OK so here's my guess about the Presidential race
The super-rich have decided to pool their vast resources and have decided to issue resource offers, made secret to you or I or anyone in the mass public, to anyone willing to run for President as a Democrat. This is, as many have guessed here already, to take votes away from Bernie Sanders, figuring that the convention can be granted to the superdelegates, who will of course vote for Joe Biden, the banker's friend. And if they don't want to vote for Biden there's always bribery, up-front or covert.
The most recent entry in this "provide cover for Joe Biden" sweepstakes is Bill de Blasio, who apparently just announced this morning. CNN has also been kind enough to provide the mass public with a list of the 23 candidates who have accepted the money declared for the Presidential race. They are:
Michael Bennet
Joe Biden
Bill de Blasio
Cory Booker
Steve Bullock
Pete Buttigieg
Julian Castro
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
John Hickenlooper
Jay Inslee
Amy Klobuchar
Wayne Messam
Seth Moulton
Beto O'Rourke
Tim Ryan
Bernie Sanders
Eric Swalwell
Elizabeth Warren
Marianne Williamson
Andrew Yang
OK so I don't really have any evidence for my theory that the super-rich are offering any of these candidates money to detract from Bernie's campaign. So I officially retract this theory, having offered it earlier in this diary. But why would anyone run for President? More specifically, why would anyone run for President in a field of 23, knowing the enormous cost in time, money, energy, the infrastructures that have to be set up beforehand, and the enormous compromises that have to be made for a single individual to become President? (On top of that, 22 of these people are going to lose, for all the great effort they put into the process, and the winner is not by any stretch of the imagination guaranteed the Presidency.)
Now if the Democrats were a fair party they'd organize a fair national conversation about who among their candidates deserves the Presidential nomination. And it's quite possible that the consensus generated by that national conversation would be around one of the minor candidates, one of those great multitudes of current Presidential hopefuls who will in real life get about 1% of the vote if they're lucky. But the Democrats aren't a fair party, majoritarian democracy is too easily rigged at the national level, and the masses are likely to settle for either Bernie or Biden, Bernie because he's got an infrastructure in place from 2016 and Biden because they all associate him with Obama, the (omigod) first Black President.
So what is the point of this charade? It's not like they all have new, innovative ideas for government, given that the current government process is a charade in which money is printed up and granted unconditionally to special interests. The problem is not that nobody is proposing an alternative, but rather that none of them can really change the situation, not all by themselves. None of them have any real way of getting out from under our current utopia of money, our present world of ever-increasing wealth for a few amidst ever-worsening poverty for the many, not all by themselves. No, that will take a popular movement, which appears just as likely under a Republican President as under a Democrat.
Now, you can say what you want about Bernie Sanders. But at least he's trying to win through a popular movement, whereas Silly Joe is as obvious a candidate for the super-rich as one can find anywhere. And the others? Like I suggested, it's the popular movement that matters. Otherwise we can all expect to continue living in Great Depression conditions for the bottom 40% while the super-rich make tens of thousands of dollars every minute. You're the people. Move!
Comments
Yes,
you're sure pointing out that there is something in it for those multiple candidates who are there clearly to outnumber Bernie's numbers in the polls. What a blatant crude trick.
i feel some comfort in the fact that i
know about half of those names, lol.
i can't comment on your thesis, but i'll extend your question as to 'But why would anyone run for President?' to...why would anyone believe in their hubris that they were able to be the Leader of the
Free World, and yes, why would they want to be President? i'd really like to know, and kept thinking of writing a diary to ask folks. would i get answers like: 'to embody the changes they'd like to see'?there used to be a saying that there are three jobs for which application a peron should be immediately disqualified: president, cop...and i've forgotten the third, of course. some religious job, maybe?
anyhoo, thanks, cass.
None of the other people --
-- absent any great uprising in favor of any one of them -- are going to be President. It's Bernie or Biden. If anyone here would like to organize that great uprising in favor of that third candidate, they're free to persuade the audience here that such an uprising is worth their time.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
i won't vote for any
of them, myself. i'd been laughing to myself about the Big News yesterday: tulsi would pardon assange and snowden. why not earlier? is it too cynical to surmise she stuck her finger into the prevailing wind? of course it is; but i like verisimilitude.
And as for...
"'to embody the changes they'd like to see'," too many bodies.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
pope
spelling corrected
Pope. It's black-letter law in that case. If a Cardinal votes for himself, or for any non-Cardinal who is known to seek the office, that balloting session in the Conclave is nullified. And the Cardinal who cast the offending ballot is admonished by the Cardinal Camerarius (Camerlengo) or the Cardinal Dean, as this is misbehavior on the part of that Cardinal.
