NYT endorses Apple, but also, Orange lol

Haha! And they call me an inconsistent bipolar schizophrenic drug addict.

Sanders on how big Jeremy Corbyn's win will be. If Sanders is nominated, it would be deja vue all over again. — Wayfarer

YESS!!!

Drawing parallels between anti-establishment anger at both ends of the political spectrum in Britain and the US, the former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination also applauded Jeremy Corbyn’s efforts to reshape the Labour party.

“What has impressed me – and there is a real similarity between what he has done and what I did – is he has taken on the establishment of the Labour party, he has gone to the grassroots and he has tried to transform that party … and that is exactly what I am trying to do,” said Sanders.

“I am also impressed by his willingness to talk about class issues,” he added

:razz:

The comrades want this! They deserve it.

Let's have that Trump Bernie meeting, which Trump chickened out last time.

Beyond the incoherency of a dual endorsement, what's absurd about the NYT endorsing Klobuchar is that less than a year ago the Times published a story about how she is physically and mentally abusive to members of her staff and that she has the highest staff turnover rates in the Senate.

lol

From the Jan. 14, 2020 Democratic Party Presidential Debate:

So can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election they've been in are the women, [Sen.] Amy [Klobuchar] and me. — Sen. Elizabeth Warren

I think the point of the NYT's dual endorsement is

(a) the Democratic Party establishment - the DNC, Slick & Shillary, "O'Biden", Senator "Wall Street" Schumer + donors, etc (which also includes much of the NYT editorial board) - oppose Sanders again ... no surprise;

(b) to (demand? i.e. plant their flag) that the country vote (again) for a woman for president, which is especially timely with the tRUMP era ascendency of so many women politicians, anti-tRUMP/GOP mobilization of suburban women, the master-class political leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the #me too movement, and recent ratification of the ERA in Virginia;

(c) and to propose a "balanced" Northeast-Midwest ticket before the primaries (NB: I like the chances of Klobuchar & Warren coming out of the Iowa Caucus on top) that's strong enough, smart enough & ideologically broad enough in appeal to steamroll over tRUMP in the fall.

IMHO, not "incoherent" at all. :wink:

Btw, I'd prefer a Warren-Castro or even Klobuchar-Castro ticket to a Warren-Klobuchar (or Klobuchar-Warren) ticket ... 

I want Pete, simply because he's moderate, and he's the most articulate (and possibly the most intelligent) of the bunch. Despite wanting him, I probably won't vote for him when my state (Texas) has its primary. I'll probably vote for Biden, unless Pete, Klobuchar, or Tom Styer, appear to have a good chance. My last choice is Bernie, and 2nd last is Warren, and it's not because I wouldn't be happy with them - it's just that I think they are less likely to win the general election because they'll turn off moderates and never-Trumper Republicans.

I've been challenged before on my opinion that a moderate has a better chance than Warren or Bernie, so I'll try to head that off. The pro-Bernie/Warren folks suggest they'll energize the base and bring more people out. IMO, this will result in them winning Blue states by a bigger margin than Hillary did in 2016 (which doesn't garner any more electoral votes), but it raises the risk of losing the swing states. The result could be an even bigger margin of popular vote victory than Hillary received, but still losing the electoral college. My view on this is consistent with state-specific polling in swing states - which show Biden has the best shot (and maybe the ONLY shot) of beating Trump.

Keep in mind that Incumbents rarely lose, especially when the economy is doing well. The only reason it's looking even CLOSE is because of this incumbent's off-putting behavior (I'll leave it at that, to avoid having this thread merged into the Trump thread).

Beyond the incoherency of a dual endorsement, what's absurd about the NYT endorsing Klobuchar is that less than a year ago the Times published a story about how she is physically and mentally abusive to members of her staff and that she has the highest staff turnover rates in the Senate. — Maw

Her alleged abusiveness isn't disqualifying. It's apparently contributed to her problem keeping staff, but if she were President, it probably wouldn't have THAT result - there's prestige and power associated with serving a President, so I think most people would just buck up under the petty complaints she might make. A positive spin on her behavior is that she is singularly focused on getting the work done, and doesn't waste energy fretting about the feelings of her staff.

