Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Election 2020
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(11-10-2019, 11:00 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-09-2019, 08:18 PM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-09-2019, 06:36 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-09-2019, 05:29 PM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-08-2019, 12:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]--- I'm gonna stick my neck out & say Bernie's gonna take IA

I'll keep my cards close to the vest and say that Biden is gonna finish a distant third in New Hampshire, which is a neighboring state for both Comrade Bernie and Pocahontas.

Biden's toast.  Bernie's toast as well.  Regardless of the NH results, there needs to be another player, or this gets boring fast.  I love Mayor Pete as the next, but better, Eisenhower.  It's too early for that.  Klobuchar and Harris are fighters, so maybe one of them in the center lane, and Warren in the left lane.

If Biden doesn't get it, I will be voting independent.  What difference does it make if I vote for a candidate that finishes second (or maybe even third, if the Libertarians put up a sane candidate like John Kasich, whose union-busting credentials are right up their alley - see the results of the 1912 election) - or, say, eighth?

I always liked Uncle Joe, but this is not an election that can focus on a return to a safe past.  That doesn't exist, and hasn't for quite a while.  In fact, we've moved the political center post so far right, even modest liberalism looks extreme to some people.  Not-Trump is going to be called socialism, but anything modest in scope needs to be forward looking too.  Both Harris and Klobuchar fall into that descriptive basket.  

I suspect that we'll get EW, and that she'll squeak out a win in the general.  After that, it's hard to say.  The neo-left is pissed.  Standby for some radical demands.

Yes -- we are in a Crisis Era, and even an Obama-style Presidency might be utterly inadequate. We will need major reforms of the political system to prevent  another play-for-pay system even more blatant than what Trump has shown us. That is even before I discuss changes in economic norms.
(11-09-2019, 07:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-09-2019, 06:31 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-08-2019, 12:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]--- I'm gonna stick my neck out & say Bernie's gonna take IA

Loyalty is admirable, but misplaced in this incidence.  Bernie's heart attack has doomed him among all but his most ardent supporters.  It's time to look around for choice #2.

Bernie has already recovered all his poll numbers, and they are inching up, while Warren has suffered a big decline. They are 3 points apart now, and Bernie has the most money and enthusiasm behind him. There will be no choice #2. The top 3 will remain so. I don't see why Harris (who is declining in the polls) or Klobuchar (who has never caught on) would have any chance to break out. Neither of them have the slightest charisma or likability and they do not give the impression of being leaders.

Bernie is the only hope for a progressive president this time around. Warren and the others either can't win, or aren't progressive, or both. So, although Bernie may indeed not win, for those with hopes for a progressive president elected in 2020, loyalty is not misplaced.

As to who will take Iowa, I have no idea. Food for more thought and research, perhaps! I have already stated that it will not be Mayor Pete, so I am stuck with that prediction! My neck is stuck out Smile

As for Iowa, the latest poll on Nov. 6 by Quinnipiac says:
Warren 20, Buttigieg 19, Sanders 17, Biden 15, Klobuchar 5, Harris 4, Steyer 3, Gabbard 3, Yang 3, Booker 1, O'Rourke, Bennet 1

To me, this indicates that the race between the top 4 will be so close that Iowa will make little difference.
"Yes -- we are in a Crisis Era, and even an Obama-style Presidency might be utterly inadequate. We will need major reforms of the political system to prevent another play-for-pay system even more blatant than what Trump has shown us. That is even before I discuss changes in economic norms. "


I have always maintained - and still maintain - that we have been in an unprecedented hybrid Unraveling-Crisis era since 9/11, with the "security state" (remember the good old days when cars were allowed on the Staten Island Ferry, for example?), Trump's Muslim travel ban (and the wave of hate crimes against Muslims), etc., indicative of the Crisis component, and the still-very-much-alive Culture Wars and the likewise still-very-much-alive Cold War Bloody Shirt Syndrome that is preventing us from tackling issues like health care and education, indicative of the Unraveling component.

