Monday’s Late Show saw Stephen Colbert welcoming former Daily Show pal, fellow late-night host, and frequent Late Show guest John Oliver. How frequent? Well, perhaps this sash, tiara, and brimming bouquet of red roses will clue you in, as Colbert surprised Oliver with the news that the Last Week Tonight host had overtaken Bernie Sanders as The Late Show’s most-booked guest. Oliver was a picture of genteel, British, Emmy-winner’s grace in victory, naturally, booming out a hearty “Fuck you, Bernie!,” and doing a little flourish of “Number one!” gestures.
And, sure, Oliver was technically there to remind people that his weekly rundown of laugh-’til-you-cry political comedy, Last Week Tonight, comes back this coming Sunday. He and Colbert previewed the looming (March 29) Brexit deadline, which, Oliver noted, is looking akin to someone jumping out of an airplane without a parachute while someone asks, “What does this mean?” “I guess it means a massive exercise in confidence,” Oliver joked, although he was more sober about the potential consequences of the likely “no deal” Brexit, telling Colbert, “We’re talking about generational damage that could end up being done here.”
And since Oliver was being Mr. Cheer, he and Colbert also commiserated over the fact that neither of them share much optimism on the home front, either, when it comes to the possibility of an early, “no plea deal” exit of Donald Trump from the White House. Oliver got booed by the audience when he suggested that people might have to strap themselves and their civil rights in for the long haul of Trump’s entire first term—and possibly beyond. Oliver took meager solace in the simple fact that the Donald Trump administration necessarily has to end at some point, comparing it to the far-off finish line of a marathon which the country will eventually “stumble over, be covered in a silver cape, and have someone say, ‘You really shouldn’t have done that.’” At least Oliver has his celebratory vestments for having won The Late Show interview marathon, although he and Colbert finally had to confront the fact that the bit had nowhere to go. As the cellophane bouquet wrap crinkled on Oliver’s label mic, and the interview petered out, Oliver told his host, that, at least, “Both of you and I are happy in this kind of disappointed awkwardness.”
177 Comments
The John Oliver show on HBO is truly amazing. I wish there was a way to make it bi-weekly… High quality, timely, and their extended segments are usually better investigative reporting than most news outlets AND usually hilarious. And the Scranton train bit gets me every time.
E, I think it went downhill pretty fast after Season 1. Its the same 4 or 5 jokes every episode….
I’ve been impressed at the breath of topics they cover. Payday loans, corrupt governments, televangelists, authoritarianism, net neutrality, and so on. I keep thinking they’ll run out of terrible institutions to cover and they keep surprising me.
Didn’t see the interview. Which host out-lectured the other to take his place as Late Night’s #1 Comedian/Moral Scold?
No. 1? Did Bill Mahr die?
He at least lost a vowel.
“Eeeeeeeee!,” I said after realizing my mistake.
Hes more of a Smug Know-it-All than a Moral Scold…
I’m tired of the word “lecture” being used to portray someone as pompous merely for giving an opinion.
I agree, but that’s not what they do. They have guests on and corner them into essentially giving the apology they want. Exhibit A: John Oliver using a 20th-anniversary party for Wag The Dog to score white knight points on Dustin Hoffman.
John Oliver rarely has guests on his show. Can you give any example of Colbert “scolding” his guests?
Well, Ben Affleck when Colbert brought up the thing about him maybe touching a girl’s breast in a picture in 2004. Kevin Hart, more or less, even though he’d already said the same thing in 20 other interviews, but Colbert needed to get it on his show (understandable, but still a little pointless). Telling Alec Baldwin out of nowhere that he seemed like an “angry guy,” which Baldwin complained about to the Hollywood Reporter later. And if it’s not guests, it’s the general attitude of being a self-appointed moral arbiter which, frankly, every single Daily Show alum seems to have for reasons that are not clear to me. I’d rather laugh than listen to a lecture, even if I might agree in principle. At the bare minimum, I don’t think it’s a great sign for this type of comedy that I could predict every host’s take on every issue, and not due to any amazing powers of foresight.
I’ve seen almost every episode of his Late Show and while I don’t pay as much attention to the interviews as the comedy bits, I think he tends to be more chummy than confrontational with his guests. Those examples you cited sound to me more like acknowledging the elephant in the room rather than being judgmental. I was actually kinda bummed Liam Neeson canceled his Colbert interview last week because I think Stephen would’ve handled it in a relatively even-handed manner.
I guess I’ll have to defer to you, since you’ve clearly seen much more than I have. Although I will include the Bill Clinton interview from this summer to my list above, where Stephen spent a few minutes asking him if he understood why his remarks on the Today Show were “tone-deaf” (thanks for checking, Stephen) and Bill Clinton looked like he’d rather be anywhere else.
I admit my having watched so much doesn’t mean I can’t be wrong(for one thing, my Colbert fanboyism might make me less objective), but I never got the idea that he was trying to “nail” his guests like Bill O’Reilly would.
These people have an identifiable POV that is part of their show. Most comedians do. Pretty sure you could guess Mitch Hedberg’s take, or Richard Pryor’s, or Paul F Tompkins, or Nikki Glaser. Etc.
Maybe. But watching five different late-night comedians essentially following the same script in reaction to any given issue is…not encouraging as far as the state of comedy is concerned. Also, professional comics playing to applause, not laughter, from an audience is pretty unbearable (I don’t think I’ve ever heard laughter on Samantha Bee’s show).
Call me a cynic but your “concern” for the “state of comedy” strikes me as disingenuous. First, when in the history of late night shows have the hosts been possessed of unique, varied, and complex comedic takes on the issues of the day? Are you telling me that Carson’s take on Reagan was suuuuper different from Letterman’s? Second, does late night even fucking HAVE an effect on the “state of comedy” any more? When was the last time a standup comic got signed to a development deal off a late night set? Do you think late night shows are where people get the bulk of their comedy now? Hell to the no. YouTube. Podcasts. Adult Swim. Third, between the callout of Samantha Bee, the bitching about Oliver’s question to Hoffman, the use of “moral scold” to describe reasonable calling out of questionable behavior… man, you and the South Park guys can join Bill Maher and Dennis Miller in the anti-PC paranoia circle-jerk of comedy.
As far as political comedy, I think the bulk of it is still, for most people, represented in these late night shows, so I do think there’s an effect. Sure, Carson/Letterman/Leno stayed pretty apolitical, but isn’t the fact that there are more of these shows than ever, and yet the comedic perspective on any given issue sounds so similar an indictment of a certain kind of groupthink? I’m not saying that you can’t find comedy elsewhere, but these are still prominent platforms, and it would be nice to see those platforms put to more interesting use. I’m saying that as a comedy fan, not as someone who wants to see more of my perspective since, broadly speaking, mine is already reflected just fine. I don’t like Donald Trump; I don’t need to hear six carbon copies of the same joke about how dumb he is, and a joke that takes a different angle on it would be that much more welcome simply because it feels new. It’s not like I think I’m some brave iconoclast going against the grain, but I can’t help but be slightly proud of myself for not seeking out one of these shows to essentially parrot my opinions back to me, which a not-insignificant number of people seem to be looking for in their comedy.
“white knight points”Eyeroll forever.Interesting choices of examples, btw. So a gang of misogynists and a homophobe. Cool.
