[barmar]

billw55, on 2015-October-15, 08:25, said:

Elected officials are a reflection of the voters.

Voters are just people, they can be manipulated easily by marketing.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2015-October-15, 08:25, said:

Elected officials are a reflection of the voters.

I agree to some extent with this, but to my thinking voters are a reflection of culture, thus, an ill-educated electorate living in an entertainment-driven media culture is easily swayed by hyperbole and fantasy-based non-linear arguments.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2015-October-15, 12:41, said:

I agree to some extent with this, but to my thinking voters are a reflection of culture, thus, an ill-educated electorate living in an entertainment-driven media culture is easily swayed by hyperbole and fantasy-based non-linear arguments.

you make key points, very many key points
1) spend more money on good things
2) we don't have the money
3) spend more and more money

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2015-October-15, 22:15, said:

you make key points, very many key points
1) spend more money on good things
2) we don't have the money
3) spend more and more money

And yet many other countries do have the money for good things such as universal healthcare, a strong safety net, paid parental leave, free or inexpensive higher education, a modern infrastructure, high-speed rail lines, inexpensive high-speed internet access for all, and so on. Why do you suppose the USA lacks the money for these things?

Is it that
1) our country is much poorer than we like to admit, or
2) we spend way too much on ways to blow up things in other countries, or
3) we arrange to redirect the money for the good things into the pockets of a few instead of improving the lives of all?

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2015-October-15, 12:41, said:

I agree to some extent with this, but to my thinking voters are a reflection of culture, thus, an ill-educated electorate living in an entertainment-driven media culture is easily swayed by hyperbole and fantasy-based non-linear arguments.

Perhaps. For better or worse, each of their votes counts just as much as yours.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2015-October-16, 09:28, said:

Perhaps. For better or worse, each of their votes counts just as much as yours.

Agree. Which is why Richard is so right that a S.C. appointee is so critical to protect voting rights for minorities, and why redistricting will have to occur to bring about a better balance of power. I heard on NPR yesterday that the Tea Party faction comes from districts that are 83% white and vote 18% more Republican than the average Republican-majority districts. Because of the changes in campaign finance laws, these Congressmen are not as needful of party support, and without earmarks the Speaker has less power to please, so they are free to adhere to ideological principles without fear of party or voter reprisals.

What has happened is that a tiny minority has imposed its will on everyone and has successfully shut down government - at least as a practical matter.

Because redistricting will take so long, the only possible action I can think of to nullify their clout is for both Democrats and moderate Republicans to join forces and form a super-majority, which may mean moderate Republicans leaving their party - and it could mean creating a third party (but that would take a massive PR campaign to explain and sell the reasoning why Republicans and Democrats are joining forces).

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2015-October-16, 09:08, said:

And yet many other countries do have the money for good things such as universal healthcare, a strong safety net, paid parental leave, free or inexpensive higher education, a modern infrastructure, high-speed rail lines, inexpensive high-speed internet access for all, and so on. Why do you suppose the USA lacks the money for these things?

Is it that
1) our country is much poorer than we like to admit, or
2) we spend way too much on ways to blow up things in other countries, or
3) we arrange to redirect the money for the good things into the pockets of a few instead of improving the lives of all?

In short, what's going on? A very good question, one that may be central to the 2016 election.

I come at this from various directions.

I am teaching a course this fall, someone became ill and I am filling in. The students that I see remind me of myself sixty years ago. I listen to NPR driving in. The national events being described do not remotely remind me of the world I grew up in. I find this juxtaposition disorienting. . I am working on where this leaves me philosophically.

[gwnn]

What did y'all think of the debate overall? There has been a fair bit of discussion going on online about the fact that all "mainstream media" considered Hillary as an obvious winner whilst all internet polls had Bernie Sanders winning, and usually by huge margins. I watched it out of curiosity and I think they both did a good job, although Hillary had more style and she spoke more because a lot of the other candidates kept mentioning her. The most memorable/lamest moment was the "I told them to cut it out!" which was pretty funny (of course the lamest moment was the "my dad had just died so I voted yes without knowing what it's about" but since I don't know the names of the other 3 dudes I can't name it here), and Bernie's response about Wall Street controlling Congress, although I dont know what Bernie can do about that from the White House. Well anyway, this is my uninformed/unsophisticated opinion, I meant to just ask what you thought of it.

[Fluffy]

9gag agrees with you. They also say Hilary keeps arguing that "I am a woman, there's never been a woman as president before". Apparently Bernie Sanders would be first Jew US president, bu he never says anything about that.