But this "hybrid era" will not last much longer. Either a stock market crash or the outbreak of the Second Civil War on the heels of the 2020 election will put an end to it.
(11-11-2019, 11:10 AM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]"Yes -- we are in a Crisis Era, and even an Obama-style Presidency might be utterly inadequate. We will need major reforms of the political system to prevent  another play-for-pay system even more blatant than what Trump has shown us. That is even before I discuss changes in economic norms. "


I have always maintained - and still maintain - that we have been in an unprecedented hybrid Unraveling-Crisis era since 9/11, with the "security state" (remember the good old days when cars were allowed on the Staten Island Ferry, for example?), Trump's Muslim travel ban (and the wave of hate crimes against Muslims), etc., indicative of the Crisis component, and the still-very-much-alive Culture Wars and the likewise still-very-much-alive Cold War Bloody Shirt Syndrome that is preventing us from tackling issues like health care and education, indicative of the Unraveling component.

But this "hybrid era" will not last much longer.  Either a stock market crash or the outbreak of the Second Civil War on the heels of the 2020 election will put an end to it.

It will be an economic meltdown. Trump has used a combination of easy money and big government spending to buy political support, and when those come to an end, then down goes the economy.  Is he vindictive enough to do that in the event that he sees himself doomed to defeat? 

Probably.
(11-10-2019, 11:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Yes -- we are in a Crisis Era, and even an Obama-style Presidency might be utterly inadequate. We will need major reforms of the political system to prevent  another play-for-pay system even more blatant than what Trump has shown us. That is even before I discuss changes in economic norms.

I've always felt that Obama was elected out of time. Yes, he's black, and that made caution mandatory. Nonetheless, he acted far more cautious than required, including his push on healthcare. He operated on the old plan: comity and compromise. There was no comity then, and less now. And compromise? Really? That was a non-starter from the go, but he persisted to the end.
(11-12-2019, 10:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-10-2019, 11:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Yes -- we are in a Crisis Era, and even an Obama-style Presidency might be utterly inadequate. We will need major reforms of the political system to prevent  another play-for-pay system even more blatant than what Trump has shown us. That is even before I discuss changes in economic norms.

I've always felt that Obama was elected out of time.  Yes, he's black, and that made caution mandatory.  Nonetheless, he acted far more cautious than required, including his push on healthcare.  He operated on the old plan: comity and compromise.  There was no comity then, and less now.  And compromise?  Really?  That was a non-starter from the go, but he persisted to the end.

I would point out that Obama had no grist to grind:

When the panic struck, the Republican administration proposed the TARP to prevent financial collapse.  Republicans in congress refused to support their own president's policy.Democrats stepped up to the plate to do so. Where was the progressive opposition? Nowhere to be seen because nobody knew what was going on.  There were no memes out there for that. Since then we have had Occupy who gave us the 1%, and Piketty's monumental Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Should this be tried again, there is a greater likelihood there will be progressive opposition.

When health care was being negotiated, Medicare for all (MFA) was eliminated right form the start, without any discussion. Obama had run on a public option, which Clinton had argued was unrealistic. Obama couldn't get it done, proving Clinton right. Again, where were the progressives? Had they been vigorously pushing for MFA, the deal Obama would make with conservative Dems would to give up MFA in exchange for public option. Progressives did not act because MFA did not yet exist as a meme. Now it does.

Back then less action was taken on global warming than could have been. But then there was no Green New Deal (GND). Now there is, so should there be another financial collapse it would be possible for progressives to use the 1% meme to oppose a second TARP, while proposing GND as the preferred policy.

Last 4T, FDR had memes to work with in 1933: free silver, 40 hour week, postal banks, etc. Obama did not in 2009. But a future president in Obama's position will have memes.

