Wednesday, December 27, 2017

Fake News— Where Do They Come Up With This Crap? 2020 Presidential Nominees


Last week, Aaron Blake did “an analysis” for the Washington Post-- the silliest conventional wisdom you’ll see anywhere, The top 15 Democratic presidential candidates for 2020, ranked. Pure clickbait, it looks more like the headline for a supermarket checkout line tabloid than like something that belongs in a serious newspaper-- and it’s worse when you read it.

British diplomats report Trump is on the path to 2020 victory and a new poll from NBC and the Wall Street Journal show that just 36% of Americans would vote for Trump and that 52% said that they would vote for whoever the Democrats run against him. Only 18% of voters said they would “definitely” vote for Señor Trumpanzee, while 38% said they would definitely vote for Trump's opponent.

The senior British diplomats reported to Theresa May that “they think that despite a string of negative headlines the US president has largely kept his support base onside since entering White House. Possible Democratic contenders are seen as either too old-- such as Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden-- or lacking in the name recognition needed to defeat Mr Trump. There is also a belief the US president has curbed some of his most radical policy instincts since taking office, such as ignoring Nato or pulling out of Afghanistan.” Funny how out of touch with reality diplomats can be-- even ones that speak English as a native language.

But that could be a fair description of Beltway-based journalists as well. Blake announced he would rank the top 15 possible Democratic nominees. At least he was awake enough to take silly non-candidates Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Garcetti, Tim Kaine, Sheryl Sandberg and Mark Cuban off his list. He did put Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) on it though-- at which point anyone sane turn the page. He also added (or kept) other space-fillers to his list-- creepy conservative Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and Oprah Winfrey… presumably because someone thinks the American voters want another reality TV personality with no government experience, the first one having worked out so well.

Anyway, that brings us to the top 10. And at #10, Blake suggests the widely loathed governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, another New Yorker-- like Trump-- who would probably be rejected by his own state-- at least in any primary. No one sees Andrew Cuomo as a presidential candidate other than Andrew Cuomo, people he pays and Beltway journalists looking to fill up space with nonsense. #9 is Sherrod Brown who’s supposed to have “white working-class appeal.” Let’s hope he has enough of it to keep from being defeated for reelection in increasingly red Ohio next year. More ridiculous is#8, California’s 80 year old governor, Jerry Brown, the guy who made sure single payer wasn’t enacted in his state. And then #7, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, who biggest accomplishment has been to go on Rachel Maddow’s show frequently. He joined the New Dems as soon as he got into Congress, better than the Blue Dogs, but not better enough to matter. #6- Cory Booker, there self-promoting corrupt guy from New Jersey best known-- other than for self-promotion-- for backing charter schools. Far less accomplished than any of the other nonentities on the conventional wisdom list is Kamala Harris (#5), who was a pretty terrible and widely unknown California Attorney General, best know for being pawn of Wall Street, and living proof that there is no longer a viable Republican Party in California. She may be a real candidate-- in a dozen or so years-- if she ever does anything.

Moving up the list is Kirsten Gillibrand, a flippy floppy ex-BlueDog/fake progressive who is increasingly seen as an opportunist trying to use an anti-male parade to march her onto the national ticket. Gillibrand would be the one candidate who could prove the British diplomats right. There is no worse candidate the Democrats could ever find.

OK, that brings us to the 3 serious candidates:
3. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Previous: 4)

If Warren runs, I think she tops this list. But I have a difficult time seeing her running if Bernie Sanders does, and I think Sanders is very likely to run. Warren has shown comparatively little inclination to run and hasn't been front-and-center in helping elect Democrats or speaking to the media-- though the latter seems to be changing at least somewhat.

2. Former vice president Joe Biden (Previous: 2)

Biden remains in the second spot on this list, but not as firmly as before. The recent spate of sexual harassment allegations against politicians-- and the reevaluation of past allegations-- has put Biden's handling of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings back in the spotlight. Biden, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, has apologized more than once for how Anita Hill was treated, while also stressing he opposed Thomas's nomination. But Hill has said Biden's apology isn't good enough. If the Democratic Party continues to make this a focal point over the next couple years, Biden's actions could be gone through with a fine-toothed comb in a way he would rather they weren't.

1. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (Previous: 1)

A must-read story from Politico's Gabriel Debenedetti recently showed how Sanders conspicuously seems to be addressing the shortcomings that hampered his candidacy in 2016-- most notably his lack of familiarity with foreign policy and of inroads with powerful pro-Democratic groups, such as the American Federation of Teachers. Sanders has done nothing to diminish speculation that he will run again; the biggest question is, and will be, his age (76)-- as it is with Brown (79) and Biden (75).
What I’m hearing, from very reliable sources, is that Bernie and Elizabeth Warren will run on the same ticket from the git-go. And Biden’s decades of supporting the financial industry and authoring Bush’s bankruptcy bill may wind up being even greater disqualifiers than his constant fondling of women.

Dates of birth of the top candidates:
Elizabeth Warren- June 22, 1949 (age 68)
Trumpanzee- June 14, 1946 (age 71)
Joe Biden- November 20, 1942 (age 75)
Bernie Sanders- September 8, 1941 (age 76)
It's worth mentioning that of the 4, only Trump is enmeshed in full blown senility, although Biden has his moments as well. More important though-- which candidates represent the energy of the day?

Labels: ,


At 5:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where do you get this analysis? Do you think everyone who reads this is stupid?

Bernie's ONLY problem in '16 was the election fraud perpetrated by the DNC. He is, was and will always be superior to trump in every way you mentioned. Just cuz $hillbillary was secstate and purveyed misery to 10s of millions of the poorest schleps on the planet does not give her foreign policy experience (worth a rat's ass). Just cuz she thought of a health insurance bailout bill before Romney and obamanation did does not give her domestic policy experience (worth a rat's ass). Just cuz she "earned" 10s of millions from banksters (on her back) does not give her any useful economic policy experience.

Biden would lose to trump or anyone else the Rs come up with. Warren won't run. And Bernie is too old and has proved himself beneath the task of being a true revolutionary -- we need a complete renaissance in government, from defining only humans as persons to getting rid of bribery to MFA to raising taxes to JFK numbers on the rich and corporations to disengagement from wars to rejiggering all those corporate-written xxFTAs to torture to bank fraud to TBTFs... Someone dedicated to these would have told the DNC to go fuck itself and taken his case to the public in '16.

Plus, no matter who the DEMOCRAPS run, it'll still be a DEMOCRAP, working WITH the likes of Pelosi, scummer, hoyer et al... and thus working WITH corporations and billionaires.

So it really does not matter a diseased fuck to me who they run. I'm not voting for him/her/it.

At 5:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it interesting that the DINO-Whigs enjoy stripping their strength from the national level like they tend to do at the state level.

Think back to when obamanation took so many state and federal DINO-Whigs out of state seats only to see them replaced with Republicans. If there is any likelihood of this predicted DINO-Whig victory ever coming about, the same thing will happen again. Nothing like weakening the existing defenses and making the enemy more likely to defeat you!

And what of these new faces, Howie? Some of them sound like good prospects. Maybe having a good bench of veterans would help make the rookies more effective.

Lastly, Bernie. He hurt himself badly by not walking out of the Coronation. Instead, he stumped for HER! and lost much of his support base. I am one of those he lost. I gave him more money than I ever gave anyone else. All I got for it was a crushing recognition that it was essentially for nothing, as much because of Debbie Washerwoman-Schitz and her electoral shenanigans as for Bernie not fighting to the end. He'd be in a much better position now if he had.

Bernie still says the right things. We just need someone else to make those things reality. Someone younger and stronger with the millennials.

At 6:50 PM, Blogger scott martin said...

Waiting for your blog/website ... Howie has his sources ... connections... you, not so much. So do us all a big favor, get a new hobby

At 4:30 AM, Anonymous Hone said...

Stop trashing Bernie for supporting Hillary, Anonymous! I am sick of hearing this! It was incredibly courageous of him. He saw what a horror Trump would be (though none of us could see the gigantic extent of the damage) and that Hillary was the lesser of two evils by a zillion miles. While again, I totally get the Hillary hatred and was certainly on that train myself, did you, Anonymous above, see how Trump would bring down our government, our democracy, our investment in science, our sense of "real news" and so many other critical aspects of our institutions and life? How Trump is destroying EVERYTHING and doing so at warp speed? Even the FBI and the Justice Department are now in his sights. The State Department and diplomacy? Forget them. Hillary would not have been anywhere near as bad and we would still at least have a semblance of our government and our country. (I am NOT defending her with her Wall Street ties, just stating the obvious.) What will the USA look like with another year of TRUMP under our belt? I shudder to think.