Tulsi. You see what a dreamer I am — fishfry

It's a minor issue in the big picture, but, having served in the military years ago, I would prefer a CIC who has had some military experience. I like Mayor Pete and I like Tulsi (particularly since she demonstrates she can still do pushups! :smile: )

But I suspect Trump will pull it off after a disastrous performance by Biden in the final debate.

This NYT opinion piece here reports a testimony that the Democratic Elites actually think Klobuchar has the best chance of defeating Trump (of course it's because their brains are telling them it's their preference) I'm guessing the NYT faculty really wanted to endorse Klobuchar, but that would seem too absurd when she's not even a front runner, so they wrapped her up with Warren.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/opinion/amy-klobuchar-2020.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR09Cmo48CZlnbNLDTtAj-TVQC_RDWDJJjZooVhHFTfz1kikIMVUigezh7g

Bernie. Was just at a rally Saturday in New Hampshire -- lots of enthusiasm, lots of young people, the most consistent candidate out there.

For all those worried about Trump being re-elected, which is definitely possible, remember that he won Michigan by about 11 thousand votes, Pennsylvania by 44 thousand, and Wisconsin by 24 thousand. That's not a lot. His approval rating in all three states is low.

There's also no guarantee he wins Florida. And if Florida goes blue, it's over. Biden seems to poll better there than anyone else -- but it's so early the polling is essentially meaningless.

I really hope it's Bernie, and we do not make the same mistake we made with Clinton. Nominate someone decent this time, with real ideas and a campaign funded entirely by real people.

The NYT "endorsement" is so spineless and pathetic they play right into Trump's hands.

The pro-Bernie/Warren folks suggest they'll energize the base and bring more people out. IMO, this will result in them winning Blue states by a bigger margin than Hillary did in 2016 (which doesn't garner any more electoral votes), but it raises the risk of losing the swing states. — Relativist

I think this misses an important point: we already have the numbers in this country. All we need is to get the vote out. We need organization and enthusiasm. I don't buy the fact that Obama won because he was moderate -- it's because people turned out for him, they were excited about his candidacy (foolishly, in my view, but that's irrelevant).

So you may be correct, but honestly if Bernie or Warren are "too radical" for people to the point that they vote for Trump or 3rd party, or even stay home, then we deserve Trump another 4 years. But I don't think that will happen. Person after person I talk to cares about one thing: electing anyone but Trump -- they don't care who it is. We saw the turnout in the midterm elections in '18 -- it'll happen again in 20.

I may even sit out the General due to another fact, viz. if voting really made a difference, they would make it illegal. — Noah Te Stroete

Don't be ridiculous. They're trying to make it as hard as possible to vote in some states. Republicans are doing all they can to suppress the votes and gerrymander because they see the trends.

I used to think as you do, and not vote. I hated all the propaganda trying like "Vote or Die" and the like. But I was wrong. Especially in swing states, you most certainly should vote. It's not the only thing that matters -- we can do much more than voting -- but in a country as powerful as ours, it matters and should be the minimum.

I think this misses an important point: we already have the numbers in this country. All we need is to get the vote out. We need organization and enthusiasm. I don't buy the fact that Obama won because he was moderate -- it's because people turned out for him, they were excited about his candidacy (foolishly, in my view, but that's irrelevant). — Xtrix

I don't think we do have the numbers in the swing states, and it's probable Republicans will be fired up if a "socialist" runs. I know Bernie supporters are enthusiastic, but not all Democrats are enthusiastic Bernie supporters. My wife can't stand him, although she'd vote for chicken poop over Trump.

Obama fired up black voters - their turnout was unprecedented. He ran against moderates (McCain and Romney), so there wasn't all that much space between them. There's huge space between Trump and any sane alternative, so choosing sides is pretty easy.