But this argues we are still some ways from a regeneration.
(11-12-2019, 10:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-10-2019, 11:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Yes -- we are in a Crisis Era, and even an Obama-style Presidency might be utterly inadequate. We will need major reforms of the political system to prevent  another play-for-pay system even more blatant than what Trump has shown us. That is even before I discuss changes in economic norms.

I've always felt that Obama was elected out of time.  Yes, he's black, and that made caution mandatory.  Nonetheless, he acted far more cautious than required, including his push on healthcare.  He operated on the old plan: comity and compromise.  There was no comity then, and less now.  And compromise?  Really?  That was a non-starter from the go, but he persisted to the end.

Above all, Obama is a mature reactive, the sort of political leader who comes to the fore as the Crisis is ending or as the 1T is underway.
(11-12-2019, 12:40 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-12-2019, 10:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-10-2019, 11:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Yes -- we are in a Crisis Era, and even an Obama-style Presidency might be utterly inadequate. We will need major reforms of the political system to prevent  another play-for-pay system even more blatant than what Trump has shown us. That is even before I discuss changes in economic norms.

I've always felt that Obama was elected out of time.  Yes, he's black, and that made caution mandatory.  Nonetheless, he acted far more cautious than required, including his push on healthcare.  He operated on the old plan: comity and compromise.  There was no comity then, and less now.  And compromise?  Really?  That was a non-starter from the go, but he persisted to the end.

I would point out that Obama had no grist to grind:

When the panic struck, the Republican administration proposed the TARP to prevent financial collapse.  Republicans in congress refused to support their own president's policy.Democrats stepped up to the plate to do so. Where was the progressive opposition? Nowhere to be seen because nobody knew what was going on.  There were no memes out there for that. Since then we have had Occupy who gave us the 1%, and Piketty's monumental Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Should this be tried again, there is a greater likelihood there will be progressive opposition.

Perhaps so.

Quote:When health care was being negotiated, Medicare for all (MFA) was eliminated right form the start, without any discussion. Obama had run on a public option, which Clinton had argued was unrealistic. Obama couldn't get it done, proving Clinton right. Again, where were the progressives? Had they been vigorously pushing for MFA, the deal Obama would make with conservative Dems would to give up MFA in exchange for public option. Progressives did not act because MFA did not yet exist as a meme. Now it does.

As I remember it, Hillary favored the public option and the mandate, and Obama opposed the mandate, and then Obama adopted Hillary's mandate proposal.

Quote:Back then less action was taken on global warming than could have been. But then there was no Green New Deal (GND). Now there is, so should there be another financial collapse it would be possible for progressives to use the 1% meme to oppose a second TARP, while proposing GND as the preferred policy.

Last 4T, FDR had memes to work with in 1933: free silver, 40 hour week, postal banks, etc. Obama did not in 2009. But a future president in Obama's position will have memes.

But this argues we are still some ways from a regeneration.

The events you suggest could happen may be possible if the Democrats win everything in 2020. With the inadequate Democratic presidential field, that may not happen. We'll see; it's still possible. But not if Warren is nominated.

I call what's happening with these new memes and movements a regeneration, even before it is acted on by government, which may not happen until 2023 or even 2025.
TARP put the rescue of the financial industry first. The failure of the banks kept the meltdown of 1929-1932 snowballing, and rescuing the banks looked like the right way to keep savings accounts, payrolls, and other assets from disappearing.

The problem: Big Business recovered first, found Obama and liberalism no longer useful, and able to bankroll the reactionary Tea Party, they were able to install reliable stooges in Congress and in state legislatures. Pure plutocracy was the dream, and with the election of Donald Trump the plutocrats came close to getting what they wanted.

So if the 1930's were a time of social reform and improving conditions for most people, the 2010's have been a time in which the only progress is in concentrating wealth and income among the economic elites. Obama and what may have remained of the Democratic Party may have slowed the trend, but by 2017 the Master Class seemed to have all the levers of power in its hands

.
The pundits have placed Warren as the major challenger to Biden, and have largely forgotten Bernie. But Warren has become stuck at 20% in the polls, and 6-8 points behind Biden, while Bernie is 3-4 point behind Elizabeth now and poised to possibly regain second place. Warren has had her bump, and it's over, even if she barely wins in Iowa among 4 candidates who all get about the same vote.