[kenberg]

Becky (my wife) thought that HC's weakest moment was when she was asked the most important way in which her p[residency would be different. She replied it was obvious. the most importan difference was that she was a woman. What an awful way to sum up how she differs from Obama. I like to think that she didn't mean it the way it came out.

I think she did herself a lot of good. I had been thinking that Dems were really accepting her as inevitable but not much liking it. I still think that is true, but less so.

It's a long time to go, but right now I think HC will get the nomination for lack of an effective challenger, and unless the Republicans make some serious changes in their approach she will win the election for the same reason.

As a president she might be ok. Maybe.

Overall I think the debate went well. We saw strength and weakness, and that's what a debate is for.

[gwnn]

I take it from your post (that does not even mention his name) that you don't think Bernie has any chance at all? Is this the basic premise that most people adopt, i.e., it was not about who won the debate, but how Hillary is doing, i.e., whether or not she is electable (essentially, unless she says something incredibly stupid/embarrassing, she is still more electable than the other people)? I am not asking in frustration, just trying to understand. Certainly I understand why she is considered the front-runner, and certainly I agree with dismissing the other three people (O'Malley, Chaffey, and Webb, I think.. but I could not reliably identify the three faces), and I also understand why many people dismiss a self-avowed Socialist as some sort of a whackjob or at least why many people dismiss his election chances. But I am wondering, is all of this online enthusiasm I see just bogus? Certainly him winning the debate by some 80% of voters is not a serious number and is most likely just a reflection of multiple voting and/or an over-enthusiastic base. But still, I think (wish?) something is happening.

[awm]

Elianna and I watched, and she was pretty sure Hillary won the debate. We were both planning to vote for Bernie going in so we are not really Hillary supporters. She did not like Bernie's answer on gun control in particular (hits sort of close to home because she is a teacher and they have active shooter drills periodically, as well as all the school shootings in the news).

The differing evaluations by the news media and polls have a lot to do with familiarity. The majority of debate viewers were not familiar with Bernie Sanders at all, so he could more or less give his stump speech and excite a fair amount of interest. The news media have heard his stump speech a zillion times, and were therefore not impressed. On stage, Hillary was much more polished and Bernie seemed old and grouchy (even though they are around the same age). The later polls (after the public had a chance to listen to news anchors tell them who won) favor Hillary as the winner -- which makes one think about the impact of news anchors on these things.

It will be very much an uphill battle for Bernie Sanders to win. Hillary has huge advantages with low-information voters -- she has much more money raised (her campaign is raising about the same, but her super-pac is flush with cash), she has a huge advantage in endorsements, a huge advantage in name recognition, and people have fond memories of the good economy during her husband's administration. A lot of people also want to elect the first female president (yes Bernie would be the first Jewish president, but given the religious makeup of our country this is probably more of a disadvantage).

In any case I thought it was interesting how different the topics being discussed were in this debate from the Republican debates. I think we used to agree on what the big issues were in our country (although never on the solutions) but clearly now we do not even have that.

[y66]

I enjoyed the debate. Clinton was in top form except for the weak reply mentioned by Becky via kenberg. No one from either party comes close to her in terms of command of the issues, esp. foreign policy, or debating technique. It was fun seeing her do so well and I hope that continues for another 12 and a half months and four or eight years after that. I think it will.

Sanders was in good form but not good enough to pick up any votes from Clinton supporters. I don't see how he's ever going to do that. He's got more integrity than all of the other candidates from both parties put together but yeah you do have to be able to get stuff done.

O'Malley scored more debate points than Webb which is not saying much. Chafee was a bust.

[kenberg]

gwnn, on 2015-October-16, 17:26, said:

I take it from your post (that does not even mention his name) that you don't think Bernie has any chance at all? Is this the basic premise that most people adopt, i.e., it was not about who won the debate, but how Hillary is doing, i.e., whether or not she is electable (essentially, unless she says something incredibly stupid/embarrassing, she is still more electable than the other people)? I am not asking in frustration, just trying to understand. Certainly I understand why she is considered the front-runner, and certainly I agree with dismissing the other three people (O'Malley, Chaffey, and Webb, I think.. but I could not reliably identify the three faces), and I also understand why many people dismiss a self-avowed Socialist as some sort of a whackjob or at least why many people dismiss his election chances. But I am wondering, is all of this online enthusiasm I see just bogus? Certainly him winning the debate by some 80% of voters is not a serious number and is most likely just a reflection of multiple voting and/or an over-enthusiastic base. But still, I think (wish?) something is happening.

I haven't looked at any poll numbers. My response should be seen as a partial response reflecting some of my own interests.