This creates the ironic situation whereby the prominent Cardinal who makes the most effort to escape the Papacy is the one who gets elected. Examples include Leo XIII, Pius X, and John XXIII.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
my stars; i've read that
law three times, and still don't grasp it. all i remember are different ....er contestants? the world watching for announcements: 'ah, the black smoke rising'; oopsie, still black smoke...'white smoke, we got us a new Pope! God's proxy on earth!' (yeah, that's quite a job description....
i'd been thinking the third job may have been 'priest', and this a.. a friend of the café sent me this tweet:
Romano Pontifici Eligendo (1975)
You've read the Apostolic Constitution Romano Pontifici Eligendo of 1975 (Pope Paul VI)?
If so, you're as hard-core as Betty Clermont or, well, me!
Candidates. Papabili in Italian. Theoretically, any baptized Catholic male ordained to at least the rank of deacon; actually, restricted to a handful of Cardinals whose identities are easily discernable well back into the reign of the Pope being replaced. Some of the papabili can be told by which Sees they command, i.e., the Archbishop of Milan, the Patriarch of Venice, etc. The Primate Archbishop of Baltimore is rapidly acquiring this status, as the highest-ranked See in the USA.
The smoke thing isn't law. The only thing the law says is that the ballots (yes, real paper ballots!) have to be burned to grey ash so no one can know who voted for whom. Due to the severe prohibition against most communications between the interior of the Conclave and the general public outside it, the traditional custom began whereby damp straw was added to the burnings of failed ballots to flag "no election" to the crowds outside. In more recent times, I believe it was John Paul II who authorized inclusion of what we who grew up as teenaged boys in the 1970s would call "smoke bombs" of black and white smoke with the ballots to send a clearer signal. (When I learned about that, I wanted to slip some other colors into the mix.... "purple smoke??!!??")
The modern Papacy is more of a laborious, industrial-strength pain in the ass than anything else. Massive amounts of public "answer-for" (Betty Clermont again) and very little actual power despite almost unlimited theoretical power. Example: Were I Pope, I'd demand the lives of every clerical rapist in the Church. But without the temporal power to execute or imprison longer than a year even those who commit offenses in the Vatican itself (finally lost in the Lateran Concordat of 1929), the actual range of Papal action is quite limited.
I certainly wouldn't want the job, myself.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
i apprecciate your
lengthy explanation, love 'purple smoke', but i'd add well...papal bulls. but if the ballots are burned to ashes and smoke, i'm further confused at your explanation as to the law and "if a Cardinal votes for himself, or for any non-Cardinal who is known to seek the office, that balloting session in the Conclave is nullified."
but it's okay, i'd just thought in the past that if some (okay) candidate didn't get enough votes, then there were 'consensus' candidates up for votes later.
it's not that i've meant to blow you off, there are just so many hours in the day to do home chores, read news that's worth writing up, and such. but thanks so much for tryin' to educate an apatheist like me a little bit. ; )
i wonder if within that atlantic story, pedophile priests isn't a key theme. should be.
papal conclave ballots
OK. Obviously, the ballots are read by at least one of the Conclave's Cardinals. Actually, IIRC, it's a panel of three of them. These Cardinals, known as scrutatores, check the ballots for any disqualifying irregularities (such as a Cardinal voting for himself). Then these same scrutatores count the votes, and then send the ballots to the small stove that is used for that purpose (i.e., destroying the ballots) alone. When I said "nullified", the scrutatores are the ones who declare said nullification.
All this brouhaha happens because of the strict laws against any unsupervised communication between the Cardinals in Conclave and the outside world.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Power, presitge and influence
in the future is what some of these candidates are working for. Blech!
Inslee really does care about the climate
I’ve talked to him and he is at least honest that far. That distinguishes him from a lot of the field.
But he is also a corporate dem with no national infrastructure or experience, so I doubt he can put together enough support for the radical changes that we need.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
I'm currently in WA
If Inslee wants to show that he cares about the environment he can start by getting his state a bottle bill. The roadsides around here are full of discarded cans and bottles.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
The irony is
That we have some of the best tasting water in the country. I am reminded every time I go out of state and get a mouthful of tap water. So even better would be to ban bottled water: it’s less safe and tastes worse.
But a bottle bill a great point - I grew up with them on the east coast - and I’ll check into the local history.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Looks like we have tried
I found a history from two years ago here in The Columbian. It conflicts with our rather agressive curbside recycling. Also the locals have voted it down twice by impressive margins (probably a an unholy combination of “gubbmint meddling” and middle class laziness).