A progressive nominee needs to be Bernie. Warren is a policy wonk and talks and acts exactly like Crusader Rabbit. The resemblance is truly uncanny. Warren has great policies and I agree with her a lot. But that doesn't mean she can win. If Bernie regains second place and Warren stays strong in third and they both hang on into the convention, then if the two of them join forces and get their delegates behind Bernie, then Bernie could beat Biden and go on to defeat Trump. It might happen is Trump is weakened. But I don't think the reverse, Bernie dropping out and supporting Warren for the nomination, will work out in the Fall.

Warren's horoscope score is only 8-7, and that's going up against Trump's 9-4. But Biden and Sanders have 14-7, according to my recent count. That means they both have a chance. The scores indicate very well the appeal of a presidential candidate in the USA. The history is there, and it demonstrates that when Democrats nominate policy wonks who can't communicate and aren't likable, or when Republicans nominate sourpusses and non-entities, they lose.

Elections from 1932 to 2016:
1932: Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) 21-4 U, Herbert Hoover 11-11*
1936: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U*, Alf Landon 10-16
1940: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U*, Wendell Wilkie 8-9
1944: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U, Thomas Dewey 8-6 SN
1948: Harry Truman 14-0, Thomas Dewey 8-6 SN
1952: Dwight Eisenhower 18-8, Adlai Stevenson 5-21
1956: Dwight Eisenhower 18-8, Adlai Stevenson 5-21*
1960: John F Kennedy (JFK) 13-6, Richard Nixon 18-7
1964: Lyndon B Johnson (LBJ) 8-6 J*, Barry Goldwater 20-11** (he had Mars in Scorpio rising, with inharmonious aspects: the perfect symbol of his stubborn "extremism")
1968: Richard Nixon 18-7*, Hubert Humphrey 9-5**, George Wallace 2-7 J (+ Mars rising)
1972: Richard Nixon 18-7*, George McGovern 9-10
1976: Jimmy Carter 12-4, Gerald Ford 12-8
1980: Ronald Reagan 22-6, Jimmy Carter 12-4*, John Anderson 14-8 J*
1984: Ronald Reagan 22-6, Walter Mondale 12-12 J/U*
1988: George H W Bush 14-6, Michael Dukakis 2-10*
1992: Bill Clinton 21-3 J, George H W Bush 14-6, Ross Perot 7-10 (his Jupiter rising is evident, but it was 10 degrees above his ascendant, so I didn't count it officially)
1996: Bill Clinton 21-3 J, Bob Dole 12-19, Ross Perot 7-10
2000: George W Bush 17-2*, Al Gore 10-9 (Mars rising)
2004: George W Bush 17-2*, John Kerry 8-12 (his score was much weaker in the revised system)
2008: Barack Obama 19-2, John McCain 15-13
2012: Barack Obama 19-2, Mitt Romney 4-10 U, SN
2016: Donald Trump 9-4 (Mars rising), Hillary Rodham Clinton 9-11 J

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentia...ScoredWhat

Buttigieg (7-8), Harris (4-16) and Yang (8-15) have negative scores. They are not likely to be nominated, but if they are, they are certain to lose in November. All those who have dropped out so far have negative scores. Michael Bennet (8-9) has a negative score and he's falling into last place now. Castro (8-13) and Booker (6-7) have negative scores and they will drop out in due course. The others are not strong enough either.