So look forward to the new season
“Fuck you, Bernie!” is the right attitude for nearly all occasions.
If Colbert feels so strongly about Trump, maybe he should stop hosting Bernie, king of the griefers, quite so much until after he’s gone?
Are y’all really that scared of socialism?
It sucks how ever since the Kinjapocalypse, all the people with actual political convictions have gone and now we’re stuck with people who actually enjoy “Great Job, Internet” articles and the constant SNL and Samantha Bee circlejerks in this fucking site.Ironic since this site is the sister of The Onion and Kotaku, and yet both of them are more far left than the fucking AV Club.
The comments section is a wasteland of center Dems and a complete lack of gimmick accounts. It’s incredibly sad.And good point, this is the site that spawned this: and get still get unironic “fuck you Bernie” posts. Christ.
I’m gonna go fucking mad if someone at The AV Club thinks that Amy Kombucha is worth getting hundreds of articles stating how “cool” she is.
Splinter is there for you. Head on over. Farther left than the fucking Intercept nearly. Makes Jacobin look like InfoWars….
lol, imagine getting this upset because some people are to the left of democrats
When your yurt-dwelling pals and your fever dreams try to usurp a political party and cram your whole-loaf-or-nothing tactics that are proven electoral losers down the throats of those uninterested in your sandwich board rantings, Democrats tend to get upset by that.
anyone who isnt getting paid for it and self identifies as a democrat is a loser
it’s be like being a catholic, but less because of your relationship to God and more because of how much you respect the institutional power of the church
Thanks for that dispatch from the Yurt…
and get still get unironic “fuck you Bernie” posts. Christ.If you’re the smartest person in the room, why are your sentences so malformed and stupid? I know self-important BernieBros are closer to Trump than they are to genuine liberals, but shit, does it have to include the illiteracy as well?
here’s a malformed sentence for you, get stuffed nerd
I’m also very far left, and Bernie can just disappear please now. The torch has been passed. He helped shift the Overton window in 2016, and we have new generations that have shifted it with the momentum he helped generate ever more than he did in his years in Congress. Let him be a mentor at this point, and give the stage to younger progressives who have a longer future career.
THIS THIS THIS! I was a huge Bernie backer, state delegate, significant supporter.I want him nowhere near 2020. His job was to keep Hillary from running as a Republican.The torch has indeed been passed. Klobuchar, Harris, Brown (when he enters and he will) are all better and more electable Progressives WITHIN THE PARTY.Thank you, Bernie. For paving the way. Now go rile up the Senate for the rest of your career and let someone else take it from here.(Meanwhile, Eric Fucking Holder is considering entering the race? Stay the fuck home. Same for Biden and HRC. Voters need a “New party, who dis?” message.)
Ehhhh, Klobuchar (based on her running speech) is running as a centrist who thinks the problem in DC is “gridlock” and not Republican insanity. Harris is still a career prosecutor in an era that doesn’t look too kindly on Law and Order Dems. Brown would be cool (pro-labor Ohio politician that was reelected in 2018). I’m all for Warren’s message of “Washington is broken because of rich people and money in politics.” Like I’ll still vote for whoever ends up getting the nomination, but right now, I’m leaning more towards Warren (and AOC eventually).
You can count Brown out. He came out against single payer and actual Medicare for all. That is a litmus test issue. If you’re okay with people dying or suffering because they can’t afford healthcare, you’re not a progressive.
Klobuchar is early, her policies speak to being broader than centrist.Harris has already addressed the issues around her time as atty. general. If you think she’s not reading the room, you’re in the wrong room. I think in the end her ties to Time Warner are a bad look, and might pull her out, but she needs to be a driving voice (she might also be the rabbit in this long-distance race).Warren is, I hate to say it, John Kerry 2.0. I would’ve loved LOVED for her to run in 2016. She was the perfect ground between Hillary and Bernie.Still think any of the three of them are better than Biden. Brown is really my guy right now. Booker I’ve never liked.
I mean ditto to supporting whoever comes out of the race. And, at this point, it will be someone who has policies that aren’t the traditional centrist (unless we get Biden shoved down our throats), even if there are some individual policies that feel less than progressive.I still think the election can’t be won without a ticket that represents both the midwest and a POC/woman in some way with some kind of Congressional representation.
There are so many combinations of the current field that would be acceptable in a way that Clinton/Kaine completely whiffed. You don’t lose that race against that kind of opposition without totally missing the vibe of the country. Trump should’ve been demolished in the Electoral as well as the general vote.
liberals see politics like it’s a fucking reality TV show
until we start electing people based on policies, not personalities, we’re going to continue this handoff between an increasingly unmasked republican id and different versions of bill clinton until the world ends
No. Not liberals. History does. I’m sure it would feel great to be the guy who says “I know better,” but all you need to do is look at history. Not everybody in this country is smart. Few are having these kinds of conversations at all, let alone in Feb 2019.From JFK on, the President has either won based on fear or emotional connection. And that’s based on TV appeal. If it wasn’t, we’d have had at least one more President from Massachusetts (Kerry, maybe. Dukakis was a train wreck). And I think the curse of MA is going to be the burden that Warren faces… insanely smart, massively competent and qualified, comes off like a didactic “elite” (like Kerry).
Oh, we’re calling Harris a progressive now?
Oh noes. Someone was an atty. general and didn’t let all the people out of jail! She’s a fascist! Hey, remember Bernie’s hawt take on guns and how Progressive that was?Give me a fucking break. We’re going to litmus test in Feb., 2019? I mean I guess she could carry a bottle of hot sauce in her purse to blend in for photo ops to show she’s a real progressive. That seems to be where the Dems are comfy.I’ll settle for a candidate already advocating for national legalization of weed and chalk that up as a progressive stance (even if it was likely pandering).
lol centrists
Bruh, you don’t know how wrong you are. But good name calling. Great for the party.Bernie’s window is closed. Get over it.
Find another outlet for your sexism in this election, it tainted those of us who actually believed in Sanders’ policies last year to have the “Bros” jump on and drag him down.
By this point “Bernie Bros” seem to be less a real phenomenon than a rhetorical device one turns against certain potential candidates.
In reality, they’re as real as real. Especially around here. And I have a strong dislike for them because they really ruined what Sanders was doing in that election that attracted those of us who hadn’t been on the bandwagon for 15 seconds.To borrow from the Coen Brothers, here’s my advice on tracking down a Bernie Bro in the Kinja threads:Geisler: Look, you confused? You need guidance? Talk to another writer.Barton: Who?Geisler: Jesus, throw a rock in here, you’ll hit one. And do me a favor, Fink: throw it hard.
How would you define the term?
How would I define Bernie Bros? I might be not following the thread correctly.I mean I don’t like the name, but there definitely was (and remains) an overly zealous group of supporters who treat Sanders more like a cult of personality rather than seeing his imperfections vs. others who have similar policy approaches.
Again, as a Sanders delegate, I appreciated where he moved the conversation and pushed more of those topics into the forefront and make them realistic talking points in the current atmosphere. That said, he isn’t the right candidate for the time now unless we go by “he got us here, he deserves the reward.” Which is the same thing that gave us HRC and the problems of her campaign.