I think Bernie's main accomplishment was to present himself as a serious candidate. Where will it go? I am not sure. A few thoughts:

1. Hillary wishes to be president. Just about everything else takes a distant second place. Bernie is who he is, and is prepared to let people vote for him if they agree with him and vote for someone else if they do not. This latter approach is of course very attractive.

2. I will listen to what he has to say. I suspect I won't agree with a fair portion of it.

3. The Republican's are in a meltdown. The Dems are not, but I don't think any of them are particularly good. Briefly I would say:

Chaffee: I remember liking has father, his presentation at the debate was hopeless.

Webb: I think that it is very good to have him on stage. He would have fit in well in Harry Truman's Democratic Party. He is out of touch with current Democratic Party thinking, but perhaps not out of touch with the thoughts of many. He is not going to be the nominee.

O'Malley: He was a good governor. (I live in Maryland). The presidency is the big leagues, he is not there.

So we come to Clinton and Sanders.

Sanders: As I say, I will listen. I do not find myself saying "Yea, yea, I agree" But I will listen.

Clinton: Sort of Bill Clinton without personality. Bill played the sax and ate Big Macs, because he liked to (and there were other things he liked, well, let's not get into that). It's impossible to imagine Hillary doing anything or saying anything without her asking how it will help her campaign.
She could be beaten for the nomination by a strong alternative candidate, and she could be beaten in the general election by a strong Republican candidate. I don't see who this would be. .

I'm a retired college prof. I think it is safe to say that no political action group anywhere asks "How will this campaign slogan play with the retired college profs?" Still, people sometimes say "You don't seem like a college prof" or "You don't seem like a mathematician". I think they intend this as a compliment but at any rate it might mean that my views are shared by at least some other people. But I make no claim to having my finger on the pulse of America.

We shall see.

[y66]

From Bernie Sanders, the Socialist Mayor: A profile of the presidential candidate written in the 1980s, as he got his start in politics by Russell Banks:

Quote

His [March 1981 mayoral] election, clearly, was in many respects due to luck, flukey circumstances not likely ever to be repeated in Burlington. But it was also due to Sanders’ willingness to work long hours, day after day, week after week, knocking on doors, speaking to crowds until his voice went hoarse, shaking hands on cold, windy street corners until his right hand swelled and turned numb and, perhaps most significantly, evoking from his supporters a kind of passionate loyalty that a party machine or patronage can never generate. An ideology can generate that kind of self-sacrifice, however, and so can a remarkable personality. Sanders had both going for him. His record as a radical activist and his long association with the Liberty Union Party kept the leftist regulars out there on the hustings those cold months, knocking on doors, handing out leaflets, raising money with raffles and yard sales. But his personality brought out a commitment from many who normally regarded a politician as someone with a peculiar and slightly dangerous mental illness.

T. Alan Broughton remembers going along reluctantly with a group of local poets and writers who were giving a reading to raise funds for Sanders’s election. “We read our poems, and it was nice enough, sort of like a coffeehouse event from the Sixties, and then we passed the hat, and then Bernie got up to say a few words, of thanks, we figured. He started talking about how much he liked poetry, how much it had always meant to him, like we all expected him to do, and then, before we knew it, he was reading a couple of his own poems, which weren’t really all that great, but they had a passionate Beat Generation kind of intensity to them, about the poor, of course, and the evils of capitalism. Then, suddenly, there he was reciting from memory “Do Not Go Gentle”, by Dylan Thomas, reciting this rich, rolling Welchman’s poem in a heavy Brooklyn accent. And it was kind of wonderful, you know? He was loving the poem, letting us see him love it, and reading it totally unselfconsciously in this utterly inappropriate accent, and I felt then for the first time how great it would be to have a guy like that as mayor of my city.”

Sanders has this effect on a lot of people. His supporters and the members of his administration are called Sanderistas, originally a pejorative tag that is worn now with good-humored pride, like the T-shirts that have “Welcome to the People’s Republic of Burlington” printed on them, a slogan generated by a remark attributed to Sanders by the cartoonist Gary Trudeau in a “Doonesbury” strip run shortly after Sanders’ first election victory. Trudeau portrays Sanders as a guest on the Tom Snyder’s “Tomorrow” show. Snyder says, “Mr. Mayor, let’s be candid, okay? You’re a socialist. You’re a Jew. You’re from New York. So how the heck’d you get elected?” Sanders answers, “The people of Burlington wanted a change. They decided to send the capitalist system a clear message.”

"And it was kind of wonderful, you know? He was loving the poem, letting us see him love it, and reading it totally unselfconsciously in this utterly inappropriate accent, and I felt then for the first time how great it would be to have a guy like that as mayor of my city.”

