Simon Malloy in his heading declared 2015 a terrible year in politics and voiced his hopes for 2016. I assumed it would be the usual phony pious kind of list that the Very Serious Pundits are famous for.
"Irrational hopes for 2016: Some political pipe dreams for a dreadful election year. Another election year is upon us, and it will very likely be a disaster, so let's go nuts with the wish list."
Ok, now he's lost me.
"The Democratic race for the presidency has garnered far less attention than the sensational hysterics that have gripped the Republican race, but whoever wins the nomination will face a massive test of history and demography. Winning a third presidential term is difficult for a ruling party, but the Democrats have demographic winds blowing at their backs. Much will depend on whether the Obama coalition of young, minority and educated voters can be replicated in 2016"
"It has garnered a lot less attention than the GOP race and that's a good thing. Why would Democrats want it to garner attention? Ideally, any party would prefer the parliamentary system in Britain where voters pick the party that will run the government and the party picks the nominees. This doesn't mean no one radical will ever win-Labor did vote for Jeremy Corbyn. But the welfare of the party is better served by a quick primary with as few debates and as little excitement as possible.
I'm talking about the optimal choice for the parties not necessarily the media. But do you think there''s anyone in the GOP Establishment that wouldn't take the Dems' current 'problem' of little attention right now?
Also, the Obama coalition is not necessarily the same as the Bernie folks. Most of the prominent African-Americans who supported Obama are now on Team Hillary
"And that, of course, depends on the nominee."
It shouldn't depend on the nominee, it should depend on the party. The rise of candidate centered politics is not something to celebrate.
" It’s a shame the last weeks of 2015 were consumed by a stupid fight over Bernie Sanders staffers inappropriately accessing data belonging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, because the two candidates have stark ideological differences when it comes to the role of government. Sanders is pushing aggressively and unapologetically for programs like single-payer healthcare and tuition-free public colleges. Clinton is swatting back at Sanders for wanting to raise taxes on the middle class and criticizing the costs of his policies: “I think we’ve got to be really thoughtful about how we’re going to afford what we proposed,” she said at the last debate.
"Clinton is seen as the more electable of the two and is pitching a more middle-of-the-road progressive vision, but Bernie is undoubtedly more in touch with the increasingly vocal and influential left flank of the party. Even if Clinton is on a slow march to the nomination, she’s going to need those Bernie voters and have something to offer them. A close finish in Iowa and a Sanders win in New Hampshire would keep the pressure on Hillary to not pivot too hard and too fast into general election mode."
So, Maloy and I agree on Trump. He's mistaken about Bernie. The quicker and more seamlessly HRC puts away Bernie the better. The sooner she gets in general election mode the better-she basically was in the last debate. I have no interest in the Bernie Maniacs owning HRC for the next four years either. Why should 30 percent of the vote trump the 70 percent of the vote that is not for Bernie?
Maybe Maloy uses the new math.
"Irrational hopes for 2016: Some political pipe dreams for a dreadful election year. Another election year is upon us, and it will very likely be a disaster, so let's go nuts with the wish list."
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/01/irrational_hopes_for_2016_some_political_pipe_dreams_for_a_dreadful_election_year/
But he surprised me-happily so:
"That Donald Trump Will Win the Republican Nomination."
"Last year around this time I posted my list of irrational hopes for 2015 and, in retrospect, perhaps that wasn’t the best idea. At the time, I was absolutely convinced that Trump would not run for president, and I stuck with that belief long after it became clear that he actually was running, which resulted in some crow-eating and embarrassment on my part. But now that Trump is in the race and, as he’s fond of pointing out, leading all the polls, I’d like to wish him the best of luck in capturing the GOP nomination."
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/01/irrational_hopes_for_2016_some_political_pipe_dreams_for_a_dreadful_election_year/
So is he now a Trump Democrat? Or something like that-even if he's probably insist this has nothing to do with being a Democrat?
You know, not to toot my own horn-but someone has to do it-but it's amazing how what I was saying as early as July about Trump is now becoming part of the received wisdom! I've been wishing Trump good luck since July.
Even Lawrence O'Donnell last night declared the smartest move of the year being Bill Clinton getting Trump to run. LOL.
What say you Tom Brown?
"Trump obviously would be an awful president and it feels irresponsible to hope that he comes within a dangerously close distance of holding that office, but at this juncture he is the candidate the Republican Party deserves, and the GOP should be forced to confront the fact that it created the toxic political environment in which Trumpism thrives. Trump’s nativism and anti-immigrant rhetoric is only a half-step removed from what influential Republicans on Capitol Hill say regularly. His proposal to forcibly remove every undocumented immigrant from the country is right in line with what the Republican-controlled Congress has endorsed."
"More broadly speaking, the party’s utter failure to prove itself a competent governing authority has left it vulnerable to the sort of extremism that Trump embodies. Republicans won power with extravagant and unrealistic promises to use whatever means necessary to roll back the Obama agenda. Failure to make good on those promises has carved a massive gulf between the GOP and its own base of voters, into which Trump has sauntered with promises of “winning” and the pledge that he’ll get things done through sheer force of will."
"Trump has Republicans panicked because he expertly exploits the divide between the GOP establishment and the voters who feel betrayed by the party. If a Trump nomination helps bring about the crippling and existential crisis that the Republicans have been inviting over the last seven or eight years, then I say let it happen."
"Yes. But then of course Malloy has to take back with the other hand-because otherwise he wouldn't be a Beltway pundit who is always from the part of 'both sides do it.'
"That Bernie Sanders Will Go the Distance with Hillary Clinton."
