How would you describe Donald Trump?
These 17 Swing Voters
Have a Very Clear Message
for Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...sultPosition=8
Printable View
How would you describe Donald Trump?
These 17 Swing Voters
Have a Very Clear Message
for Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...sultPosition=8
Three questions for you, Blackchubby38 as you are a New York resident.
1) has the House flipped because Democrats lost in New York? This FT article offers a short insight into the problems the party has in the State, and in NYC.
New York’s Democrats rue losses that cost their party the House | Financial Times (ft.com)
2) Who is Hakeem Jeffries?
3) Apparently anyone nominated can be Speaker of the House -Donald Trump, George Clooney, Liz Cheney., Pinocchio. Any thoughts on this most important job?
1. I can't see the article that you posted. But is it the same explanation as this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Why the Democrats Just Lost the House
www.nytimes.com/2022/11/16/opinion/house-democrats-new-york.html?searchResultPosition=2
2. I only know who Hakeem Jeffries is by name only. But from my understanding, he has been the heir apparent for the Speaker of the House position for awhile now.
3. I never gave it much thought. I only know what a Speaker of the House does/did if I'm a reading a book about history and if they played a certain role in the events of the day.
Not addressed to me but I’ll answer anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Yes, losing some seats in California and New York may have made the difference in shifting the balance of power. But focusing on those handful of seats misses the larger picture, which is the problem of gerrymandering in general, nation-wide.
Hakeem Jeffries is a centrist, also have heard him labeled as a “corporate Democrat” or conservative Democrat. Based on that, it’s probable that he will block progressive ideas like universal health care. “Centrist” implies someone who can reach out to both sides of an issue, but in reality they often work in opposition to party members who are further left. I’m not in favor of Jeffries but it’s clear that they need younger people in leadership positions. Democrats usually appoint leadership based on seniority and chain of succession, and when Steny Hoyer (next in line, but almost as old as Pelosi) stepped aside, it opened the door for Jefferies who is apparently “next”. Republicans do not have the same adherence to seniority that Democrats have. But knowing that’s how Democrats generally do it, it makes predictions about future leadership pretty easy. Just look at who is #2 or #3.
As far as I know, there has never been a Speaker of the House who was not a sitting member of Congress, even though the rules allow it. But I may be mistaken.
Thank you for your thoughts on this. I have read about 'machine politicians' in the Democrats before, but I guess a young elected official has to do the graft before getting the draft, unless his name is Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
I understand the 'centrist' argument, Blair used it to win Labour four elections in the UK, but after the 'centre ground' of British politics had been moved to the right in 1979 and the years thereafter.
It was a basic concept of Keith Joseph, the Conservative who converted Margaret Thatcher to his version of Free Marker economics. Joseph argued that since 1945 the 'ratchet' of politics had been moved from an economy led by markets to one led by the State, most notably in the growth of Welfare and State bureaucracy, but also, critically, in the State's intervention in the economy. The centre ground remained committed to this 'Keynesian consensus' which Joseph argued was the cause of the UK's ills and that radical change was needed, not just to end State intervention in the economy -which Thatcher did through privatisation of the Utilities, withdrawing state funds from British Leyland, in effect shutting down what remained of our coal industry- but also to move the ratchet of British politics to the right, so the Centre Ground would make the inheritance of Thatcher hard to break, which is what has happened.
As for the US, I don't understand how a country as rich as yours resists the social justice of a single-payer health care service, preferring to maintain it as a business instead, and that is just one policy though I have to assume the Affordable Care Act was as radical as the US could make it. AOC and her chums are on the fringes of politics, not at the centre.
For some historical context, I went back and looked at two midterm elections: 1994 and 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_United_States_elections
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_elections
Both Clinton and Obama were able to accomplish some major policy goals in their first two years in office respectively, with only the latter having to deal with any issues when it came to the economy. But the Democratic Party still went on to suffer significant losses in the midterm elections. So its no wonder a majority of people expected there to be a red wave this year.
I suspect that there was a voter backlash to the January 6th attack on the US capital building. I took that extremely seriously, and I think other people did too, including Republican voters who aren’t all-in on Trump. I won’t be surprised if it’s a factor in 2024 and beyond.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
I think greed explains it. The thinking is “why should the government operate an industry as non-profit, when me and my rich buddies could be making money off it?” It could be health care, the postal system, public schools, whatever. Mega-donors drive the political agenda and protect big industries like pharmaceuticals, etc. For the rich, investing campaign donations in politicians who protect their financial interests is just good business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
There’s a blog called electoral-vote dot com, which covers polling, elections, relevant historical references, and political news of the day. I believe the bloggers are historians, who seem to be right about a lot of things, and provide informative overviews on US political topics. For example, if there’s some political maneuvering in Congress and you want some background on what obscure rules they’re following, that’s a good website to read. The website design looks like “Web 1.0” but it’s worth a visit for the content.