Don't be ridiculous. They're trying to make it as hard as possible to vote in some states. Republicans are doing all they can to suppress the votes and gerrymander because they see the trends.

I used to think as you do, and not vote. I hated all the propaganda trying like "Vote or Die" and the like. But I was wrong. Especially in swing states, you most certainly should vote. It's not the only thing that matters -- we can do much more than voting -- but in a country as powerful as ours, it matters and should be the minimum. — Xtrix

You may be right. I waver. Do I want a country where children are put in cages, where we are divided by the demagogues into racial divisions, where pre-existing conditions aren’t covered, where the President openly acts like a king, where right-wing judges rule the land, etc. etc.? No. Will anything change for me personally? No. But at least I can say I did the communal thing. Perhaps I will vote.

Well their single-minded goal isn't to win against Trump....No one even knows who Klobuchar is outside her state, but she's a standard neoliberal Democrat which is their preference. Warren is a Democratic Party Insider and adheres to a form of market liberalism, she's relatively too left-wing for them but still enough in the ballpark for the corporate media to accept.

I don't think we do have the numbers in the swing states, and it's probable Republicans will be fired up if a "socialist" runs. — Relativist

They're fired up anyway. There is no ideal candidate. The Trump people will vote Trump. The swing voters, if there are any, greatly dislike this president. After four years, I think they've given him "a chance" and will now vote blue, regardless of the candidate -- like your wife.

Will anything change for me personally? No. — Noah Te Stroete

Are you sure about that? I didn't think so either, but things have changed. They're minor compared to others -- but my taxes have changed; I've had to pay money back for the first time in my life thanks to the tax scam, the company I work for has had to make changes, etc. I agree with you that it may not effect us individually that much, but seeing things you mentioned happening and not even doing the bare minimum is just a mistake. If you're out there organizing, protesting, engaging collaboratively with others on a local level, and things like that, and then decide not to vote....OK, in that case I suppose I could understand. Although it'd be strange. But if you're like me (and many others) who barely have enough time for anything, we've got to at least push a button against the worst.

True. It's frustrating.

Also note we’re voting for Commander in Chief, not Speaker of the House. Foreign Policy is the President’s main job, it’s the area they have the most concentrated power and what they do when they wake up in the morning and respond to intelligence briefs. Americans don’t care about the rest of the world so that’s not the subject talk during elections, but who sits in the office influencing American Empire is really the most consequential.

I think the point of the NYT's dual endorsement is

(a) the Democratic Party establishment - the DNC, Slick & Shillary, "O'Biden", Senator "Wall Street" Schumer + donors, etc (which also includes much of the NYT editorial board) - oppose Sanders again ... no surprise;

(b) to (demand? i.e. plant the flag) that the country vote (again) for a woman for president, which is especially timely with the tRUMP era ascendency of so many women politicians, anti-GOP/tRUMP mobilization of suburban woman, the master-class, political bravura of Speaker Pelosi, the #me too movement, and recent ratification of the ERA in Virginia;

(c) and to propose a "balanced" Northeast-Midwest ticket before the primaries (NB: I like the chances of Klobuchar & Warren coming out of the Iowa Caucus on top) that's strong enough, smart enough & ideologically broad enough to steamroll over tRUMP in the fall.

IMHO, not "incoherent" at all — 180 Proof

If this was the case it would make more sense for the NYT to exclusively endorse Klobachar, since she more or less encompasses (a) & (b), while (c) is superfluous given the Northeast will be voting blue en bloc. What's "incoherent" about endorsing two candidates at once is that voters can only vote for one, and only one candidate can win. But more to the point, how the NYT came to this decision isn't collectively calibrated to the extent that you're formulating. The process for making an endorsement was that the 15 members of the Editorial Board voted for their two top candidates and the top choice wins the endorsement. In this case, Warren received 8 votes and Klobuchar 7. (Booker, who dropped out after the voting was already conducted, came in 3rd with 6 votes, which just goes to show how these people might simply be clueless.)