Yes, that is what I was asking.I have too much to do to respond again right now, but I’m not accusing you specifically of being disingenuous in how you’re talking about it — the things you’re saying all seem pretty well considered.
“Bernie Bro’s” were never a real phenomenon. They were a handful of twitter bots and trolls who were amplified by the Clinton campaign.
I think it was at least very exaggerated. Distorted by people interacting too much online and not enough in real life.
So Baracka is a bot… That makes so much more sense.
You have “taint” and “sex” in the same sentence. Heh-heh huh-huh
her whole career is pandering, and you have bernie sanders to thank that she’s pandering leftward right now
1) Litmus tests are literally almost the entire point of a primary. You’re weeding out the candidates that don’t meet a certain standard. 2) AGs have tremendous leeway in what they prioritize. (If you don’t believe me, I actually suggest the piece on them last year by….John Oliver.) Harris was an especially harsh one – that was her choice, and was in contrast to the more lenient AG she ran against and replaced, as well as more progressive AGs now like Larry Krasner. That suggests some things about how she will govern. Sorry, but it’s a primary and pointing out the flaws of candidates is fair game. Get used to it.
1. That’s not the kind of litmus test I’m discussing (and I think you know that, at least if you were alive and kicking in 2016 when the idea and impact of litmus tests in the primary/election became an issue). The “I’ll never vote for X” is fine in the primary. But kick that shit to the curb when it comes to the general. Litmus tests help no one. Being an educated and open voter is fine. Again, we’re in Feb. 2019. Crossing people off the list in permanent ink at this point is stupid and childish.2. Did you live in CA during her administration? I did. I wouldn’t call her a Progressive AG, but also need to realize the incredibly conservative state congress she was dealing with. The fact that she developed programs that created more police accountability that were expanded to a national level says a lot. You can argue that she didn’t do enough, but you also have to look at the context in which she was working. Fact is she’s one of the more electable candidates in the field right now, like it or not.
1. By the same token, it’s Feb. 2019 and there is no harm whatsoever in knocking out the candidates who are not worth our time. I think you’re greatly overrating the effect of the “litmus tests” (Trump won because half the country chose to be disengaged from politics entirely. The tiny minority of Bernie voters who didn’t vote for Hillary – less than the ‘08 Hillary voters that refused to vote for Obama, even – are but a drop in the bucket). But even if you think they are such a big deal, for god’s sake, NOW is the time to have them. It’s right now that we can decide that we don’t want to vote for anyone who tried to maintain prison labor or takes gobs of money from Wall Street, as opposed to a year and a half from now when we can no longer stop their nomination. This idea that we shouldn’t be massively critical of candidates in the early stages of a primary is just bad faith tone policing. 2. I didn’t though I have a lot of family there, but who cares? Her record is well known. The “context” is that she ran to the right of an existing AG who was not as bloodthirsty. AGs have a ton of discretion and she used it the way she did. I’m not sympathetic to the supposed “pressures” she faced given that she went far beyond them and was vocally proud of things like jailing the parents of kids who had missed school. You may not like litmus tests, but if your #1 concern is really electability, you may want to at least consider the voices of those who have doubts about her or feel they can’t support her, because again, come June 2020 it’s going to be too late to either change course with a different candidate or win those people over. I’m not in a swing state, so my vote frankly is not terribly consequential in the general, but from where I’m standing Harris is looking like Hillary 2.0 right now.
Litmus tests and hearing those who have doubts are two different things when we are two. fucking. weeks. past the announcement of candidacy.Look, hurray for Twitter warp-speed and all that. But there’s a LONG way to go in this campaign and there are ZERO candidates right now who are perfect. We’ll be picking them apart for a while. Howard Schultz is really the only one who can fuck off right now because he’s being treated like a candidate with no political experience and no announcement of candidacy.We don’t need to have picked our candidate almost a FULL GODDAMNED YEAR before the first caucus (Iowa… Feb. 3, 2020!). For christ’s sake. It’s just insanity.Debate them. Fine. But the “that’s a nah from me dog” takes this early reflects two problems with this audience: they want to be satisfied immediately and they will be impossible to satisfy.And, not that I want to go to bat this hard for Harris (though I consider her one of the stronger candidates right now), but if you think she’s Hillary 2.0, you haven’t paid attention. Gillenbrand might as well be her twin sister.
Personally I’m fine with picking my candidate now because I’m pretty familiar with all of them and what they all stand for, and I know which one is closest to my politics (Sanders, who truthfully is not even nearly left-wing enough for the present moment demands, but is by far the closest thing; Warren would be a decent back-up plan). If someone else comes forward who I feel has a real chance of winning and is more progressive, then of course I’ll consider them – if in some crazy scenario the Constitutional age minimum is removed and Ocasio-Cortez decides to run then honestly, debate over, there’s my candidate. But given the realistic options that we know about RIGHT NOW, I feel comfortable picking. None of these candidates are new. We’ve had many years to follow them and see what they stand for, and the reality is that I find virtually all of them wanting (including Sanders and Warren, but we are still talking a scale here), and the majority of them basically not acceptable.
That’s the thing – you’re treating it as if these are all new people to the political scene, and some progressives and leftists are writing them off because of some little thing or another without looking at them in totality. That’s just not the case. I ALREADY DID NOT LIKE Booker, Gillibrand, Biden, etc. Only Beto (as far as the major candidates go) is really new to most of us and at this point we’ve still had plenty of time to look over his record, figure out what he’s stood for over the years, and accept or reject him on that basis. The rest, I can safely say I’ve been dreading the announcements of for years already.
And yeah, Gilibrand, with her extremely right-wing immigration record (at least in the House) and otherwise consistently centrist politics, is not necessarily a flattering comparison here. Just saying.
No offense, but this is why Trump won. Right here. Pre-determining candidates, not letting them evolve or let the outskirts come back to the popular fold.I’ve been a Progressive for 30 years. And there’s one basic truth: You can’t have Progress if you don’t have power. Is that selling out to center? Only if you’re the political version of a record store snob (“That band was cool and then they went big and are now lame!”). The reality of many Progressives is that they want to rant against the system. Which is necessary it forces the conversation, but it doesn’t get things done. That requires coming back a few steps and THEN pushing forward.Support the candidates that push the agenda, but ALSO support the candidates that can make parts (if not all) of that agenda happen. And build from there.That’s called reality. Check it out some time.
“No offense, but this is why Trump won.”
That’s quite a reach. All I’m doing is what any reasonable person would do, which is look at the long, publically available records of all these people and assess them that way. Even a cursory glance at electoral history would show that candidates that govern one way at lower offices don’t tend to change that drastically when put into another office, even if they ran as an “evolved” person. Sure, it’s good to pressure candidates to evolve, but that’s different from automatically giving Kamala Harris the benefit of the doubt that she’s done a total 180 on her views on law and order since literally just two years ago when she was gleefully and proudly locking up black kids for extended sentences for dope. It’s good that she feels pressured enough to say she’s for legalization now, but it’s also incredibly naive to believe her.
And look man, if Harris or Booker or whoever (hell, even Biden…maybe…) is nominated then I hope they beat Trump, truly, because I recognize that they would be the lesser of two evils in that scenario. But until then there’s still a primary and it’s fair to assess whether the candidates running are truly progressive based on their records and not just the shallow words that tend to come with campaigning. None of us owes any benefit of the doubt to any particular candidates running when there are like 20 others we can look at if we want to. Make them work for it.
