Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Sorry dude. Howard Schultz grew up in the projects. That's where I know him from.

It's not the background, it's the idea of running for President without bothering to, say, be a governor or Senator first.

There is a craft to politics, to understanding how one accomplishes things by building bridges and consensus, by working with varied groups of people and elected officials with their own concerns, petty and profound, that one doesn't learn well from the outside.

If you look at those who have come to it without that training and background, people like Eisenhower and Hoover, you see administrations that simply struggle and accomplish little or nothing. The Rockefellers, Roosevelts, and Kennedys all started below President and worked up (granted, only two of those three made it, but none of them though it was below them to learn the trade).

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's not the background, it's the idea of running for President without bothering to, say, be a governor or Senator first.

There is a craft to politics, to understanding how one accomplishes things by building bridges and consensus, by working with varied groups of people and elected officials with their own concerns, petty and profound, that one doesn't learn well from the outside.

If you look at those who have come to it without that training and background, people like Eisenhower and Hoover, you see administrations that simply struggle and accomplish little or nothing. The Rockefellers, Roosevelts, and Kennedys all started below President and worked up (granted, only two of those three made it, but none of them though it was below them to learn the trade).

So Old Money is better than New Money.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

So Old Money is better than New Money.

No, what I'm saying is that actual hard work learning the trade and building some relationships pays off.

Fine if he wants to run for President. But if he wants to actually be a good President, I'd suggest some experience in politics first.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

By the way, everyone should see Nadya Tolokonnokova on Chris Hayes yesterday. Just the idea of a self-described punk-rock anarchist talking about the need to preserve our institutions from Trump and Putin is worth the price of admission (roll over, Johnny Rotten). But she's just all around great.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's almost as if the party was ignored by Obama and then run as a shell for Hillary's benefit. Like Sebby, I don't think it made a difference between Clinton and Sanders, but it doesn't seem like anyone involved was all that interested in trying to build a party or win back Congress. It would have been nice to have some real Democrats involved.

eta: Looks like the party functionaries were enriching themselves. If you're going to be a Republican, be a Republican -- they do this kind of thing better.

Clarifications re: Brazile: https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05/...hat-are-false/

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Clarifications re: Brazile: https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05/...hat-are-false/

Meh. Greenwald, as usual, dissembles alot. You can read the documents, they're all short, and make up your own mind.

Having read all the stuff, the biggest surprise to me is that an officer of the Party never read the financial statements she was distributed and seemed to have a half-baked idea of the rules, each of which are disappointing. There's stuff I would have done differently, but none of what was done was unusual; none of what was done shows as much bias as the Bernie folks are trying to push now at the DNC, where they really, really, really want caucuses in states with a lot of minorities.

Blowing the wad on the mid-terms was a strategic decision and in hindsight a mistake. She was part of the team that did that, and part of the team that led the response.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's not the background, it's the idea of running for President without bothering to, say, be a governor or Senator first.

There is a craft to politics, to understanding how one accomplishes things by building bridges and consensus, by working with varied groups of people and elected officials with their own concerns, petty and profound, that one doesn't learn well from the outside.

If you look at those who have come to it without that training and background, people like Eisenhower and Hoover, you see administrations that simply struggle and accomplish little or nothing. The Rockefellers, Roosevelts, and Kennedys all started below President and worked up (granted, only two of those three made it, but none of them though it was below them to learn the trade).

I see your point here. Govt is not business.

But Schultz is a unique experiment I think is worth undertaking. Too many politicians at high levels are established-to-old money (Bushes, Rockefellers, Kennedys). These people don’t know anything about how the economy works except at the CEO or investor levels. I don’t think we’ve ever had anyone with the breadth of experience of a Schultz run for high office.

I also want him to run to save us from Mark Cuban, who thinks he knows everything, and has some good ideas, but would be an awful, egomaniacal statesman.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

So Old Money is better than New Money.

I will say this for old money. They knew to keep the investment banks as partnerships. They understood that if you allow the crass, merchant mentality to swallow all other considerations, you get financialization. Which then in turn brings us the global financial mess we have today.

Not long ago, they executed naked speculators when those speculators caused crises. I think this lesson held among the old money partners of yore. Today, we worship those speculators, none of whom create anything.

I don’t want to go back to a rigid class system that protected old money. I like competition and think allowing the non-moneyed in the game enhances growth. I’m just not sure it’s a growth worth enhancing. And I’m pretty sure it’s a coarsening, and uncomfortably fragile growth.

Our world of tacky middlemen and financial alchemists hasn’t exactly turned out to be any grand utopia.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Having read all the stuff, the biggest surprise to me is that an officer of the Party never read the financial statements she was distributed and seemed to have a half-baked idea of the rules, each of which are disappointing. There's stuff I would have done differently, but none of what was done was unusual; none of what was done shows as much bias as the Bernie folks are trying to push now at the DNC, where they really, really, really want caucuses in states with a lot of minorities.

The takeaway here is the Brazile wants to sell books and is smart enough to know how to do that. And that apparently that matters more to her than Tuesday's elections.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But Schultz is a unique experiment I think is worth undertaking. Too many politicians at high levels are established-to-old money (Bushes, Rockefellers, Kennedys). These people don’t know anything about how the economy works except at the CEO or investor levels. I don’t think we’ve ever had anyone with the breadth of experience of a Schultz run for high office.

One thing that's abundantly clear if you listen to business people talk about the economy: most haven't the first tiny shred of a clue about how the macroeconomy works. They know how their business works (sometimes). They don't know how the economy works.

I also want him to run to save us from Mark Cuban, who thinks he knows everything, and has some good ideas, but would be an awful, egomaniacal statesman.

Mark Cuban would be an exceptionally poor president and candidate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

One thing that's abundantly clear if you listen to business people talk about the economy: most haven't the first tiny shred of a clue about how the macroeconomy works. They know how their business works (sometimes). They don't know how the economy works.

The same is true of most politicians, and most economists seem to shelve what they really think in order to support their side's political talking points.

eta: I still haven't forgiven Obama for his pivot to austerity.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The same is true of most politicians, and most economists seem to shelve what they really think in order to support their side's political talking points.

The same is true of most economists.

disclaimer: I have a BS in Econ.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Who watches Joe Scarborough? Is he going to be able to keep an audience if he keeps departing from GOP orthodoxy?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Who watches Joe Scarborough? Is he going to be able to keep an audience if he keeps departing from GOP orthodoxy?

Always thought his demo was GOP-leaning "moderates."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Always thought his demo was GOP-leaning "moderates."

Exactly.