But he surprised me-happily so:
"Well, it’s officially 2016. Welcome to hell! The presidential election is still nearly a year away, which means there’s plenty more time to build on the surreal and debased politicking that marked the last six months of 2015. But the holiday season and the New Year are usually a time for hope and optimism, so in that spirit, I’ll lay out a few semi-irrational hopes that I’d like to see realized in 2016."
"That Donald Trump Will Win the Republican Nomination."
"Last year around this time I posted my list of irrational hopes for 2015 and, in retrospect, perhaps that wasn’t the best idea. At the time, I was absolutely convinced that Trump would not run for president, and I stuck with that belief long after it became clear that he actually was running, which resulted in some crow-eating and embarrassment on my part. But now that Trump is in the race and, as he’s fond of pointing out, leading all the polls, I’d like to wish him the best of luck in capturing the GOP nomination."
So is he now a Trump Democrat? Or something like that-even if he's probably insist this has nothing to do with being a Democrat?
You know, not to toot my own horn-but someone has to do it-but it's amazing how what I was saying as early as July about Trump is now becoming part of the received wisdom! I've been wishing Trump good luck since July.
Even Lawrence O'Donnell last night declared the smartest move of the year being Bill Clinton getting Trump to run. LOL.
What say you Tom Brown?
Malloy is exactly right in his analysis:
"Trump obviously would be an awful president and it feels irresponsible to hope that he comes within a dangerously close distance of holding that office, but at this juncture he is the candidate the Republican Party deserves, and the GOP should be forced to confront the fact that it created the toxic political environment in which Trumpism thrives. Trump’s nativism and anti-immigrant rhetoric is only a half-step removed from what influential Republicans on Capitol Hill say regularly. His proposal to forcibly remove every undocumented immigrant from the country is right in line with what the Republican-controlled Congress has endorsed."
"More broadly speaking, the party’s utter failure to prove itself a competent governing authority has left it vulnerable to the sort of extremism that Trump embodies. Republicans won power with extravagant and unrealistic promises to use whatever means necessary to roll back the Obama agenda. Failure to make good on those promises has carved a massive gulf between the GOP and its own base of voters, into which Trump has sauntered with promises of “winning” and the pledge that he’ll get things done through sheer force of will."
"Trump has Republicans panicked because he expertly exploits the divide between the GOP establishment and the voters who feel betrayed by the party. If a Trump nomination helps bring about the crippling and existential crisis that the Republicans have been inviting over the last seven or eight years, then I say let it happen."
"Yes. But then of course Malloy has to take back with the other hand-because otherwise he wouldn't be a Beltway pundit who is always from the part of 'both sides do it.'
"The Democratic race for the presidency has garnered far less attention than the sensational hysterics that have gripped the Republican race, but whoever wins the nomination will face a massive test of history and demography. Winning a third presidential term is difficult for a ruling party, but the Democrats have demographic winds blowing at their backs. Much will depend on whether the Obama coalition of young, minority and educated voters can be replicated in 2016"
"It has garnered a lot less attention than the GOP race and that's a good thing. Why would Democrats want it to garner attention? Ideally, any party would prefer the parliamentary system in Britain where voters pick the party that will run the government and the party picks the nominees. This doesn't mean no one radical will ever win-Labor did vote for Jeremy Corbyn. But the welfare of the party is better served by a quick primary with as few debates and as little excitement as possible.
I'm talking about the optimal choice for the parties not necessarily the media. But do you think there''s anyone in the GOP Establishment that wouldn't take the Dems' current 'problem' of little attention right now?
Also, the Obama coalition is not necessarily the same as the Bernie folks. Most of the prominent African-Americans who supported Obama are now on Team Hillary
"And that, of course, depends on the nominee."
It shouldn't depend on the nominee, it should depend on the party. The rise of candidate centered politics is not something to celebrate.
" It’s a shame the last weeks of 2015 were consumed by a stupid fight over Bernie Sanders staffers inappropriately accessing data belonging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, because the two candidates have stark ideological differences when it comes to the role of government. Sanders is pushing aggressively and unapologetically for programs like single-payer healthcare and tuition-free public colleges. Clinton is swatting back at Sanders for wanting to raise taxes on the middle class and criticizing the costs of his policies: “I think we’ve got to be really thoughtful about how we’re going to afford what we proposed,” she said at the last debate.
"Clinton is seen as the more electable of the two and is pitching a more middle-of-the-road progressive vision, but Bernie is undoubtedly more in touch with the increasingly vocal and influential left flank of the party. Even if Clinton is on a slow march to the nomination, she’s going to need those Bernie voters and have something to offer them. A close finish in Iowa and a Sanders win in New Hampshire would keep the pressure on Hillary to not pivot too hard and too fast into general election mode."
So, Maloy and I agree on Trump. He's mistaken about Bernie. The quicker and more seamlessly HRC puts away Bernie the better. The sooner she gets in general election mode the better-she basically was in the last debate. I have no interest in the Bernie Maniacs owning HRC for the next four years either. Why should 30 percent of the vote trump the 70 percent of the vote that is not for Bernie?
Maybe Maloy uses the new math.
"That the National Security Debate Won’t Be Consumed by Tough-Guy Posturing."
Ok, so this wish is truly an irrational hope-his words. Of course this is what it will be-on the GOP side. However, HRC will be the corrective on that. She's able to project toughness without talking about stupid things like carpet bombing and shooting down Russian planes.
However, no doubt, the Overton Window has gone in the wrong direction post Paris and San Bernandino. You had as he noted even cowed Democrats voting for a crackdown on Syrian refugees. Yes, the Dems were able to end up killing this in the Omnibus bill. But they were forced to agree to messing with the visa waiver program that has already lead to problems on the Iran deal.
Even Obama is now talking about the persecution of Christians by ISIS-ignoring that Muslims are also persecuted by ISIS-the Shiites, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment