Bloomberg for President?

[3point14]

Jeremy Corbyn was also wildly popular among party members and was popular enough in with the public to receive a standing ovation at Glastonbury. Then the right wing propaganda machine got to work properly and also his failings as a party leader started to become abundantly clear and his electoral goose was well and truly cooked.

"Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism."

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-comm...rch-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn



Jeremy was unfairly eviscerated in the press. That we now attribute his failure to things other than his unfair press is a triumph of the billionaire newspaper owners art.

One woman voted Tory because she was told that Labour would take away her food bank, and she needs that.

 

[3point14]

They had all that stuff in America in the 70s?

What happened?

The Overton window moved. Or rather, was moved by those that sought to gain from it.

That, in the US, the extreme left wing, scary position on healthcare is "People should have it", is an interesting demonstration of this.

 

[The Don]

Jeremy was unfairly eviscerated in the press. That we now attribute his failure to things other than his unfair press is a triumph of the billionaire newspaper owners art.

One woman voted Tory because she was told that Labour would take away her food bank, and she needs that.

It's absolutely true that he was eviscerated in the press - and Bernie Sanders can look forward to exactly the same thing.

Jeremy Corbyn made it easy for the billionaire newspaper owners by appearing to fail to deal with antisemitism in the party, driving away Labour supporters like myself with his Brexit policies (which changed daily) and appearing to actively drive out moderate candidates and supporters from the party.

For me it was his apparent inability to compromise or move from his dogmatically held positions which made him thoroughly unsuitable as Labour leader. Just because he was horribly treated by the right wing press didn't mean that he also isn't a terrible Labour Party leader.

 

[uke2se]

Then find a good candidate.

We have the candidates we have. That's what we have to work with. There's not going to be a coronation, and there cannot be the impression of one. Your personal preference or ideological purity notwithstadning. The only question is: do you want to give Trump 4 more years. If you don't, encourage people to vote blue, no matter who. Otherwise, you are doing Trump's work for him.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism."

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-comm...rch-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn



Jeremy was unfairly eviscerated in the press. That we now attribute his failure to things other than his unfair press is a triumph of the billionaire newspaper owners art.

One woman voted Tory because she was told that Labour would take away her food bank, and she needs that.

Yeah, I didn't want to get in to the whole Corbyn thing because this isn't really the thread, but it should also be said that his actual policies were popular with the public. So it's not that he was too left-wing for the public. It's that people didn't trust/like him, personally.

But then the UK is not the US and different policies will be palatable to each populous.

 

[The Don]

The Overton window moved. Or rather, was moved by those that sought to gain from it.

Yes, and the world has also moved on. Policies which may have been appropriate to address the issues of the 1970s may not necessarily be the ones to address the challenges of the 2010s.

Protecting domestic heavy industry is IMO less of a priority whereas addressing the challenges of climate change and how to help those "left behind" by the knowledge economy is a greater one.

 

[3point14]

It's absolutely true that he was eviscerated in the press - and Bernie Sanders can look forward to exactly the same thing.

Jeremy Corbyn made it easy for the billionaire newspaper owners by appearing to fail to deal with antisemitism in the party, driving away Labour supporters like myself with his Brexit policies (which changed daily) and appearing to actively drive out moderate candidates and supporters from the party.

For me it was his apparent inability to compromise or move from his dogmatically held positions which made him thoroughly unsuitable as Labour leader. Just because he was horribly treated by the right wing press didn't mean that he also isn't a terrible Labour Party leader.

He's only a terrible party leader if he doesn't get elected.

He didn't get elected because he was eviscerated in the press. Like I say, people were so ill informed by the British press corps that someone actually believed Jeremy would take away their food bank.


Bernie, up until this point, appears to be utterly, utterly, squeaky clean. Which he'll absolutely have to be to get through this.

 

[3point14]

Yes, and the world has also moved on. Policies which may have been appropriate to address the issues of the 1970s may not necessarily be the ones to address the challenges of the 2010s.

Protecting domestic heavy industry is IMO less of a priority whereas addressing the challenges of climate change and how to help those "left behind" by the knowledge economy is a greater one.

Both of those will require moving the window back left.

I don't agree with your implication that the modern world requires a more right wing viewpoint. I think that's actually bobbins and due to climate change, globalisation and mechanisation, the 21st Century requires a more left wing approach.

Saving, of course, that the classic left/right paradigm is useless and divisive.