I suspect that describes how a lot of Dems feel about this guy. Can Bernie Sanders win a presidential primary and a general election? In our dreams.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2015-October-17, 08:43, said:

From Bernie Sanders, the Socialist Mayor: A profile of the presidential candidate written in the 1980s, as he got his start in politics by Russell Banks:


"And it was kind of wonderful, you know? He was loving the poem, letting us see him love it, and reading it totally unselfconsciously in this utterly inappropriate accent, and I felt then for the first time how great it would be to have a guy like that as mayor of my city.”

I suspect that describes how a lot of Dems feel about this guy. Can Bernie Sanders win a presidential primary and a general election? In our dreams.

I almost wonder if a lot of his donations are secretly coming from right-wingers like the Kochs who think he would be an easier target to defeat than Hillary.

[y66]

Not poetry fans?

More than the Koch Bros., I suspect Bernie is selling a lot of coffee mugs to Dems who want to feel their own inner anti-establishment burn for a few months before their capitalism and exceptionalism preserving instincts kick in (again).



Hit me Sanderista barista.

[kenberg]

I can imagine the backroom discussions: Should we go after the Dylan Thomas vote or the retired math prof vote? Should we promise to fund rage against the dying of the light or research into 4-manifolds?

It brings to mind a discussion I had years ago with some high up operative in a campaign for governor. I wanted to talk about university funfing, he wanted to talk about how th Terps were doing (Terp is short for Terrapin, some sort of turtle, and the basis for the slogan "Fear the turtle")

[y66]

Perhaps we can all find something in this one to agree on:

Quote

"One Today"

By Richard Blanco for Barack Obama's January 2013 Inauguration

One sun rose on us today, kindled over our shores,
peeking over the Smokies, greeting the faces
of the Great Lakes, spreading a simple truth
across the Great Plains, then charging across the Rockies.
One light, waking up rooftops, under each one, a story
told by our silent gestures moving behind windows.

My face, your face, millions of faces in morning's mirrors,
each one yawning to life, crescendoing into our day:
pencil-yellow school buses, the rhythm of traffic lights,
fruit stands: apples, limes, and oranges arrayed like rainbows
begging our praise. Silver trucks heavy with oil or paper—
bricks or milk, teeming over highways alongside us,
on our way to clean tables, read ledgers, or save lives—
to teach geometry, or ring-up groceries as my mother did
for twenty years, so I could write this poem.

All of us as vital as the one light we move through,
the same light on blackboards with lessons for the day:
equations to solve, history to question, or atoms imagined,
the "I have a dream" we keep dreaming,
or the impossible vocabulary of sorrow that won't explain
the empty desks of twenty children marked absent
today, and forever. Many prayers, but one light
breathing color into stained glass windows,
life into the faces of bronze statues, warmth
onto the steps of our museums and park benches
as mothers watch children slide into the day.

One ground. Our ground, rooting us to every stalk
of corn, every head of wheat sown by sweat
and hands, hands gleaning coal or planting windmills
in deserts and hilltops that keep us warm, hands
digging trenches, routing pipes and cables, hands
as worn as my father's cutting sugarcane
so my brother and I could have books and shoes.

The dust of farms and deserts, cities and plains
mingled by one wind—our breath. Breathe. Hear it
through the day's gorgeous din of honking cabs,
buses launching down avenues, the symphony
of footsteps, guitars, and screeching subways,
the unexpected song bird on your clothes line.

Hear: squeaky playground swings, trains whistling,
or whispers across café tables, Hear: the doors we open
for each other all day, saying: hello, shalom,
buon giorno, howdy, namaste, or buenos días
in the language my mother taught me—in every language
spoken into one wind carrying our lives
without prejudice, as these words break from my lips.

One sky: since the Appalachians and Sierras claimed
their majesty, and the Mississippi and Colorado worked
their way to the sea. Thank the work of our hands:
weaving steel into bridges, finishing one more report
for the boss on time, stitching another wound
or uniform, the first brush stroke on a portrait,
or the last floor on the Freedom Tower
jutting into a sky that yields to our resilience.

One sky, toward which we sometimes lift our eyes
tired from work: some days guessing at the weather
of our lives, some days giving thanks for a love
that loves you back, sometimes praising a mother
who knew how to give, or forgiving a father
who couldn't give what you wanted.

We head home: through the gloss of rain or weight
of snow, or the plum blush of dusk, but always—home,
always under one sky, our sky. And always one moon
like a silent drum tapping on every rooftop
and every window, of one country—all of us—
facing the stars
hope—a new constellation
waiting for us to map it,
waiting for us to name it—together.

He even got something in there about equations for the math prof vote.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2015-October-17, 11:49, said:

Perhaps we can all find something in this one to agree on:

I doubt it.