Half sales of remaining SOEs? Try closing down (or user pays then privatising) the public health system. We both know that's one of the things tories want to happen. Under FPP, the last lot would have been in a position to do it.
                   • Stuart Munro. …

                     24 November 2019 at 7:14 am

                     Under FPP, the last lot would have been in a position to do it.

                     It's a negative virtue. Thirty years or more of neoliberalism mean that there is a great deal of work to be done by an active moderate left government.

                     Centrist crocodile tears don't correct the mass of systemic injustice that drives things like our exceptionally high suicide rate.

                     I want and expect more than negative virtues from government.

                     CGT is a good example – if that 'compromise', more properly described as an outright failure, is attributable to NZF, then Labour should have come out and plainly said so. Moreover, stating that a CGT is off the table for any subsequent terms was going too far – the measure has been recommended by every competent economic authority, and should not be off the table while it remains best practice.
                   • McFlock …

                     24 November 2019 at 5:48 pm

                     if that 'compromise', more properly described as an outright failure, is attributable to NZF, then Labour should have come out and plainly said so.

                     Well, they left that to Cullen. Labour itself went with the obvious statement that they'd campaigned on a CGT for three elections and the voters didn't go for it.

                     Thirty years or more of neoliberalism mean that there is a great deal of work to be done by an active moderate left government.

                     Indeed. And when the people elect one, rather than a coalition that includes a conservative party, there will be more momentum for that work to be done more quickly.

                     But the point to MMP is that the nats didn't have as much momentum to go the other way, either. So whichever direction NZ goes in, the voters will be able to have input on it a couple of times along the way.
                   • Stuart Munro. …

                     24 November 2019 at 6:00 pm

                     The idea that the Brownian motion consequent upon the machinations various parties in any way reflects the genuine 'will of the people' is a convenient and no doubt pleasant fiction to MPs striving to avoid public accountability.
                   • McFlock …

                     24 November 2019 at 6:14 pm

                     Nevertheless, Cullen said pretty much exactly what you said Labour would say if the CGT "failure" was attributable to NZ1.

                     So maybe the way the voters slice the cake does indeed have something to do with government policy.
                   • Stuart Munro. …

                     24 November 2019 at 8:22 pm

                     Maybe isn't good enough. The explanation on a matter of significant public interest like this ought to be explicit.

                     Otherwise voters are robbed of their input into policy, and amoral horsetrading is facilitated, to their disadvantage.
                   • McFlock …

                     24 November 2019 at 8:29 pm

                     You set the test of significance.

                     Turns out that what you wanted said was said.

                     Now it's not good enough.
                   • Stuart Munro. …

                     24 November 2019 at 10:04 pm

                     I'm surprised frankly to see you leaping to the defense of fog of war in coalitions dealings.

                     Those decisions need to be made unequivocally visible and accountable to voters – or they will be traded away to covert funders of the kind responsible for the current NZF and Gnat funding scandals.
                   • McFlock …

                     24 November 2019 at 10:48 pm

                     First they only had to say they weren't doing a specific policy because NZ1 opposed it. Turns out they did.

                     Now you're asking for some sort of document that details the terms of how the parties will act in the coalition that is possible based on the distribution of votes after the election?

                     Yeah, they did that, too.
                   • Stuart Munro. …

                     24 November 2019 at 11:01 pm

                     Riiiight. So you're saying the whole Tax Working Group thing was maskirova.

                     Funny, you pull that kind of shit and you lose people's trust forever.

                     You know, I didn't ask for specious excuses – I asked for clear and unequivocal – and that is not what we got.

                     And you wonder why people on the left can't trust Labour.
                   • McFlock …

                     24 November 2019 at 11:13 pm

                     Dude, stop playing 4d chess and try basic English.

                     They did the coalition agreement. That's all the policies the parties take as a given.They did the working group. The working group came up with some ideas that were additional to the coalition agreement. NZ1 didn't like one of those ideas, so it didn't happen. And because NZ1 really don't like it, it probably won't happen in the near future. But because it's not in the coalition agreement, the parties can agree to disagree.

                     That's not deception. That's pretty straight-up and open.
                   • Stuart Munro. …

                     25 November 2019 at 12:13 am

                     Of course, your experience of political decisions may be more positive than mine – my professional life was sold down the river by this kind of sleazy horse trading and double dealing.

                     I insist on absolute clarity in this kind of deal. And fyi, I left the Greens over their failure to adopt a CGT. A while back, but still.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 November 2019 at 12:58 am

                     I probably have no more experience than you. But politics is about horse trading: it's compromise. No party is really able to implement their entire manifesto. But nobody knows their relative negotiating strength until after the election, either. And then most parties also have bottom lines that they will not be part of a government that implements/fails to implement those policies.

                     Most parties are pretty clear on where they stand on what principles (though the nats hate nz1 but still play hot and cold as to whether they'll go into coalition with him).

                     I think that over the years coalition agreements are maturing and becoming pretty explicit about what's inside the packet. I was surprised that Ardern ruled out a CGT in her tenure as pm, but I suspect/hope that that will be the result of an exit strategy to get out of the three-term doldrums: when time comes for her to call it quits, the new leader is automatically gifted a keystone policy to say the party has revitalised. But that last bit really is my optimism – I hope they've learned from 2008.
7. AB 7

   23 November 2019 at 3:56 pm

   Ignoring Biden's policy (and verbal) incoherence, as well as his terrible track record, and then nominating him, seems like the best way to lose to Trump. Trump is a vulgar criminal, but his rhetorical skills are dangerous. The US is such a deeply unequal place, where real snd prolonged human suffering is unleashed on millions, that to not embrace the Sanders programme seems like a personal moral failure.
8. McFlock 8

   23 November 2019 at 4:50 pm

   Policies aren't as important as style – often true, but definitely when it comes to dolt45. Otherwise the winning candidate last time wouldn't have been the one proposing a $25billion dollar wall that can be defeated by a ladder and rope, and had unclear financing allocation.

   Biden is prone to gaffes. That is a massive gift to the current fool, bigger than any policy announcement.
   • Dukeofurl 8.1

     23 November 2019 at 5:36 pm

     Thats because Trump wasnt just proposing 'a wall' it was a racist narrative about jobs, immigration, crime.

     The narratives is the key.

     Plenty of features around the idea but in formal way try this

     https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2017/12/05/the-power-in-a-political-narrative/
9. NZJester 9

   24 November 2019 at 5:39 am

   The problem with the USA is the ability to legally bribe politicians is entrenched in place and the alternatives to the Republicans the Democrats have a lot of those who hold the power in that party beholden to their rich donors resisting the calls for things like Medicare for all as drug and insurance companies bribe them to ignore those calls. The Democrats have been slowly going to the right following the money and people like AOC who have tried to drag it back to the left are being demonized by the Democratic party leadership.

   At one point in US history, the Republican party was the shining light of America. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican Party member and the Democrats used to be the more racist of the two parties. At some point, the right took over the Republican party and it slowly became the party it is today While those of the left of the Republican Paty moved over to the Democratic Party. This was a very major shift.

   At one point we had a shift in the Labor party here in NZ where the likes of Rodger Douglas took the Labour party far too much to the right and this is what caused a lot of the problems we are dealing with today in New Zealand. A lot of people left Labour to form little parties like those that eventually formed into the Green Party. It is good that MMP gives those voices more sway over Labour party policies again.

   The National Party used to be a bit closer to the right of center but has drifted more to the right over the last few decades to the detriment to this country when they hold the treasury benches. Some of those who would have in the past been on the left-wing of the National Party are now instead joining the right-hand side of the Labour party trying to make it go back to the right again. This is something we need to resist.
10. Ad 10

    24 November 2019 at 7:10 am

    Pretty weird that the Democrats find themselves in the same position as the Republicans did in 2016.

    How many candidates did they go through?

    Started off with Romney, then pretty much everyone with a purse and a pulse got their moment in the spotlight. They couldn't stomach Romney.

    Rick Perry of Texas withdrew before the Primaries, then Ben Carson popped up, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee among others …

    … then the media profile and campaign started on those with some heft: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz …

    Trump monstered them all.

    And here we are four years later with the Democrats having had four years for the party to get their shit together, and the place is just clogged with chance-free also-rans and probably going into Conference with a fully contested show even worse than last time.

    I'm no huge fan of Biden but if they get a late-running Bloomberg as the Dem ticket I wouldn't be surprised. Bloomberg is waiting for the Senate subpoena rejection to bleed Biden worse than Trump. Good chance of that.

