A few words about the debate I didn’t watch
I didn’t watch – I’m not that much of a glutton for punishment – but I hear tell about it.
Sounds as though there was a lot of ripping of Bloomberg. That was to be expected. Warren was apparently especially cutting about some things he’s alleged to have said thirty years ago, although we don’t know whether he actually said them or the context in which they were uttered. For example, were they jokes? The PC standards for an acceptable joke has changed a lot in the last 30 years:
“I’d like to talk about who we’re running against: a billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians,’” she said. “And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump, I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”
The “horse-faced lesbians” comment appears to be a reference to a 1990 booklet, “Wit and Wisdom,” of Bloomberg’s supposed sayings compiled by his former colleagues and employees for his birthday.
That’s gotta smart in today’s atmosphere within the Democratic Party.
And Buttigieg and Klobuchar went at each other. Both of them are trying to occupy the “supposedly electable moderate” seat that Bloomberg feels could be his instead. Unfortunately for all of them right now, it’s Bernie who’s the frontrunner because so many of the party’s voters have become strongly leftist. The assumption of many panicked members of the Democrats’ establishmen is that if Bernie had only one opponent (instead of many) who was more moderate than he is (which shouldn’t be all that hard to find), that opponent would get a majority of the votes. But that assumption might be false, because Bernie (who to me is an acquired taste I have not and never will acquire) seems to have major drawing power.
He’s sincere, don’t you see. People don’t like phonies. But what is Bernie sincere about? Socialism. His sincerity shouldn’t make that all right.
The trouble with all the “moderate” candidates is that (a) they’re not charismatic (b) they’re not really moderate; and (c) anything they might say that would appeal to true moderates makes them anathema to a great many voters in their party.
What we’re watching is a very blunt lesson in the perils of Machiavellian politics. Bernie Sanders probably has a better chance to win in November than a lot of the other candidates but he’s also probably got a better chance to not only lose but drag hundreds of other Democratic candidates down with him. He’s the risky bet you want to avoid having to make.
Until he ran against Hillary in 2016, Bernie was barely a footnote in American politics. But because the Clinton machine scared off essentially every other candidate, Bernie became the only not-Hillary option anyone could choose. That elevated him and mainstreamed his message within the Democratic Party.
Mike
MBunge:
You are correct that Bernie only came to prominence because he was the only one with the guts to persevere against Hillary.
However, some other socialist (perhaps a younger one) would have come to prominence instead, I believe, because that’s the way the Party has been going.
I would add that the only reason Biden was ever a frontrunner in 2020 (which he no longer is) was that Obama picked him for VP. Biden’s previous runs for the presidency had gone exactly nowhere.
You are correct that Bernie only came to prominence because he was the only one with the guts to persevere against Hillary.
Martin O’Malley, James Webb, and Lincoln Chaffee also ran. Passably credible candidates as two had been state governors and a third Secretary of the Navy. Chaffee and O’Malley were notable for having held federal, state, and local positions, an unusual credential in presidential politics. Review the polls taken in 2015. Bernie was polling better as an unannounced candidate than these three did as formal candidates attending debates.
Winners and Losers of the Democratic Debate
“Martin O’Malley, James Webb, and Lincoln Chaffee also ran.”
Chaffee, Webb, and Lawrence Lessig all withdrew months before the Iowa caucuses. Chaffee’s campaign lasted about four months. Webb and Lessig about three months. I don’t think there’s any way to explain that other than the Clintons turning off the money spigot.
By contrast, the GOP primary in 2008 saw EIGHT candidates make it to actual voting and another four withdrew before the primaries. Three separate Republican candidates in 2008 actually won state primaries.
To be fair, 2016 for the Dems wasn’t just about the Clinton machine. There was also a real zeitgeist about having a female candidate for President that no one wanted to spoil.
Mike
Art Deco:
That’s why I used the word “persevere.”
Paging Michael BloombergBy T. L. Friedman
By me, one only has to go to the grocery store to hear Bernie supporters proselytizing the new religion to their wide eyed coworkers.
I don’t think there’s any way to explain that other than the Clintons turning off the money spigot.
??? Every year there’s a competitive contest, a majority of the campaigns launched fail ignominiously. Your last Republican contest had 17 declared candidates. Only four were competitive and half of them withdrew before the New Hampshire primary. The Clintons didn’t sink Rand Paul.