Bernie Sanders, 14-7
Joe Biden, 14-7
Elizabeth Warren, 8-7
Kamala Harris, 4-16*
Beto O'Rourke, 11-26
Pete Buttigieg, 7-8
Cory Booker, 6-7
Amy Klobuchar, 7-7
Kirsten Gillibrand, 7-13 ("Mrs. Firebrand" would score 9-11 if born before 6 AM)
Joe & Julian Castro, 8-13
Tulsi Gabbard, 11-6
Steve Bullock, 10-7
Marianne Williamson, 13-14
Andrew Yang, 8-15
John Delaney, 7-5*
John Hickenlooper, 6-12
Bill DeBlasio, 12-17*
Eric Swalwell, 4-6
Jay Inslee, 3-7
Michael Bennet, 8-9*
Seth Moulton, 9-10
Tom Steyer, 11-7
Tim Ryan, 3-12
Joe Sestak, 3-10
Michael Bloomberg, 7-5
Deval Patrick, 9-6

J = Jupiter rising, a positive factor
* = Saturn Return, a major obstacle; those who won anyway had it coming in an election year, and they suffered disaster
** = Saturn Return before the opponent's, usually takes precedence
U = Uranus rising, a minor positive factor
SN = Saturn at the Nadir, a minor negative factor
(11-12-2019, 10:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-10-2019, 11:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Yes -- we are in a Crisis Era, and even an Obama-style Presidency might be utterly inadequate. We will need major reforms of the political system to prevent another play-for-pay system even more blatant than what Trump has shown us. That is even before I discuss changes in economic norms.

I've always felt that Obama was elected out of time.  Yes, he's black, and that made caution mandatory.  Nonetheless, he acted far more cautious than required, including his push on healthcare.  He operated on the old plan: comity and compromise.  There was no comity then, and less now.  And compromise?  Really?  That was a non-starter from the go, but he persisted to the end.

Good points indeed. I don't know if we have much chance of something beyond an Obama-style presidency. Maybe, but if Biden wins, I bet the people push him beyond what he wants to do.
(11-12-2019, 12:40 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-12-2019, 10:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-10-2019, 11:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Yes -- we are in a Crisis Era, and even an Obama-style Presidency might be utterly inadequate. We will need major reforms of the political system to prevent  another play-for-pay system even more blatant than what Trump has shown us. That is even before I discuss changes in economic norms.

I've always felt that Obama was elected out of time.  Yes, he's black, and that made caution mandatory.  Nonetheless, he acted far more cautious than required, including his push on healthcare.  He operated on the old plan: comity and compromise.  There was no comity then, and less now.  And compromise?  Really?  That was a non-starter from the go, but he persisted to the end.

I would point out that Obama had no grist to grind:

When the panic struck, the Republican administration proposed the TARP to prevent financial collapse.  Republicans in congress refused to support their own president's policy.Democrats stepped up to the plate to do so. Where was the progressive opposition? Nowhere to be seen because nobody knew what was going on.  There were no memes out there for that. Since then we have had Occupy who gave us the 1%, and Piketty's monumental Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Should this be tried again, there is a greater likelihood there will be progressive opposition.

When health care was being negotiated, Medicare for all (MFA) was eliminated right form the start, without any discussion. Obama had run on a public option, which Clinton had argued was unrealistic. Obama couldn't get it done, proving Clinton right. Again, where were the progressives? Had they been vigorously pushing for MFA, the deal Obama would make with conservative Dems would to give up MFA in exchange for public option. Progressives did not act because MFA did not yet exist as a meme. Now it does.

Back then less action was taken on global warming than could have been. But then there was no Green New Deal (GND). Now there is, so should there be another financial collapse it would be possible for progressives to use the 1% meme to oppose a second TARP, while proposing GND as the preferred policy.

Last 4T, FDR had memes to work with in 1933: free silver, 40 hour week, postal banks, etc. Obama did not in 2009. But a future president in Obama's position will have memes.

But this argues we are still some ways from a regeneration.

The answer to "where were the progressives" is "looking to Obama for leadership".  I doubt it had dawned on the emerging left that Obama was not a trailblazer.  So they sat and waited, and nothing happened.  If Bernie hadn't run in 2016 and Trump hadn't won, I suspect they might well be still wailing for Godot.  It's more than a bit sad that the one-two punch of Reagan and Clinton so thoroughly reset the goalposts it's only now that it's being recognized.  