Here in Seattle, very roughly we have a price signal on all solid waste instead of just bottles. Which works well for municipalities but does nothing to prevent the tragedy of the commons when people just chuck stuff out the window in rural areas.
This fits in with the larger critique of recycling: it greenwashes consumption instead of discouraging it. To do that, we could maintain the volume pricing on landfill trash, add a bottle bill, and stop recycling (which is mostly a joke as a lot of the streams are either too contaminated to use or have no domestic market). Composting could stay and paper might be worth it. But I doubt this approach would have any political support. Sigh.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
I think I heard
that if there were more than 20 declared candidates the DNC was going to decide which were not invited to the debates. Guess what Tulsi?
And then theree's my theory that it is easier to hide 10% stolen from Bernie by scattering it among 10 lesser candidates rather than blatantly giving it all to Biden. (or someone else after the public recoils in terror from Creepy Joe)
On to Biden since 1973
As a sidebar, I think DeBlasio will do a little better...
...than expected, but he won't last long, much like many of the other candidates on the roster of 23.
On another note, folks have short memories. And, I state this based upon the fact that, in 2016, the GOP had 17 "official" candidates running for the nomination, with 5 of them withdrawing before the primaries commenced. Furthermore, there were another 20 candidates (see the link earlier in this paragraph, i.e.: Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Allen West, et al) that were testing the waters during that cycle, but they didn't end up running.
So, as far as recent presidential primary history's concerned, 23 is certainly a large number of candidates, but somewhat in line with what happened just 3 or 4 years ago on the Republican side of the equation.
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
The question of interest is not whether DeBlasio will do better
Rather, it is, "What is his purpose?" He hasn't any hope of winning, so what's the deal?
I'm one of the people who has always been puzzled as to how any chief executive (Mayor or Governor) has the time to run for President, or anything other than the office already held. I would be quite content to see state constitutional amendments that require the Governor to spend at least 6 hours in the state Capitol on at least 200 or so different non-holiday weekdays per year, or surrender the office.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
He could syphon off votes from Sanders, at least in NY...
...maybe in other states (thinking: IL, MA, MI, OH, PA, SC, etc.) as well.
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
he could ... but why would he want to?
and even if that's the purpose, it's a damned risky strategy for the party nabobs. i'm not granting the apparent assumption that each of these clowns is more likely to take votes from Sanders than from Biden (or whomever succeeds Biden should he flame out). Buttigieg, Gabbard and Warren, maybe, but the others? Corporocrats like Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, O'Rourke are competing for right-wing and IdPol votes.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
DeBlasio will definitely get significant numbers in NY n/t
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Yes: But will they be votes that otherwise would have gone
to Sanders? or to Biden? or to someone else entirely?
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Back then, and with them, it was obvious.
The Republican candidates were all angling for some Koch money. The Koches had no qualms about making it public back then that they were supporting several Republican candidates. Donald Trump's sweeping them all away came later.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
Bernie will swing his supporters to Biden
because blue against Trump. Bernie's words, just seen on a Jimmy Dore video.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Jimmy Dore video
We all like some Jimmy Dore
So linkie, linkie, por favor?
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Linkie
Here 'tis. It's from a live Jimmy Dore show. The part about Bernie starts around 2:00 in.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
As far as Jimmy Dore and Bernie are concerned...
...here's the most relevant/current "thing" I've (most recently) watched...
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d36QXSnSRgM]
"Freedom is something that dies unless it's used." --Hunter S. Thompson
Running cost money
Somebody is paying for all the candidates who the hell are they? I’m cynical enough to bet on the billionaire theory.
I’m also getting tired of Bernie. Instead if asking if Biden will vote for him, Bernie does what Dore said. No wonder we have no opposition party.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Oh, it's probably ego that drives those people
They can think otherwise, but nobody will remember that they ran for President. What people will remember decades from now is that we had a chance to stage a popular uprising worthy of critical mass before the Great Climate Catastrophe of 2034, when California went totally dry and the supermarkets were all raided for what was left of the canned goods and millions died of starvation. And that it never happened. Or at least the survivors will remember that. And the survivors will all be millennials who will stop taking care of their Baby Boom and Gen-X parents in ingratitude for having granted them no future. Do any of these fools running for President recognize the dystopia we live in?
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
Yes and no
" Do any of these fools running for President recognize the dystopia we live in?" Yes, in as far as they don't want to join us, and no, as long as they don't have to experience it themselves it's not a problem.
Too fkn bad.
It won't do any of them any good to escape to New Zealand. Climate change will get them there, too.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
WaPO columnist redefines the word "clueless"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/16/joe-bidens-heresy/?ut...
So, clever boy uses new term, neo-socialist. He states the facts pretty well, it's just he thinks there's something wrong with it.