There’s a difference between “make them work for it” (a correct take) and “I’m fine with picking my candidate now” in Feb. 2019 (which suggests a closed-mindedness that led to the Bernie Bros-phenomenon of 2016 and certainly played a significant role in Trump’s victory).Maybe I’m reading a logical inconsistency into that contrast that isn’t there. Maybe you are really in the middle of the two (your second comment suggests as much). But I know more than a few people (smart, reasonable people) who decided that there was “no way in hell” they were voting for HRC in a general.That kind of thinking was a selfish (and condemnable) luxury even in 2016. It’s tantamount to idiocy in 2020. That “I’ve made my mind up now on who to eliminate” take at best needs to be held at bay until… I don’t know… the summer?… if not completely nipped in the bud.
eMy stance is that here in February 2019 I have a pretty good handle on who all the candidates are and what they all stand for (except maybe Klobuchar who I’ve never thought much about, but she’s DOA anyway and the most notable thing about her appears to be that she beats her own staff) and can at least tentatively stake out my position now. None of them are particularly obscure figures and it’s not like I haven’t had plenty of time to form opinions on them and their politics. I’ve lived in NY and NJ both and I’ve made enough calls to Booker and Gilibrand’s offices alone to know that I have serious concerns about them and always have. And since I’m a (literally card-carrying) democratic socialist it makes sense that I would line up behind the one democratic socialist running. Who else would I pick?
No, I don’t see any contradiction. If for whatever reason Bernie drops out or some other candidate comes along that I prefer I still reserve the right to switch to them. But more importantly, I already know that I’m well to the left of all the candidates running (even Bernie really, but he’s the closest by far) and have no reason to go through mental gymnastics to justify picking Harris or Beto instead. When I say “make them work for it,” that doesn’t mean not having a preference, but rather it’s simply saying that if any of them want to be viewed as progressive, or anywhere close to as progressive as what I would prefer, they need to work at it. I’m not just going to watch Harris talk about weed on a podcast (where she lied about her story!) and take her word for it. She has to demonstrate that she’s actually changed and not just talk about listening to albums that were out in her 30s “in college” and expect me to give her the benefit of the doubt that she’s sincere. She can sponsor legalization bills, apologize personally to people she locked up, etc. You know, WORK for it, not just splash something on her website and expect me to buy it.
And again, if she’s nominated of course I hope she doesn’t blow it to Trump, but part of the reason we’re having this discussion is that to me she looks like someone who will blow it if she gets that far. I’m fine with saying that, yes, in a PRIMARY, she should probably be eliminated unless she can make a truly serious effort to demonstrate change.
lol at Klobuchar, Harris, or brown actually being leftists, let alone comparable to Bernie.
give me a break
I wish there was a Bernie aged between 35-69 too, but those entire generations were lost to cold war panic, sorkin west wing centrist bullshit, and religious belief in technocracy.
Until socialist millenials like AOC are old enough to be president, bernie is our only bulwark against the 35-year death-spiral-handoff between centrist technocrat dems and increasingly fascist republicans
I used to post here years ago, and honestly, i’m shocked at how much it sucks now
Never said they were leftists, only that they were more progressive than centrists. Listen, bud. I’ve been in this game for too long to put up with this constant goalpost shifting bullshit. Emma Fucking Goldman isn’t walking through that door and AOC, bless her soul, is unelectable for at least another 20 years in this country. She’s blazing a trail, I support all that she’s doing. She will absolutely not play outside of the coasts. Like at all (having moved from the coasts to Iowa, I can tell you that the support is growing, but there are many, MANY fucking bozos who are easily duped here).We had the kind of President we need right now from 1976-1980. How does history view Carter’s presidency (not the man, the presidency)? That’s the battle that we’re up against. Taking a flamethrower to it might feel good, but it won’t get a win and definitely won’t make change.It’s not a Centrist view to say that you can’t just force a supercharged democratic socialist agenda down the throat of indie voter America and say “Deal with it!” We don’t just recover from the 20 year Clintonization of the party in one fell swoop.Sanders made the conversation legitimate. Are others pandering because they’re embracing that conversation? Maybe. But I’ll take that kind of pandering over the HRC kind of pandering to the right.
Bernie is the only bulwark….
HAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHHA
If he couldn’t get 10 POC votes last time, what’s he going to do when black people are candidates too? With several of the same positions as he does (shitty positions, but still)? Fuck Bernie Sanders Forever
Harris and Klobuchar are not progressives. Come on.I wish there was someone younger who could take his place in 2020, really, but the most obvious choice is literally too young to run. The Gen X candidates are centrists to their core. Yes, all of them. A bunch of younger Democratic voters are now self-described socialists, and people still act like it’s a surprise that the prefer the one person running who also calls himself one. It’s unreal.
If by “most obvious choice” you mean AOC, fucking STOOOOOOOOPPPPPPP it. She JUST won her election. What has she ACCOMPLISHED??? I like her, truly, but fucksakes people she is HUGELY untested. Just…. Ugh. Cult of goddam personality like the Moonies…
It has nothing to do with cult of personality and everything to do with her politics. I’m not advocating for her to run or anything, but my point in alluding to her is that she’s the only figure with anywhere near Sanders’ clout and name recognition who actually shares his politics and hasn’t just been pulled left on a few issues. Just saying: WHO can you name who is as left as Sanders, who actually has a shot at the presidency? That’s my point. Warren is decent but still nowhere close, and Harris, Booker, Gilibrand, etc are good at paying lip service on a few things but are hardly good replacements for him. As for AOC’s accomplishments, well, she’s pulled the Overton window hugely to the left on a bunch of issues. Especially under a GOP administration, that’s pretty significant. And it’s more than a looooot or longtime Democrats have been able to do, or even tried to do.
“anywhere near Sanders’ clout”What? Like….. No, seriously, wut? He’s a veteran senator. He’s been at it for DECADES. He has helped create and pass legislation for y e a r s. She has NO clout! A strong Millennial internet following is great and helpful and she’s popular with us Olds as well but ffs how the shit can you even *remotely* contend that she’s *remotely* close to a Sanders? She can *barely* get her own goddam party to tolerate her. And hey, that is to their detriment! They are being stupid by digging in their heels as much as they are. Centrism doesn’t seem like a good idea at the moment. But still, AOC fanboi nonsense has got to stop. I’m not shitting you when I say that her own “fan base” (it’s not even “supporters” at this point – she’s like a fucking Marvel movie) is doing her a disservice by being such irredeemably obnoxious toolbags.
She’s probably one of the most popular figures in politics right now. You don’t have to like the “cult” as you put it, but it doesn’t matter – Obama was also basically a cult following in 2007/08 and clearly that propelled him as far as his run for office. And yes, a lot of the inner party can’t stand her, but I think you’re missing that that’s a fairly central part of her appeal. Most Democratic voters at least slightly distrust the party at this point or at least don’t feel it’s pushing far enough with progressive policies. That’s why people love her. There’s only a handful of other people (Sanders, Tlaib, Omar, Ro Khanna, a couple others) who are doing what she’s doing.And anyway, by “clout” I mean electability. I love Barbara Lee and Ro Khanna for instance, but I’m not insane enough to think that they have the name recognition necessary at the moment to mount a successful presidential run (though, check back in a few years with Khanna). I only bring up AOC in the first place because she’s the only other figure I can think of who has that type of name recognition and, yes, following that she could pull it off, in different circumstances. And that’s all just to say that if someone believes in leftist or socialist policies, unless something crazy happens in the next few months, Sanders really is the only choice, whatever his faults.