So now we have a vocal but still relatively small progressive wing that's making enough noise to draw real attention.  I agree that they have started to use the same messaging and narrative paradigm that the right has used for so long, but is that enough?  Obama had 60 votes in the 'Senate (for a while) and managed little.  For this to change in 2020, Trump will have to be massively repudiated and the GOP tied to him like Ahab on the whale.  It's possible, just not likely.

I'm scoring the next decade for the oligarchs … again.  "The People" hate them, but seem bound to support their policies.  Eventually, AGW and economic stress will trigger a real, impactful response.  I would love to see it.  I hope I do.
(11-13-2019, 05:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]I'm scoring the next decade for the oligarchs … again.  "The People" hate them, but seem bound to support their policies.  Eventually, AGW and economic stress will trigger a real, impactful response.  I would love to see it.  I hope I do.

I have made predictions correctly about half of the most important events since 1971. I am confident that the people will rise up and shift the nation into a high progressive gear in the 2020s, regardless of who sits at the tiller in the White House and congress in 2021. The progressives will meet resistance, especially at mid-decade, but they will prevail. I have predicted this for decades. So call my bluff; hold my feet to the fire, and remember this prediction!

This exciting decade will be the return of progress, stalled since soon after 1963. It's almost here. We have lived to see it.
(11-13-2019, 06:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-13-2019, 05:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]I'm scoring the next decade for the oligarchs … again.  "The People" hate them, but seem bound to support their policies.  Eventually, AGW and economic stress will trigger a real, impactful response.  I would love to see it.  I hope I do.

I have made predictions correctly about half of the most important events since 1971. I am confident that the people will rise up and shift the nation into a high progressive gear in the 2020s, regardless of who sits at the tiller in the White House and congress in 2021. The progressives will meet resistance, especially at mid-decade, but they will prevail. I have predicted this for decades. So call my bluff; hold my feet to the fire, and remember this prediction!

This exciting decade will be the return of progress, stalled since soon after 1963. It's almost here. We have lived to see it.
Are you sure you didn't mean 1973? That was the winter of discontent when the oil shocks created long lines at gas stations which led to the trend of self serve in all but two states. It was also the time when the oligarchs first launched their takeover crusade, albeit slowly at first and then accelerated under Reagan and seems to have only expanded since with little successful pushback, even Occupy being a big failure.
(11-13-2019, 08:06 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-13-2019, 06:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-13-2019, 05:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]I'm scoring the next decade for the oligarchs … again.  "The People" hate them, but seem bound to support their policies.  Eventually, AGW and economic stress will trigger a real, impactful response.  I would love to see it.  I hope I do.

I have made predictions correctly about half of the most important events since 1971. I am confident that the people will rise up and shift the nation into a high progressive gear in the 2020s, regardless of who sits at the tiller in the White House and congress in 2021. The progressives will meet resistance, especially at mid-decade, but they will prevail. I have predicted this for decades. So call my bluff; hold my feet to the fire, and remember this prediction!

This exciting decade will be the return of progress, stalled since soon after 1963. It's almost here. We have lived to see it.
Are you sure you didn't mean 1973? That was the winter of discontent when the oil shocks created long lines at gas stations which led to the trend of self serve in all but two states. It was also the time when the oligarchs first launched their takeover crusade, albeit slowly at first and then accelerated under Reagan and seems to have only expanded since with little successful pushback, even Occupy being a big failure.

The regression really accelerated in 1980, but before that, after JFK was assassinated and the first liberal programs were passed afterward, the Vietnam War and then Watergate and the Nixon-Ford admin and the tepid Carter admin slowed progress.
(11-13-2019, 05:17 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-12-2019, 12:40 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-12-2019, 10:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-10-2019, 11:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Yes -- we are in a Crisis Era, and even an Obama-style Presidency might be utterly inadequate. We will need major reforms of the political system to prevent  another play-for-pay system even more blatant than what Trump has shown us. That is even before I discuss changes in economic norms.