    If Warren recovers to near-2nd in January I'll do a post on why she should make it rather than Biden or Bloomberg. Maybe she ends up as Vice-President ticket to Bloomberg (the brains behind Pa).
    • Dukeofurl 10.1

      24 November 2019 at 9:01 am

      Still have no idea how US politics works do you ?

      'Democrats having had four years for the party to get their shit together"

      Having the time before the primary season starts in earnest in Jan, with party sanctioned debates leading to an open process for the registered party members to see the contenders and vote IS how it works. Anyone can run for President is the american away, dont even have to 'belong' to the democratic party like Sanders was initially.

      Do you really think the DNC acts like the NZ national party and uses a 'blackball' to whittle down the candidates to the nomeklatura approved few ?
      • Ad 10.1.1

        24 November 2019 at 9:45 am

        And you can quit the patronizing crap right there.

        There are plenty of seasons in which either of the main parties in the US have boiled their choices down to two or three well before the main party gathering.

        In the 1984 Dem Convention it was down to three – and it was clear from the beginning that Mondale was going to get it.

        In 1988 Dukakis v Jackson was also pretty easy. No drama.

        The 1992 Convention was a total gimme for Clinton, and the Convention gave him a huge bounce.

        And the 1996 Convention was a foregone conclusion. Easy, and he was riding high.

        Same for 2000, with a unanimous vote for Gore.

        It was also overwhelming for Kerry in 2004 once Howard Dean made a couple of slip-ups in speeches.

        2016 was a mess, and there was no need for it.

        But 2019 is worse than that.

        The President is at the worst place in his presidency and there's still no unified candidate attack on him to shift the debate to the Dems' view of the political order.

        That is to say, in this season, even though the Dems have had a single overwhelming force to rally against, they really haven't. They are wasting months and months propping up minor egos with minor money and far too few have dropped out.

        They didn't need to be here like this.
        • Phil 10.1.1.1

          26 November 2019 at 6:35 pm

          The 1992 Convention was a total gimme for Clinton, and the Convention gave him a huge bounce.

          Your factual grasp of this history is dubious, at best. In '92 Bill Clinton didn't win any of the first four states in the Democratic Primary, then managed only one win out of seven in the first 'super tuesday' of the season on March 3rd. It wasn't until a bunch of southern states voted a week later that Clinton's 'Comeback Kid' meme really cemented itself into the mind of the party. Even so, his final delegate count wildly understates that his campaign was teetering on the brink of collapse early on.
11. Dukeofurl 11

    24 November 2019 at 6:36 pm

    I dont mind doing your fact checking for you , but readers will draw there own conclusions about your claims.

    "2016 was a mess and no need ? "

    Heres an abbreviated list

    She who cant be named

    Bernie Sanders

    Martin O'Malley

    Lincoln Chafee

    Lawrence Lessig

    Jim Webb

    Plus these names which were on the ballots in at least 6 states

    Rocky De la Fuente

    Willie Wilson

    Keith Judd

    Michael Steinberg

    John Wolfe

    The facts say 11 candidates on that list plus droves of others on the ballot in a single state.

    Just also looking looking at 2004.
    Was it really overwhelming for Kerry with a bit part for Howard Dean ?
    There also was John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Lieberman, Al Sharpton, Wesley Clarke, Carol Moseley Braun and Bob Graham with drew before the primaries.
    Check it out
    Wikipedia is your friend
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Candidates

    The primaries are of course a month or so away, but we are at similar stage with as they say ‘ a large cast’
    • Ad 11.1

      24 November 2019 at 9:06 pm

      The problem with your ability to google or wiki is that it is a poor substitute for your inability to analyze.

      2016 Convention and immediate lead up was a mess for multiple reasons, which have been debated at length here and elsewhere.

      And as for 2004, there are fulsome analyses on how Dean fell when he got close in places and Kerry rose. No one else got close. And yes, if you look beyond google into the historical analysis, you'll find it was a two-horse race for a long time beforehand (NYT, NBC, Gallup and The Atlantic are all good places for you to peak beyond wikipedia into 2003-2004).

      The difference between a list and and an order is thinking.

      Thinking is your friend.
12. Ad 12

    25 November 2019 at 7:54 am

    Omg Bloomberg is in.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS