Pages

Saturday, November 09, 2024

Look at the money. Whose for Dems. Whose for Trump (MAGA Republicans, not the traditional GOP corporatists).

 This election has a history. Bernie ran, Bloomberg said he'd quit the party if Bernie was the candidate, the party went with Bloomberg's Wall Street money and ties.

Schumer and Bernie had an understanding that Keith Ellison would be DNC head and would not take corporate money, Haim Saban blew it up, the money spoke.

Now, this election, no candidate, either side, said Medicare for All. One side said blue collar revenge, and won. Not blue collar recognition and policy, but, "I am your revenge." That in part was white nationalism, and there is no way the Dems will go back to Southern Democrat Strom Thurmond times, but the unions spoke and were outnumbered by non-union workers.

The Dems change or suffer. Yes the media were at fault. But pushing a policy that the media cannot ignore was off the table. Give 'em Hollywood instead, Cat Lady  singer says, Harris not Trump. Schumer's suburbanites like health benefits going with plum jobs, but there are two faults: few get the plum-job benes, and there is a job lockin which employers exploit - you want to say stick this job, okay, don't get sick, you, spouse and children, because aside from pay we have you by a yin-yang. 

And insurer money is spent to get a status quo lock against all sane reason. Other advanced nations have public funded healthcare. 

The US of A, knows better? Give me a break.

What Trump did was to recruit Silicon Valley money, not old Wall Street money, which was against him because he took the big banks for a ride when the casino thing failed. 

Compare Romney with his Bain Capital background and Trump. Bain Capital found firms with market prices below liquidation value and pounced. Jobs in existance were lost. Look to the Dems, and you have the Clintons, job diasporia and all.

Trump says what blue collar white men wanted to hear. Whatever he does, he sang their tune and the votes fell accordingly. We'll see how it all works out.

You have labor mobility wide open across the southern border. Blue collar workers are pissed? Wouldn't you be if in their place? Yet the workforce has aged with a big lump retired but not yet dead. Somebody has to work to finance Social Security, and there are willing hard workers crossing daily. It is not an easy fixed thing, but some exploiting immigrant workers via survival level wages want no part of a fix to their cash cow. Let it be. Turn a deaf ear to complaints, but then when the complaints vote, Oh My.

Schumer - gain in the burbs, give up white blue collar urban workers seeing their jobs shipped overseas by corporate employers with banker aid - that thinking was how the Dems were acting. Are acting. Not how the Dems should be. 

That Schumer-hummer has come home to roost. The gentleman was fantasizing because his seat rested perhaps that way and he either misread things or didn't give a shit since he had his safe seat and party control - Inner Party top dog status, damn all else. There will be change if MAGA holds beyond Trump burning his second term, and he's set JD and Silicon Valley money to generate a succession plan. 

Dems loving big banks and Wall Street? Remember that Trump had to sell "the Brand" after the casino bust and the banker freeze against him. He had that big grudge to push and he pushed it successfully. Revenge he said. How will the Fed handle itself under Trump? Hint, already it is news. Trump can and likely will weaponize his DOJ, and banks are not model citizens.

All this I have posted before. Compare this. There is a forest standing obvious, and pissing over this tree or that is not an answer. Not at a fundamental change of die level. Not that the commentators are dumb, far from it. It is that there are premises that are dead wrong in ways they overlook, or fail totally to see clearly. Schumer elite nonsense begets its expected result. Bank hubris ditto. NAFTA under Clinton has been redone, but still, jobs here are different from jobs there. Here they have to pay more.

Yes, a New World Order envisioned by GHW Bush, with Yankee finance atop the pyramid was a thought, but people ignored by that found a vote outlet in Trump. 

Could it have been Bernie instead? Yes, and with Bernie, sane and hate-free. But there are a host of somebodies who stymied Bernie, the names Clinton and Bloomberg coming to mind, name any big NYC bank. Those banks, Schumer's people. Hillary giving six figure speeches to Goldman Sachs, Hillary losing.

AOC is in place. And young. The Democrats have only to acknowledge it, and take that route to regaining the power and the spoils, or they can keep the path they are on and shrink even further as a power center in the nation. 

The Christian Nationalists, fueled as they are by Leonard Leo and crew, by JD converting - like Nixon's Chuck Colson coming out after prison a new man, before his death getting religion (as a political tool and move in a direction that paid off well for Chuck and is paying off for JD). That is part of the electorate the Dems don't want and don't need, if they look for expansion of votes elsewhere. We'll see.

UPDATE: And then, there is racism. Face it. It is there. It is unfortunate, but there.

Misogyny? The parties have yet to run a progressive AOC type. So that theory has not been tested. Black and Hollywood neoliberal with Harris and Doug Emhoff? Yes. Wall Street and neoliberal with Hillary? Yes. A progressive young white female? NO, NOT YET. Try it and see, or has the ship left port, JD standing now in the way?

Replacement Theory? You tell me. White European Men have a history of war and inhumanity toward one another, over shades of Christianity power, and other vanities, so would replacement be all that bad? More to the point, is it an actual factor in play? Not an easily answered pair of questions. (UPDATE: If anything, the Vatican is on a roll, not necessarily Francis, but the conglomerate, with SCOTUS in tow, and JD. A current replacer, not being replaced, but accruing power.)

Is republican-representation democracy with checks and balances no more than an auction to the highest bidder, an anachronism that failed as Curtis Yarvin argues from his place in Silicon Valley? Phrased more concretely, what's in the next four years for Elon and Theil? And will it suffice to keep them in play - indeed, what do they want is the preliminary question. And is Yarvin really a part of their team?