While Bernie is old and it would be much better to have a younger, fresher progressive run against Trump in 2020 (if he lasts anywhere near that long), Bernie and Elizabeth would make a great team and have a great shot.

Politics is messy, always has been. It is impure. Nothing is pure in this world. We cannot bet our survival on purity, which is way too rigid for reality. Aiming for purity in a political candidate and trashing all others is just plain STUPID and counterproductive.

At 6:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hone, You're wrong about this. I'm increasingly disappointed that you fail to realize it.

We're at a point where a politician doing typical politician things with loyalty to party before nation cannot ever do us any good.
I take your point about trump. But I do not agree that $hillbillary would not have been as bad. While the erosion under the Rs is faster, the erosion under $hillbillary would still exist. Getting worse slower is still getting worse.

What we need is a renaissance; a total reversal; a REVOLUTION. That ain't Bernie, clearly. So I won't vote for him ever again and I won't stop reminding people that he's not EVER going to lead any such revolution, as he has demonstrated.
That's why I won't ever stop advocating for euthanizing the entire democrap party with their entrenched corruption, fraud and lesser-evilism (much of THAT illusory).

Do you remember the '70s? '60s? It's taken a long time... like watching your kids grow up. If you forget to see the baby pics next to the hospice pics, you tend to not realize just how far we've fallen. We've gone from passing "Great Society" stuff like civil rights, voting rights, Medicare/Medicaid to erasing all of it. And no democrap has reversed any of it, much less even stood in the way.

If you get your lesser evilism for many more cycles, it'll be too late. It may already be too late.

For some, like me, the epiphany occurred decades ago. For some, like you, maybe it won't occur until it's much, MUCH too late. Maybe it won't occur even when it is literally killing you, like my grandfather who died a slow painful miserable death from lung cancer. He finally did admit that he should have quit the first time he had a cough that wouldn't go away 45 years before he died.

It's been 37 years. At 45, your meme would make it just about over.

Scott, Howie's sources are democraps. I don't care if he is regularly intimate with all of them. They're still democraps. He still advocates adding numbers to the democraps, who are under the boot of the money via Pelosi, hoyer, scummer and 150 others. He's still part of the problem.

At 6:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Bernie's submission to the DNC system only ensured that there will be NO alternations in the centralized defeatism which is the DNC. They will continue to rig elections so that only corporate-selected DINO-Whigs and Republicans are presented to the voting sheep to choose between.

I am going to support the challengers to Pelosi and Washerwoman-Schitz as soon as I can scrape together sufficient amounts to donate. It's the best I can do for now to change things. What are YOU doing? Besides surrendering to the "inevitable"? (How well did THAT work out for HER! last year?)

At 7:41 AM, Blogger scott martin said...

the thought of Howie as an establishment tool is laughable. I figure you got banned with the “everyone is so stupid cause they dont listen to me, and my third party nonsense” schtick and you landed here. This is the adult table. Go to Kos or the DU to argue with the truly blind there, the blue no matter who fools. We point out the bad, try to help the good, see a need and meet it. It’s easy to point at problems and blame game eveything like the GOP. Its hard to row the boat if you are always rocking it. You seem like a pretty smart guy and we need the help. Please, grab an oar because we have a long way to go.

At 12:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott, whether it's intended or not does not alter the effect. Anything that increases the numbers of democraps delays their demise and guarantees it'll be that much longer that we are all under the boot of the money.

2009 proved to me, again, that the democraps cannot be salvaged and will never be part of any useful solution, which at this point in time must be nothing short of a total revolution (back to the New Deal).

I'm not as smart as Albert Einstein. Neither are you.

"the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result."

Part of divining what different approach is needed is to understand the problem(s). Corruption of both halves of the binary system is the biggest problem. But you cannot give the stupidity and evil of voters a pass because they keep affirming all the damage every cycle by continuing to elect Rs and all the most corrupt Ds.
Clearly, a different approach is needed, since continued devotion to the binary meme has not resulted in any improvement. It has, conversely, guaranteed continued degradation.

Yet you insist that devotion to the binary meme, including keeping the same democraps as before, and adding to their numbers, WILL help. I keep asking Hone how she envisions that working differently than 2009 or any other time. You got anything?


Post a Comment

<< Home