That’s fair. It just feels excessively cart before horse.
Yes. All the centrists are calling for legalization of weed. Believe it or not, pro-Union is actually not a centrist position any more in this country. Increasing minimum wage is still, shockingly, a progressive stance.Just because you want to push it harder doesn’t make those stances not progressive. Socialism (even in the Democratic Socialist approach) /= Progressivism. It’s a turbo-charged version. And that’s great.There is more to the country than internet message boards and Twitter. The sooner Ys learn this, the better off they’ll be.
Let’s just be clear on this: Harris is paying lip service to legalize weed now, after treating weed smokers (especially the poor and those of color) incredibly badly not even all that long ago. I’m sure those still serving their lengthy sentences would find the dismissiveness around that a little irritating. Look, I’m glad that politically she feels she has to advocate for legalization now that it’s a mainstream position, but she still did what she did and it’s fair to have doubts about what her follow through would be when put in power on that issue again. As well, weed legalization is not the entirety of criminal justice issues. She’s a centrist. That’s just the truth. You can like that or not, but we shouldn’t be holding her up as more progressive (or more left or whatever) than she actually is.
Here’s the thing. Centrist isn’t an “eye of the beholder” thing. It’s not like a cool indie band that “sells out.” Many of the policies that these so-called centrists are advocating aren’t mainstream, they’re just being talked about more. That doesn’t make the policy any less progressive because the ideas are becoming more popular and acceptable. And, yes, I’ll agree that Harris has the whiff of pander to her, but calling her centrist is applying a definition that isn’t accurate.
I know what a centrist is, thanks. And I’m happy that a lot of centrists are adopting more progressive policy proposals (which hopefully soon will no longer be considered so radical).
The reality is still that the majority of the mainstream of the Democratic Party are centrists, not progressives. They are to the center-left and not further, unlike the GOP which is made up mostly of right-wing extremists. Yes, Kamala Harris is a centrist. That might even be putting it nicely regarding some of her policy history, as a lot of the “tough on crime” policy she’s pursued could reasonably be called straight-up right wing. Some lip-service on her on her and other centrists’ part to some progressive ideas doesn’t change this fundamental reality.
If that appeals to you, that’s fine, but don’t give me a cow and tell me it’s a pig.
Considering how liberals still fawn over an 86 year old Supreme Court judge, how the greatest Democratic Socialist leader in Latin America (Jose Mujica) was 71 when he was elected and how Malaysia recently elected a 92 year old for Prime Minister, the idea that Bernie is “too old” to run is just pure bullshit.
“Considering how liberals still fawn over an 86 year old Supreme Court judge”We don’t really have a choice there. If she pops her clogs anytime soon, it won’t matter if you elect Bernie’s hipper and even leftier younger brother, because the country is toast.As for the rest, too old is too fucking old. I’m not voting for another boomer unless I have no choice.
So you have no argument to back up why Bernie’s age disqualifies him from running? It’s all “feels over reals” for you?Liberal contrarians are the fucking worst.
“So you have no argument”I do have an argument, you just don’t like it. That’s your problem, not mine.“contrarians”I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
And, amusingly, helping make the original poster’s point by arguing with you about Bernie’s age.
Not wanting someone to run because of age is not an argument. At all.There have been excellent old leaders elected when they’re old. I’ve given an example.If Bernie can become America’s Pepe Mujica if he was elected, why would age matter at all?
That’s great, gramps. Meanwhile, the rest of us are sitting here still bound by the bullshit of centuries’ worth of crusty old dudes who started pointless wars, wrecked entire economies and hoarded all the wealth to themselves, all while ponderously telling us they knew better.
Oh, but you gave me an example of one old dude who’s kind of okay. I’ll throw him on the pile with the rest, see if that improves conditions any.
Sebastian Kurz is 32 years old and his immigration policy is more fascist than Orban.Age doesn’t mean shit. You must be the same moron who thinks that “Racism will die within the next generation” and thinks that all Trump rally attendees are elderly baby boomers while ignoring the white 20-something frat boy douchebags and Gamergaters in those rallies.
“You must be the same moron who thinks that “Racism will die within the next generation” and thinks that all Trump rally attendees are elderly baby boomers while ignoring the white 20-something frat boy douchebags and Gamergaters in those rallies.”I’m sorry, I don’t have enough Nicolas Cages in stock to fill all those strawmen. It’s gonna have to be a special order and you’ll need to put a 50% deposit down. Should take a couple weeks to get them in. That work for you?
Yeah I will strawman you, bitch. Take it or leave it.
Will that be cash or credit?
Don’t care,You still don’t have an argument.
If she pops her clogs anytime soon, it won’t matter if you elect Bernie’s hipper and even leftier younger brother, because the country is toast.It’s toast right up to when a democratic majority decides SCOTUS could use more Supremes on the court. Nine is carved neither in stone nor the constitution. And there are always ways to neutralize the GOP’s toxic bullshit.
You can’t even get a majority of Senate Dems to axe the filibuster, so thinking any of the current crop are going to push for an embiggened SCOTUS is the height of lunacy.
That’s hilarious. You seem to be under the impression that the average Dem politician’s testicular fortitude varies wildly from issue to issue. Best of luck with that.
you’re right, the main reason we don’t like him is cause he’s an asshole and his (mostly white mostly male) diehard followers are bigger assholes
The problem is none of those people are running for president. Some aren’t old enough yet. The only one remotely close is Elizabeth Warren, and I would vote for Warren, but she’s the only one.
have you seen splinter, like at all?they’re so far left they’re at the point of sabotage.
Some of us lurk here but it’s seemingly impossible to get promoted from the greys.
I’ve been posting here since before the days of Dawes jokes and CancerAIDS, but sorry for fighting in the middle of your Black Panther party.
Nope. Just can’t abide Bernie. AOC and I can talk in 2028.
Cool.
AOC sounds more genuine because she doesn’t own three homes and $600 inauguration jackets the way Bernie does.
LOL. AOC has no chance ever. They will bury that woman for the rest of her career.
I cant hate on Bernie, but his Bros can suck it. Especially that weasel carrying a dump sign through penn station whose ass I wanted to hand to him in summer 16.
My feelings too. I’ve realized that, for better or worse, my candidate preference is often influenced by how tolerable I find their worst supporters. The PUMA’s really turned me off Hillary in 2016 and The Bernie Bros reminded me too much of every entitled rich kid I went to college with who complained about injustice while wearing designer tie-die. Of course some of them literally where the same people I went to college with.
If the Democratic Socialism they promote so terrible, why is Bernie the most popular politician in the US? Why is Norway (according to Forbes) the happiest place on earth to live? You must stop conflating Socialism and Democratic Socialism or you’ll end up with a very painful ulcer.
YES! AOC for PREZ 2028!