I've always felt that Obama was elected out of time.  Yes, he's black, and that made caution mandatory.  Nonetheless, he acted far more cautious than required, including his push on healthcare.  He operated on the old plan: comity and compromise.  There was no comity then, and less now.  And compromise?  Really?  That was a non-starter from the go, but he persisted to the end.

I would point out that Obama had no grist to grind:

When the panic struck, the Republican administration proposed the TARP to prevent financial collapse.  Republicans in congress refused to support their own president's policy.Democrats stepped up to the plate to do so. Where was the progressive opposition? Nowhere to be seen because nobody knew what was going on.  There were no memes out there for that. Since then we have had Occupy who gave us the 1%, and Piketty's monumental Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Should this be tried again, there is a greater likelihood there will be progressive opposition.

When health care was being negotiated, Medicare for all (MFA) was eliminated right form the start, without any discussion. Obama had run on a public option, which Clinton had argued was unrealistic. Obama couldn't get it done, proving Clinton right. Again, where were the progressives? Had they been vigorously pushing for MFA, the deal Obama would make with conservative Dems would to give up MFA in exchange for public option. Progressives did not act because MFA did not yet exist as a meme. Now it does.

Back then less action was taken on global warming than could have been. But then there was no Green New Deal (GND). Now there is, so should there be another financial collapse it would be possible for progressives to use the 1% meme to oppose a second TARP, while proposing GND as the preferred policy.

Last 4T, FDR had memes to work with in 1933: free silver, 40 hour week, postal banks, etc. Obama did not in 2009. But a future president in Obama's position will have memes.

But this argues we are still some ways from a regeneration.

The answer to "where were the progressives" is "looking to Obama for leadership".  I doubt it had dawned on the emerging left that Obama was not a trailblazer.  So they sat and waited, and nothing happened.  If Bernie hadn't run in 2016 and Trump hadn't won, I suspect they might well be still wailing for Godot.  It's more than a bit sad that the one-two punch of Reagan and Clinton so thoroughly reset the goalposts it's only now that it's being recognized.  

So now we have a vocal but still relatively small progressive wing that's making enough noise to draw real attention.  I agree that they have started to use the same messaging and narrative paradigm that the right has used for so long, but is that enough?  Obama had 60 votes in the 'Senate (for a while) and managed little.  For this to change in 2020, Trump will have to be massively repudiated and the GOP tied to him like Ahab on the whale.  It's possible, just not likely.

I'm scoring the next decade for the oligarchs … again.  "The People" hate them, but seem bound to support their policies.  Eventually, AGW and economic stress will trigger a real, impactful response.  I would love to see it.  I hope I do.

Obama is no Progressive. He is X, and he is more pragmatic than anything else. His idea for reforming health care was to cut its costs by removing the for-profit (or otherwise lucrative) bureaucracy. This has been done elsewhere, but doing so in America means putting an end to a for-profit bureaucracy that builds in costs on a cost-plus basis that raises costs to everyone.

After the 2010 elections, Obama was unable to achieve much of a legislative agenda. The only way in which to avoid political gridlock in a political order in which the right-wing party sees the other one as watered-down Marxists and the left-wing party sees the other as watered-down fascists is for decisive majorities for the President's party. Of course, Donald Trump was unable due to his combination of offensiveness and incompetence to fully achieve a Christian and Corporate State in which all that matters in economics is elite gain and indulgence and the rest of Humanity gets vague promises of a glorious Afterlife for obedient suffering in This World.

I would like to believe that our oligarchs have decency enough to recognize that working people and intellectuals (which even includes such people as schoolteachers) who have a stake in the System are less likely to show dissent. The alternative to such decency in a capitalist order is the nightmare of slow starvation, concentration camps, and brutal executions. See also "fascism".