Ultimately, Warren won, but despite that they decided to add Klobuchar to the endorsement and I think the more discernible explanation for this rather haphazard decision is best elucidated via James Bennet, the Editorial Page Editor and member of the Editorial Board, who stated in 2018:

I think we are pro-capitalism. The New York Times is in favor of capitalism because it has been the greatest engine of, it’s been the greatest anti-poverty program and engine of progress that we’ve seen.

Warren, tout court, is a bit too radical for the "pro-capitalism" liberal Grey Lady, and the addition of Klobochur was simply used to dilute the otherwise subversive selection while simultaneously being presented to the public under the facade of feminism. America's Paper of Record can't alarm Capital, and instead opted for banal Liberal Indecisiveness.

But also, who cares? Bernie, who has the strongest donor base and grassroots support received a single vote from the Editorial Board. What does that say about them? I'm much more interested in the fact that several young politicians (of color) who will take up the mantel of Left politics in America, such as Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar endorsed Bernie, as did Pramila Jayapal (et. al.) I'm much more interested that Labor Organizations such as National Nurses United (representing 150K nurses), or the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (representing 36K blue collar workers) and others, endorsed Bernie.

Her alleged abusiveness isn't disqualifying. It's apparently contributed to her problem keeping staff, but if she were President, it probably wouldn't have THAT result - there's prestige and power associated with serving a President, so I think most people would just buck up under the petty complaints she might make. A positive spin on her behavior is that she is singularly focused on getting the work done, and doesn't waste energy fretting about the feelings of her staff. — Relativist

Hahaha "buck up". That's victim-blaming nonsense. The problem isn't that Amy doesn't currently have staff that are tough enough to have a phone thrown at them, it's that Amy is throwing phones at staff.

Perhaps.

Hmm. Maybe you're right, I'll strike her from my possible vote in the primary. (although I'd certainly vote for her against the incumbent).

I'm much more interested in the fact that several young politicians (of color) who will take up the mantel of Left politics in America, such as Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar endorsed Bernie, as did Pramila Jayapal (et. al.) I'm much more interested that Labor Organizations such as National Nurses United (representing 150K nurses), or the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (representing 36K blue collar workers) and others, endorsed Bernie. — Maw

The Trump team should also like this.

hmmm?

Republicans will surely want to portray the Democratic candidate being the candidate of uhhh.... your taste, maw. Hence labour unions and Social Democrats (correction!) Democrat Socialists being the true core supporters fits them fine.

I thought I might share a pun.

A trump is a playing card which is elevated above its usual rank in trick-taking games. Typically, an entire suit is nominated as a trump suit; these cards then outrank all cards of plain (non-trump) suits. In other contexts, the terms trump card or to trump can refer to any sort of action, authority, or policy which automatically prevails over all others. — Wikipedia

All trumps are winners
Donald Trump is a trump
Ergo
Donald Trump is a winner (always)
:joke:

Please. The argument that one candidate will be less of a target for Trump and the right-wing media is absurd. To worry about it is a waste of time. It's exactly the mistake the Republican establishment made in '16 with Trump. The difference is: his win was a long shot. Bernie's (or anyone's candidacy not dubbed "moderate") chances are far greater, as nearly every proposal of his is supported by majorities.

They're fired up anyway. There is no ideal candidate. The Trump people will vote Trump. The swing voters, if there are any, greatly dislike this president. After four years, I think they've given him "a chance" and will now vote blue, regardless of the candidate -- like your wife. — Xtrix

Swing voters (both independents and never-Trumper Republicans) who don't like Trump won't vote for him, but if they also don't like the Democratic candidate - they'll stay home. My top priority is to oust Trump, and that priority is best served by picking the Democrat I feel has the best chance to win - and that entails being palatable to swing voters.

Fuck the swing voters, then. If they're going to stay home, let them. I'd rather a candidate that energizes the people with new ideas than to have someone bland but who appeals to a few bland people.