 

[The Don]

Both of those will require moving the window back left.

I don't agree with your implication that the modern world requires a more right wing viewpoint. I think that's actually bobbins and due to climate change, globalisation and mechanisation, the 21st Century requires a more left wing approach.

Saving, of course, that the classic left/right paradigm is useless and divisive.

Good, because I never implied it.

IMO the challenges of the 2010s need a different set of (left wing) solutions than the challenges of the 1970s.

 

[3point14]

Good, because I never implied it.

Fair point. Apologies.

IMO the challenges of the 2010s need a different set of (left wing) solutions than the challenges of the 1970s.

Less wealth inequality and higher taxes on the very rich?

 

[The Don]

Fair point. Apologies.

No problem.

Less wealth inequality and higher taxes on the very rich?

Both laudable aims but the tools and policies of the 1970's might not be the best way to achieve that due to the changes in the ways that the wealthy accumulate their wealth and differences how they hide manage it.

Likewise policies that may work in the 1970s - free university education for all - may be affordable when <10% go to university - may not work in the 2010s when 50%+ go.

 

[3point14]

They had all that stuff in America in the 70s?

What happened?

Rich people decided they needed to be richer and forgot about the 30s?

 

[3point14]

Likewise policies that may work in the 1970s - free university education for all - may be affordable when <10% go to university - may not work in the 2010s when 50%+ go.

Or, maybe there's enough money and resource in the world for everyone who wants to to have higher education, not to make more money, not so banks can profit from the interest on the loans and pass the bad ones back to the government, but to make thw world a nicer place that makes better, democratic decisions (ones based on facts and evidence, I mean, I do not mean 'in line with mine')

There is enough money in the world for this. There is enough resource in the world for this. It's just the massive pooling of wealth at the top of society along with a complicit press has made it seem impossible. Which is by design.



EDIT - Country, not world.

 

[Belz...]

You asserted [X]. How does that make the argument not going my way?

Again, the fact that you ran away from it. You didn't mind that this wasn't the thread for this when you brought it up.

 

[Belz...]

Mike Bloomberg tweeted a doctored debate video. Is it political spin or disinformation?



We're basically in an era where with a bit of creative editing you can make it appear like something that didn't happen, happened.

Not surprising from Vox, though. From that description it seems like political ads as usual.

 

[Belz...]

You seem to be under the impression that in order to win the election, Democrats have to siphon voters from Trump's base.

He didn't say that at all.

 

[angrysoba]

Jeremy was unfairly eviscerated in the press.

Even if he hadn't been, he was still a terrible leader, and a terrible politician who assembled a team of terrible incompetents and weirdos and was unable to stop his party collapsing around him or make a coherent argument regarding Brexit.

Bernie Sanders appears far more competent than Corbyn and is very combative. The parallels don't work.

In fact, if anyone looked Corbyn-esque in the debate in Nevada it was Bloomberg. Not because of his policies but his inability to explain the hole he had dug for himself.

It seems that people in this thread are trying to tell people not to trust the evidence of their own eyes regarding both Bloomberg and Corbyn.

 

[angrysoba]

Smarter and richer than Trump. Context please.

How does being smarter and richer automatically mean he will win?

Remember that Trump hardly had to do any spending in his election campaign. I have no doubt that plenty of his rivals were smarter than him. It didn't mean the smart people were going to win.

Seriously, where is the evidence that Bloomberg can win? Where is the evidence that it is "no question"?

I've seen nothing that makes him seem like a winner at all.

 

[Drewbot]

The debate showed us that the Dems can attack someone who isn't even on the ballot in the next two Primaries.

This is a huge win for Bloomberg to get the attacks done now, when it doesn't even affect his delegate count. Media cycle will flip in a day.

The scariest part for the Dems, is he is basically blackmailing them to nominate him, because it is clear he is going to run 3rd party if he doesn't get the nomination.

 

[3point14]

Even if he hadn't been, he was still a terrible leader, and a terrible politician who assembled a team of terrible incompetents and weirdos and was unable to stop his party collapsing around him or make a coherent argument regarding Brexit.

Yup, that's exactly the impression you were supposed to leave with. (The 'evidence of your own eyes', unless you've actually followed Corbyn around, was carefully managed by the right wing press and a complicit BBC. That which you see 'with your own eyes' is managed.)

A triumph of the art. It was positively surgical.