Again, before he’d announced his candidacy or collected one dollar, Sanders was polling better than any of the other three did at any time. There was no point in Chaffee or Webb banging their heads against the wall. No one was paying attention and Chaffee in particular was out of funds. If they’d ‘persevered’, people would just have made fun of them, as they did of James Gilmore on the Republican side.
I don’t know why some people catch on and why some do not, but that’s the way it works. For a real puzzle, compare the Huckabee performance in 2008 with his performance in 2016. Compare Rick Santorum in 2012 with Santorum in 2016. Note that Rand Paul couldn’t mobilize his father’s constituency. (I think that’s because paulbots are rather fond of papa’s brand of Teh Crazy and find the son bland).
This is what the Democrats are beginning to look like…
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jJ4D6c5I18U/VYpkvj6_ZbI/AAAAAAABDf0/EHjAqE1qr04/buffalo-jump-11%25255B6%25255D.jpg?imgmax=1600
“??? Every year there’s a competitive contest, a majority of the campaigns launched fail ignominiously.”
I don’t know why you’re being deliberately obtuse about this. We are now past the New Hampshire primary and there are STILL more than twice as many active Democratic campaigns than there were two months BEFORE the Iowa caucuses in 2016. And, approval polls notwithstanding, this is to run against an incumbent President, not a completely open field.
Ronald Reagan was running for re-election in 1984. Not only did three Democrats actually win delegates in their primaries that year, there were FIVE other candidates who at least made it past New Hampshire.
Yet you want to pretend the Democrats only having two genuine candidates left standing TWO MONTHS BEFORE the Iowa caucuses in 2016 was just business as usual?
Mike
FB,
“James Carville had it exactly right when he noted on “Morning Joe” the other day that the only thing standing in the way of lasting damage by this machine to all that makes America unique and great is the Democrats’ nominating the right person to defeat Donald Trump.”
Carville is apparently deeply confused, the unadmitted but official position of the democrat party is that America is NOT unique and has never been great. Nor can it ever achieve greatness as long as its traditional culture, capitalistic economy and white privilege continue to exist. Whereas, Trump’s “Make America Great Again” directly implies that America was once great and can be again.
Carville must also be suffering from early onset senility, in that he fails to understand that democrats oppose a unique and great America and that no democrat has “a snowball’s chance in hell” of defeating Donald Joseph Trump.
Is that true?
https://twitter.com/MSDNCNews/status/1230241547762962432?s=20
Geoffrey Britain,
Trump’s “Make America Great Again” directly implies that America was once great and can be again.
FB:
That appears to be a joke (not an especially funny one) – an old clip of Hillary getting faint.
Ok Neo
I wounder why Trump building the wall, Lookes he is inline with”The Hispanic Challenge”
https://cla.umn.edu/sites/cla.umn.edu/files/the_hispanic_challenge-foreign_policy-2004_huntington.pdf
So, does anybody know offhand who the individual persons are, in Bloomberg’s list of Royal family members?
As I understand it the full quote was: “The Royal family — what a bunch of misfits — a gay, an architect, that horsey faced lesbian, and a kid who gave up Koo Stark for some fat broad.”
It’s a pretty strange list. To be sure lots of folks would consider a gay family member a black-mark on that family. But…an “architect?” Since when does any mother hang her head in shame about that? (“Charlie was such a sweet child, most times, but there was always something dark between the surface. At college he fell in with disreputable sorts and eventually he became an architect. We don’t say his name any more.”)
I did some Googling. I’m guessing it was Prince Andrew who originally dated Koo Stark (of whom I had never heard until today). Not sure who the “some fat broad” was, for whom Andrew gave her up.
That leaves:
– “a gay”
– “an architect”
– “that horsey faced lesbian”
Perhaps Prince Charles is the “architect” inasmuch as he’s famous for opinions on the role of architecture in society? (But his focus was more on the aesthetics of urban planning; he’s neither trained in architecture, nor obviously someone with career experience in architecture.)
As for the other two items…well. It’s not the kind of thing I’ve ever wanted to know, before, but looking it up I see there’s a “Lord Ivar Mountbatten” whom Bloomberg might possibly be referencing as the “gay” person on the list. But I don’t know who the “horsey faced lesbian” remark references at all. It makes me wonder if he only means it as a slur for an actually-heterosexual (perhaps even married) woman?
Another strange thing about the remark: As a disparaging of the Royal Family, it would only seem to have much “bite” if it were describing persons close to the Queen. But as far as I know none of these apply to the Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Prince William, or anyone else particularly close. Is he disparaging the Royal Family on the basis of the foibles of second cousins thrice removed, or what?