I would suggest that in the US there is a long tradition of the Federal Govt not doing things, because they would have the tax citizens to achieve it. Washington didn't want to transform the Continental Army into a Federal Standing Army for this reason, though he failed to make that happen. Ironic I suppose, given that defence would then have been the job of 'a well armed militia'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
Again, the US does not have a national carrier in airlines or shipping, it doesn't have a State or Federal Radio or TV station which in Europe was and sometimes is owned and run by the State, so I see the political inheritance there. It is just that health is something that affected everyone from 'the cradle to the grave', and because it seems to some of us in the UK that your health care business falls far short of what we have even when our NHS is in crisis, as it has been for so long it is medically not a crisis but a chronic condition.
That said, while the NHS is state run, it is not a vertically-integrated system. The private sector provides all the ancillary aspects of hospitals, clinics and GP surgeries -from the carpet and the chairs, to the ECG machines and X-Ray equipment, to the drugs. The private sector in the UK has done very well out of the NHS, but I don't see how else this could have worked.
On balance I think a mix of the UK and German systems works best.
[QUOTE=Luke Warm;2063843
Hakeem Jeffries is a centrist, also have heard him labeled as a “corporate Democrat” or conservative Democrat. Based on that, it’s probable that he will block progressive ideas like universal health care. “Centrist” implies someone who can reach out to both sides of an issue, but in reality they often work in opposition to party members who are further left. I’m not in favor of Jeffries but it’s clear that they need younger people in leadership positions. Democrats usually appoint leadership based on seniority and chain of succession, and when Steny Hoyer (next in line, but almost as old as Pelosi) stepped aside, it opened the door for Jefferies who is apparently “next”. Republicans do not have the same adherence to seniority that Democrats have. But knowing that’s how Democrats generally do it, it makes predictions about future leadership pretty easy. Just look at who is #2 or #3.
[/QUOTE]
More on this man Hakeen Jeffries, who seems to be an uncritical supporter of the violent State of Israel, receiving a lot of campaign finance from a group called Pro-Israel America. I wonder if he is about to register some reservations about the inclusion in Netanyahu's Govt of Itamar Ben-Gvir, one of a long line of nasty Fascists whose lineage reaches all the way back to Avraham Stern, who was trained in one of the camps for terrorists established by Mussolini just by Civitavecchia, a tradition maintained by Jabotinsky, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon. Maybe Jeffries should ask himself if such a man even knows the meaning of the word peace, as there is no hope of him ever using the word compromise in a sentence.
Hakeem Jeffries’ likely elevation set to please US pro-Israel groups | US politics | The Guardian
Israel has passed a law which means foreigners who fall in love with a Palestinian living on the West Bank must inform Israel's Ministry of Defence and if, heaven forbid, they get married, the foreigner must leave for a 26-month 'cooling off' period, because its hot stuff, this love and marriage thing, Palestinian-style. One wonders if Hakeem Jeffries will endorse this lunacy and even present a bill in the House requiring non-Americans who live in Florida but fall in love with someone in Illinois to inform the Pentagon. You just never know, and it don't matter if it is just, because Israel does it, and Hakeem must be careful to protect his sponsors.
Israeli rules say West Bank visitors must declare love interest - BBC News
What does it take to assess Israel as a modern State without all the baggage Netanyahu dumps on people before and after they express an opinion? Jeffries according to the link above, supported Obama and the JCOP with Iran, so maybe he can think for himself. He needs to ask why it is that Democrats support in Israel people with political ideas he would condemn in the USA, parties he would campaign against. Even an insolent little prick like Satloff can't stand Ben-Gvir, that's how low the bar has fallen in Israel.
And where, in all this, is Yitzhak Rabin and the Peace Treaty? Was it that bad? Look at what has happened since Sharon, Netanyahu and their violent settler buddies snuffed out that light -has there been even a remote chance of peace or diplomacy having any effect that Palestinians can use to live free lives? When did you last read of a plan to end Israel's illegal siege of the Gaza District?
I don't know much about the man, but he inspires zero confidence in me that he will be an improvement on Nancy Pelosi.
And with Biden grovelling before a mass murdering shit like MbS, one sighs again at the folly of US relations with the Middle East, two drunks driving a truck of explosives over a rocky road.