After the Crisis is over, an Obama-like, Eisenhower-like, or Cleveland-like President could be the optimum -- but only then. We will need a Lincoln or FDR to get us out of the mess that we now endure. I see Donald Trump as the literal (in the Biblical sense) scapegoat whom the community gives the burden of the commonplace iniquities and then sends off into the wilderness, most likely to become prey for bears, wolves, or Big Cats. As it is, Donald Trump represents just about everything wrong with America and practically no virtues.
Obama was an oddball - first, he's from Hawaii, the most un-typical US state among the 50, and second, he spent a good part of his childhood in Indonesia. And if you insisst that he's part of the US cycle, his empty talk of Hope and Change™ is very Boomer-like.
(11-14-2019, 03:45 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]Obama was an oddball - first, he's from Hawaii, the most un-typical US state among the 50, and second, he spent a good part of his childhood in Indonesia. And if you insisst that he's part of the US cycle, his empty talk of Hope and Change™ is very Boomer-like.

Without such talk, we stay mired in cynicism typical of Gen X and go nowhere at all. Where there is no vision, the people perish. Obama did not provide strong enough leadership to get the ideas he talked about passed, and he faced a resistance from Red America that is so demented and potent that no president could have overcome it.
Real Clear politics average today.

The 3 leaders are down a little bit, and Buttigieg, Yang and Harris up a little bit. But I am confident that in the long run the nominee will be one of the three leaders, and not the mayor, businessman or upstart senator from CA.

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden26.0
Warren20.8
Sanders17.8
Buttigieg8.0
Harris5.3
Yang2.8
Klobuchar2.3
Booker2.3
Castro1.3
Gabbard1.0
Steyer1.0
Bullock0.8
Delaney0.8
Williamson0.5
Bennet0.5
Messam0.5

Biden +5.2
President Trump Job Approval
Approve44.2
Disapprove54.0
Disapprove +9.8

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden26.8
Warren19.6
Sanders17.8
Buttigieg7.8
Harris5.0
Yang2.6
Bloomberg2.5
Klobuchar2.0
Booker2.0
Castro1.4
Delaney1.0
Gabbard1.0
Steyer1.0
Bullock0.6
Bennet0.6
Williamson0.4

Biden +7.2



Weary Democratic voters balk at new presidential candidates
By STEVE PEOPLES
today

Democratic presidential candidate former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick files to have his name listed on the New Hampshire primary ballot, Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019, in Concord, N.H. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — The number of Democrats running for president is growing as the first votes of the primary approach. And voters have a clear message: stop.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick roiled the race last week by launching a surprise bid. New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg is likely to do the same in the coming days.

The late entries, less than 80 days before Iowa’s kickoff caucuses, have exposed a fresh gulf in a party already plagued by divisions. On one side: anxious establishment leaders and donors, who are increasingly concerned about the direction of the race and welcome new candidates. On the other: many rank-and-file voters and local officials across early voting Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, who are drowning in candidates and say they’re more than satisfied with their current options.
https://apnews.com/f24332eed97e4e34a60cf01c2fb0807d

Biden and Sanders still best bets to beat Trump, as my astrology method predicts:
Nevada: Trump vs. Biden FOX News Biden 47, Trump 40 Biden +7
Nevada: Trump vs. Warren FOX News Warren 44, Trump 41 Warren +3
Nevada: Trump vs. Sanders FOX News Sanders 47, Trump 40 Sanders +7
Nevada: Trump vs. Buttigieg FOX News Trump 41, Buttigieg 41 Tie
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden FOX News Biden 45, Trump 43 Biden +2
North Carolina: Trump vs. Warren FOX News Trump 44, Warren 43 Trump +1
North Carolina: Trump vs. Sanders FOX News Sanders 45, Trump 44 Sanders +1
North Carolina: Trump vs. Buttigieg FOX News Trump 43, Buttigieg 39 Trump +4
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...elections/