R.C.:
Wouldn’t the “horsey-faced lesbian” have been a reference to Princess Anne? She’s not a lesbian (as far as I know), but she’s a bit long-faced and used to ride a lot of horses.
Carville is apparently deeply confused, the unadmitted but official position of the democrat party is that America is NOT unique and has never been great.
Geoffrey Britain: Carville is not confused, just out of place. He’s not a New Left, much less Woke, Democrat and never will be. He’s waiting for the resurrection of the FDR/JFK/Clinton Democratic Party.
Carville is likely mistaken, but not entirely. I’m sure there are a lot of “Not Insane” Democrats out there who are hoping the current madness will abate.
neo: OT, a few words about Thomas English muffins — I can’t eat them anymore.
neo on February 21, 2020 at 10:43 pm said:
R.C.:
Wouldn’t the “horsey-faced lesbian” have been a reference to Princess Anne? She’s not a lesbian (as far as I know), but she’s a bit long-faced and used to ride a lot of horses.
* * *
I thought of her first, but am as confused as RC about the others (and, as the parent of an architect, have not hung my head in shame except for him being associated at long distance with the persons responsible for the general decline of Western building aesthetics — I’m sending him the lovely hypothetical quote, a btw).
At least Bloomberg didn’t call HRH a pony-faced dog-sailor or some such.
(One of her official titles is Admiral and Chief Commandant of Women in the Royal Navy.)
Here’s a story I didn’t know, but would make a good tv episode:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne%2C_Princess_Royal#Kidnapping_attempt
I don’t know the royals well at all but did think the “fat” reference may have been to the Diana contemporary who did adverts for Weight Watchers ( I think it was W.W., but maybe another Co.?). Sorry I don’t know her name. Think she is a ginger though.
“He’s waiting for the resurrection of the FDR/JFK/Clinton Democratic Party.”
Point of order! Carville helped KILL the FDR/JFK Democratic Party. Remember “The era of Big Government is over?”
Carville is a southern partisan who got angry at the GOP taking over his region, so he helped tear out the heart of the Democratic Party and replaced it with the Clinton machine. He turned the Democratic Party from one that believed in ideas and principles, even if they were wrong, to one that believed in a man.
But men age and die and, when you put your faith in them, leave a void behind. Now another man is stepping into that void and Carville has no one to blame for it but himself.
Mike
Point of order! Carville helped KILL the FDR/JFK Democratic Party. Remember “The era of Big Government is over?”
The ratio of public expenditure to domestic product hasn’t changed much over the last 40-odd years. We have about as much Big Government as we did when the septuagenarian Carville was 30 years old.
As I understand it the full quote was: “The Royal family — what a bunch of misfits — a gay, an architect, that horsey faced lesbian, and a kid who gave up Koo Stark for some fat broad.”
The ‘fat broad’ is Sarah Ferguson, who was not and is not fat. The ‘horsy-faced lesbian’ is Princess Anne, who is rather unattractive but has no history of lesbianism. The ‘architect’ is Prince Charles, who counts architectural history as an interest and was an astringent critic of modern architecture at that time, but has no training in any branch of engineering. The ‘gay’ is Prince Edward, who was not and is not homosexual. The ‘kid’ he was referring to was Prince Andrew, who was at the time a naval officer who had seen combat; Koo Stark had married someone else the year before he and Sarah Ferguson got to be an item.
What’s interesting about Bloomberg is the howlers he utters. The subject matter is less consequential than farming.
“The ratio of public expenditure to domestic product hasn’t changed much over the last 40-odd years. We have about as much Big Government as we did when the septuagenarian Carville was 30 years old.”
Again, I don’t know why you are so obtuse about these things. Go look up what Bernie Sanders, and many others on the Left, used to say about illegal immigration.
We used to have, at least in theory, one party in America who cared about workers and one that cared about small business owners. When the interests of those two groups differed, they would each be vigorously defended in the pursuit of a compromise that both sides could live with. Or at least that’s how everyone agreed it was supposed to work. What Carville helped usher in is an era where one party kisses the ass of corporate America and the other kisses the ass of corporate America about 11% less.
The rise of first Trump and now Bernie is a direct result of this neo-liberal, globalist, uni-party consensus.
We used to have, at least in theory, one party in America who cared about workers and one that cared about small business owners. When the interests of those two groups differed, they would each be vigorously defended in the pursuit of a compromise that both sides could live with.
That sounds rather fanciful.