Not at all, but Bernie’s online cult is almost indistinguishable from Trump’s if I’m being honest. Say, for instance, that you make an innocuous comment about Bernie’s age – within about five seconds you’ll have someone like Caitlin Johnstone vomiting some ridiculous response such as, “YOU ARE A DERANGED MCCARTHYIST WARMONGING CENTRIST MORON AND GO FUCK YOURSELF.” It’s as if these jamokes decided that the only way to combat Trumpism was to go all-in on being just as horrible, just on the left side of the pendulum swing. Ocasio-Cortez, at least, has better branding – “socialism for sane people” seems to be the direction she’s going in.As for me, y’all can miss me completely with the Assange worship, the “FAKE NEWS!” screams about Russia, and the implication that a Democratic establishment candidate is ten times worse than Trump that I keep hearing day-in and day-out from Extreme Bernieland. A great deal of the reason why Trump is the worst is because he enables assholes, and I don’t see how doing the same thing – just on the left – is any better.
Bernie’s online cult is almost indistinguishable from Trump’s “You also had some very fine people on both sides,”
“Bernie’s online cult is almost indistinguishable from Trump’s”Oh, okay.
You seem extremely confused. What exactly is this “Extreme Bernieland” that you’re hearing from day-in and day-out? What does Assange or “FAKE NEWS” screams about Russia have to do with Bernie Sanders?
“Ocasio-Cortez, at least, has better branding”Whoops! Your mask slipped a bit and now we can see that policy means fuck-all to you clowns. Image and branding are your number one priorities and anything that might improve the lives of Americans is ancillary at best.Now Bernie’s “cult” on the other hand would disappear in a cloud of smoke the moment he backs off of any of the policies he mainstreamed. You know, the policies that are being adopted by most of the Dem candidates in 2020. So I think you meant to say “Thanks Bernard! Thanks for taking the flaming train wreck we call a party and forcibly putting it back on the track to relevance! Sorry for being such a myopic ShitLib who can be bought with a catchy slogan!”
“You clowns”? Exactly what circus do you think I belong to, friend?Bernie Sanders hasn’t put the Democratic Party on a track to relevance. He’s achieved what he has and gained what he has by appealing to disaffected liberals who believe the Democrats went off the rails. He’s not trying to put the Dems back on the right track. He’s on his own spur. And the Democrats haven’t learned a single lesson from Sanders or his appeal (or, for that matter, from AOC, who most Dems appear to want closed off somewhere where she can’t be heard or seen). The Democratic Party is in total disarray and it shows every day. I can’t think of a single Dem candidate who would earn my vote if an election took place tomorrow.As for the “ShitLib” comment, well… I do thank you for the proof of concept from the tail end of my OP. The Asshole Punditry is dedicated to labeling anyone who veers even slightly from their own ironclad views as morons, shitheads, myopics, villains, and so forth. That’s why I believe the biggest threat to this country is not conservatives, or liberals, or centrists, but assholes.
You’re a clown because you believe the biggest threat to this country is people with bad manners. You don’t care who gets into office as long as they’re inoffensive.Seriously, only a fucking moron looks at two candidates, one advocating for free healthcare and education and the other cozying up to white supremacists, and says “These two things are basically the same. I see no difference”.I’m sorry if the vulgarity was too much for you. Perhaps you should lie down.
The vulgarity doesn’t bother me. The strawman does. And that, indeed, is my point – principles such as free healthcare and subsidized education are fantastic ideas that deserve better advocates than people who get their rocks off by willfully misrepresenting the truth and attacking anyone who isn’t in lockstep.
It’s not a straw man. You’re equating two vastly different politicians. Don’t throw that term around if you don’t fully understand it.
Don’t respond to a comment unless you can fully understand it. I wasn’t comparing Sanders and Trump at all – I was comparing their evangelical bases and their vituperative natures, which you are highlighting better than I ever could have. Hence my use of “strawman,” because you are willfully misrepresenting my argument. But here again is a terrific example of how you and others from Extreme Bernieland (and MAGALand and Gamergate and an ever-burgeoning caste of misguided culture warriors) aren’t interested in a dialogue, but rather in being as confrontational as possible in service of a misguided notion that you are being positively disruptive to the system.
I support what Bernie Sanders stands for. I don’t support the way his extreme supporters piss and shit on anybody who doesn’t fit the exact requirements of Bernie Orthodoxy.
“I was comparing their evangelical bases and their vituperative natures”I mean, I wasn’t taking you that seriously to begin with but I really can’t sit here and watch you sniff your own farts all day.
Shoulda known that a sixth-grade level word would be too intimidating for you.
Maybe if you didn’t spend all of your time googling archaic words to punch up your gaslighting bullshit you could string together a coherent thought.
It’s called the Horseshoe Theory of Politics, and I’ve been trying to make more people aware of it ever since Bernie’s and Trump’s anti-immigrant stances fell into perfect alignment.
Oh boy my favorite part of the horseshoe theory is how no one can site a specific example of collaboration between fascists and the far left. “They’re both challenging the status quo so they must be the same!”Centrists and liberals on the other hand prove time and again they’ll work with the far right rather than socialists or communists.
Oh boy my favorite part of the horseshoe theory is how no one can site a specific example of collaboration between fascists and the far left.Right, because the theory doesn’t mention “collaboration” at all. You’re attempting to misquote the theory as a means to dismiss it, which is your damage. Meanwhile, there IS a connection between the fringe right’s and fringe left’s love affair with lazy and uneducated populism, preference for an authoritarian figure with absolute power over open democracy, rampant and open misogyny/racism/homophobia, isolationist foreign policy (and all the sinister anti-immigrant rhetoric that goes along with that), and general anti-liberal attitudes. People like you are the living, breathing examples. Centrists and liberals on the other hand prove time and again they’ll work with the far right rather than socialists or communists.When progressives are done being the asshole, maybe more people will want to work with them.
I am just in awe of your impossibly smooth brain and your ability to cherry pick examples pulled straight from your imagination and present them as solid and real.
Wow, just look at you, losing your shit six ways to Sunday by a little pushback. And this is supposed to be your evidence that you’re NOT like a right-winger?
horseshoe theory is absolute nonsense created to let centrists pat themselves on the back
bernie and trump’s only crossover was that they both spoke about the way NAFTA and globalization has destroyed the earning power of the working class at home. They didnt have similar prognoses for the problem (and Trump was disingenuous), they were simply both willing to admit that wages have fucking stagnated, while Hillary was left stammering “well I think America is already great” because to say otherwise would be to admit the failure of 30 years of technocratic Democrats to really fight for working people—Trump could at least *pretend* to be an outsider
Fishhook theory is equally as scientific, and heres how it works: look at a fishhook. See how the right end curves back into the middle? That’s where you are
We know about Horseshoe theory, thanks. We just think it’s stupid. Bernie Sanders is definitely not perfect on immigration (as someone who actually knows any leftists, trust me, it is one source of consternation with him), but to compare him to Trump is just absurd. You might be thinking of Obama, the most deportation-happy president ever up that point and the source of much of Trump’s border powers and policy now.
The Horseshoe Theory is idiotic bullshit.
Uh, because if they’re actually on the left, assholes or not, their policies are good, not terrible? Your comment makes it look like your main concern is how nice people are to you on the internet.
You’re gonna smacktalk the Berners while stanning for AOC??? She is the Firefly of politicians: very good but *woefully* overrated and followed by willfully blind, self-righteous internet jagoffs.
I’m not “stanning” for AOC. Far from it. I like her style, I like her public approach to the Old White Guy establishment, and I think she shows promise. But until I see more than a great branding strategy, I’m reserving judgment.
Fair. But you called out Berners for their bullshit and I’m saying AOC has her very large, very vocal share of obnoxious self-righteous internet tough guys too. Bernie Bros bad, yes. But AOC fanbois *also* bad.
I think the takeaway I want to leave with people is that evangelical fanbases of virtually any candidate, regardless of political bent, are veering towards the worst obnoxiousness. Berners, AOC evangelists, Trumpists, Clintonistas, the lot. Politics is turning into trench warfare and I feel like most of us are stuck in No Man’s Land.And it’s not just a matter of manners. Being nice doesn’t solve bad policy. But being an asshole – even in the service of good policy and good ideas – is counterproductive at best and pejorative to the cause. Because if someone acts like an asshole, it means that somewhere in their makeup there is a sociopathy that allows them to actively and willfully diminish someone else’s life with no sense of shame.
I think politics has followed a lot of cultural conversation in that way. I compared AOC to a Marvel movie in these same article comments and while that was hyperbolic it’s also not crazily far off base. The internet/social media has managed to encourage this trench warfare, as you called it. It’s just easier these days to indulge in antagonistic tribalism.
Oh baby you bet.
No, I’m scared of Bernie or Bust. Could’ve used some of those votes in 2016 by those who didn’t.
Or… no?
Sad that only 1 in 3 of the electorate (or 1 in 4 of the UK population) actually voted to Leave – but we’re stuck with ‘what the British people called for’? Actually, it’s only what some of them call for on that day, without knowing the facts
Democracy is a harsh mistress, indeed.
Especially when her lovers are a bunch of idiots.
Not harsh enough. Democracy has been more like a negligient parent lately.
The Brexit vote should have never happened in the first place.David Cameron is a fucking idiot for thinking that people’s dissatisfaction with The EU justifies a vote on their membership.As Amber from Chapo Trap House said 2 episodes ago: “Everyone in the world hates their fucking job, and yet no one’s going to quit their job en masse and create a commune in the woods”. That’s the perfect analogy for Brexit right there.When Cameron announced the referendum my response was: “Is he fucking stupid?”
I liked this analogy too:
It was a hubris thing. Cameron wanted to win the general election, shut up factions of the Tories and end the conversation on Europe for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately his ambitions considerably exceeded his political skill and now we have this mess.
Yeah, Cameron thought no idiot would vote for Brexit – but then again, some idiots had voted him into power, so…
Sounds like people who claim that “majority of us” voted for Trump, even though he lost the popular election.
welcome to the world of electoral college fiasco.
I think it was a bit shifty that they didn’t ask the Brits living abroad in the EU. I think it was also a bit shifty that they didn’t ask 16 year olds and up since it’s their future. I also think it is a lot shifty that a lot of the loudest cheerleaders for Brexit are rich financial types who will a) be fine either way and b) clearly had an eye to opportunities for some disaster capitalism.
Oliver got booed by the audience when he suggested that people might
have to strap themselves and their civil rights in for the long haul of
Trump’s entire first term—and possibly beyond.
They boo, but this really is the outlook people should take because we saw what happened when they all thought he could never win. I mean, if we’re looking at things for what’s possible, there are several scenarios (in increasing severity):He’s impeached before the end of his first term.He makes it to the end of his first term, but is not placed on the ballot. (unlikely)He makes to to the end of his first term, but loses the election.Starts a second term, but is impeached before it ends.Finishes a second term, but somehow convinces people to end the two term limit and we’re potentially in for 3+ terms.
He finds a way to ignore the elections entirely and refuses to leave office.To assume anything in the first half of that list puts us in a very similar situation to before the the 2016 election or the recent Governor race in GA.
I don’t think he gets a second term, but I am very concerned that the last bullet point might be a reality. Especially since he knows the only thing keeping him out of prison right now is the unwillingness to indict a sitting president.
We didn’t think he’d get a first term either though.
Funny what happens when you don’t campaign in battleground states late.
lol you think harris or booker is going to beat him in a general election. that timeline is looking horrifying
In the end, I think it’s Brown/Harris or Biden/Klobuchar. Maybe Booker over Biden?I’d like to see both of those switch places, but I think sexism is still too deeply engrained.And, yes, any of those combinations wipe the fucking floor with that moron. Only way Dems lose is if they fuck up campaigning in (or don’t have a candidate from) the Rust Belt/Upper Midwest again.
both of those tickets lose to Trump. they’re identical (to the average voter) to the clinton/kaine campaign. we’ve already tried this (center-left politicians who want to focus on norms/decency and vague promises for progress e.g. $12 min wage and AFFORDABLE healthcare rather than M4A) in 2016 and it FAILED.
The average voter? Where did Clinton lose the Electoral? Do you think that either of those candidates would not impact those areas?I mean, not for nothing, he difference between a late-40’s Progressive like me and, I’m guessing, a 20-something one like you who just discovered Bernie online a couple years back is having lived through these actual elections.There won’t be a problem getting the areas that are blue to vote blue. The areas that vote red aren’t changing. We can Stacey Abrams all we want, GA isn’t in play for 2020. Texas? Maybe. It would be very impressive, but feels unlikely.2016 was lost because HRC abandoned the Midwest. Period. All the Russian stuff are excuses in the end.Brown pulls Ohio. No longer a swing state. Klobuchar pulls a state that isn’t really in play, but represents the drive to have a strong woman candidate who connects with the Midwest. Neither of them make the mistake of blowing those states off, for sure. (And, sadly, we have a lot less racism to deal with from “average” — read: swing or “low-information” or “moron” voters). Also, have you heard Brown? The fuck you think he’s doing that is Centrist. I mean, it’s okay to say you don’t know what you’re talking about. Don’t worry. There’s a lot of time in this election for you to forget that you said something so inaccurate.
But yes, Kamala Harris and Tim Kaine are almost identical twins. GTFO here.
ok let’s do this point by point: Where did Clinton lose the Electoral? Do you think that either of those candidates would not impact those areas?They may, but milquetoast centrist Dems are not going to win on “I’m not Trump he’s bad”- see 2016. The point was TURNOUT for voting for Clinton. Trump (and any R) receives the same votes roughly as Romney and Mccain, so that’s ALWAYS what you’re going against.we can Stacey Abrams all we want, GA isn’t in play for 2020. Texas? Maybe. It would be very impressive, but feels unlikely.2016 was lost because HRC abandoned the Midwest. Period. All the Russian stuff are excuses in the end.We completely agree here, except I would argue HRC lost because her policy messaging was a complete DUD. People want simple, effective changes to their lives. Pushing M4A is the MINIMUM for a candidate to win in 2020. Anyone who comes back with “affordable healthcare” is going to lose. Same for other positions. We have to shift the overton window. Brown pulls Ohio. No longer a swing state. Klobuchar pulls a state that isn’t really in play, but represents the drive to have a strong woman candidate who connects with the Midwest. Neither of them make the mistake of blowing those states off, for sure. (And, sadly, we have a lot less racism to deal with from “average” — read: swing or “low-information” or “moron” voters). Ok sure. But so what about the “electoral math guessing blue/purple/etc.”? That was done to death in 2016. Shouldn’t we be pushing for the most progressive candidates possible since we know “realistic, tried-and-true” politicians won’t beat a monster like Trump? What lessons do you think can be learned from 2016, besides “don’t skip the midwest”. like do you really think HRCs policy positions, etc. were super exciting and inspiring (see 2008 Obama)? Basically, if you think this whole mess is simply because she didn’t campaign hard enough then I don’t think we’re going to agree on the path forward. Which is OK- weirdly we sort of want the same thing. We just seem to have vastly different approaches to it.ETA: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/12/sherrod-brown-medicare-green-new-deal-1165560
Ugh. This is what I love and hate about the Democratic Party: We get into shouting matches about things that we absolutely agree on over the degrees to which we think they have to be done.Like the link to the Brown article. Is that supposed to show that he isn’t supportive because he’s not backing this. particular. bill.? The Green New Deal, while a great flag to throw into the ground, is a complete non-starter as a piece of legislation in the current Congress. Probably not the greatest to try and separate himself by being a “follow in lock-step” member if he’s afraid of all the “socialism is going to kill us” claptrap around the Green New Deal. But right now, he’s trying to keep his powder dry since it is February 2019…. There’s so long to go on this.Which is why the “milquetoast” take just doesn’t fly. Look at the last two Dem presidents. Neither were on the map at this point. Like at all. There’s a chance that someone is going to storm out five months from now. So I can’t go with the idea that we have to lockdown right now or start dismissing candidates (unless they are just ridiculous… Schultz, PETE!, etc.).But make no mistake, even though HRC was a terrible candidate for the year that she ran (overwhelmingly qualified, but incapable of overcoming her baggage in a way to push through the sexism) strategy was just as bad as policy (which wasn’t as bad as progressives want to blame her for).Dem presidents since JFK: LBJ (got the job by default), Carter, Clinton, Obama. Those three all had a little p populism and engaged on an emotional level. So barring that kind of force (newsflash, the only one right now is Beto! and he is such a bad choice… like monstrously bad), someone is going to have to come with The Big Idea!We’ve got that in droves right now, but we have (and these are all worst-case cynical takes from an assumed POV of non-Dems… not my personal belief): the cranky old man (Sanders), the talking-down schoolmarm (Warren), Obama redux (Booker) and the angry black lady (Harris).At this point, “Who’s that?” is a good place to be. Milquetoast (and again, I don’t think Centrist) is an okay place to be. Klobuchar and Brown both have taken the fight to Trump. Roll tape on Klobuchar’s confrontation with Kavanaugh and you’ve got her debate stance against Trump.Again. Long way to go (and a long response… :)). Let’s not kill each other until halfway through the primaries. Quick addition that just popped up from NPR on Twitter re: Brown and the calendaring of a vote on the Green New Deal: “McConnell didn’t give details on the timing, but the move is designed to put those Democrats running for president on the record on a proposal that many Republicans and President Trump are already seizing on ahead of the 2020 election.”
The plan is to call people who support progressive issues “socialists.” And say that we can’t afford these things. It’s a stupid plan, one easy to counter. But the only reason to fall for the trap of doing anything more than voting in support of it (if that, because it is, in fact, a trap… there’s no way it passes the Senate, let alone Trump’s desk) is if you think there’s going to be a litmus test.As Brown says in the article, he can not be on the Green New Deal bandwagon and still support progressive issues.
im at the point now where i believe there isnt much more mueller needs to really get trump and his family what he/they has/have coming, and he’s sitting on it because he’s a coward who wont nab even an illbegotten “president”/mueller is a republican.
I didn’t think George W Bush was going to get a second term either, but he won more of the popular vote the second time around. People just love being in not one but two quagmires in the middle east apparently.
Not as similar as you would think. Wartime president against the nerdiest, most elite-feeling candidate the Dems could’ve possibly run. Not sure how you could’ve been surprised.If the Dems run Biden or Holder in 2020 you might have that problem. Not reading the room is a hell of a drug and the Dems have a high tolerance to it.Also, Bush was covering for war criminals and hiding behind patriotism (see “President, Wartime”). Trump is proudly boasting his ignorance and criminal behavior in a time of peace.
It would be equally stunning and expected if Trump won again because the Dems fucked up running an actual campaign where and when it mattered.
A student in one of my classes made a similar statement the other day, “now that we’re not at war anymore…” People have awfully selective ideas about when we’re at war and when we’re at peace.
We’ve been in Orwell’s perpetual war since Reagan so it’s just a matter of when candidates want to wag the dog for their benefit.W took advantage of wounded patriotism after 9/11 to roll all the way into a second term when the Dems ran an anthropomorphic version of Wikipedia as a candidate. Bill and Obama might not’ve been the greatest presidents (debatable for another time) but at least they had human emotions and connected with people. That’s often what the dummies want. It’s why Trump connected (and Sanders) and Hillary ultimately didn’t (at least with the people that were holding the election in the balance).As much as I’m disinterested in Booker right now, I at least like his approach of not just attacking Trump. Might get him lost in the shuffle, though. TV wants either bold statements (Harris) or would-be super villains who will throw them money (why the fuck is Howard Schultz even a thing?).
Yes, it’s perpetual. I wager the U.S. leadership will ramp up something nice and atrocious (in Venezuela, maybe, or their long favorite target, Iran) soon to help them reframe the coming election.
Not sure how you could’ve been surprised.I know, right? I knew Bush was going to win reelection and I was pissed as hell about it. I’ve been voting since 1972 and I can’t tell you how man goddamn times I’ve walked into the voting booth knowing the other guy was going to win. I still voted every single time.
How would he do that, exactly?
“Especially since he knows the only thing keeping him out of prison right now is the unwillingness to indict a sitting president.”I’m not sure he has that much of a focused or long-term memory……
He’s gonna win in 2020, no question (I mean, prove me wrong! Please! But he’s gonna win). I don’t think impeachment’s going to happen (and probably would be a disaster if it did), so I’d strike those options off.I also don’t think he’d try to weasel out of the term limits because he does not seem overly fond of being the President – it’s a lot of hard work, people hate him, etc. – so he’ll run in 2020 out of sheer spite, and then settle into being America’s drunk racist uncle that you all try and ignore at Thanksgiving. My bet – six more years of DT, and then you can settle in and watch Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and, I dunno, Jared Kushner duke it out in 2024.
“He finds a way” needs to move up to the fourth slot, from a timeline perspective, because he will not leave the White House of his own volition.
…there are several scenarios (in increasing severity):
Fuck you, Barnaby, you insensitive wanker
john oliver could get it, especially with that tiara
It’s been a while and I was GOING to make a joke about this comments section, and then it delivered in advance.
The ending of that interview made me miss Craig Ferguson.
Stupid question: Can’t they just not Brexit? Can’t they just tell the EU that they wanna stay?
None of the politicians want to be seen to be the ones suggesting that course of action because neither party wants to look like and I quote “they are ignoring the will of the people.”Now myself, I think there is a case for asking the people again, now it seems more obvious that this is a bad idea but I wouldn’t be confident remain would win the second time.There is a perverse streak to this country and I can see a lot of people voting leave to a) punish the politicians for the mess and b) to see if the MPs would go through with it.