Feinstein hails from Commiefornia, anyone who's not a literal child rapist or mass murderer could have won that seat with a (D) next to their name. You're probably right on Fetterman that the timing of his stroke was just unfortunate for Democrats.



Uh... not sure I get your argument. Do you mean that it's because the donor class will only support candidates who don't threaten the status quo?

Yeah, in the United States the donor class are the single most important factor to electability, and it's not even close. You can get a few off-shoots like AOC in niche areas, but it's pretty rare.

There's some other entrenched structures as well, like teachers unions and such that pale in comparison outside of very select state level races.

And that's the same everywhere, but America kicks it up to 11.

Well, from the donor classes point of view, Trump becoming POTUS was surely an accident too. So even if donor support is the single most important factor (which I agree with), it's not the be all end all of electoral politics, at least not with regard to high-profile races. Talking about that PA senate race, I'm sure that the donor class would have preferred moderate Conor Lamb over avowed progressive John Fetterman.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 19 2023 02:50pm

Here's a good rhetorical question-

why should senators be any more obligated to allow a replacement for a opposing senator being invalid, than they are for replacing an opposing senator who's dead?

When senators die in office, it can lead to special elections. If the power is with a state governor or legislature from the opposing party, it can even switch the balance in the senate.
Feinstein could always either die or resign and a democrat be picked to replace her and then later be voted upon and easily win to replace her, so clearly the power does not lie with the republicans in this scenario, it lies with Feinstein.

Trump did not threaten the status quo for those in power. Trump is literally one of them. His hallmark legislation was a giveaway to billionaires

We require old people to re-certify that they can see and stuff to be on the road, we should require some 'proof' that you can fulfill your duties at an advanced age to literally be creating and signing off on laws that impacts 340mm people.

Better yet, I don't understand why we don't have some cap on when you can run. It's not ageism to acknowledge that an 80 year old much of the time can't perform the same duties as a 50 or even 70 year old for that matter. IMO if you are running for a seat, lets say cap it to say that you have to be 80 or under to run. It's not an unreasonable law if framed correctly.

That's massive revisionist history. Trump is an agent of chaos, he's hard to control and his primary character trait is being a gigantic narcissist - one whose narcissism was being fed by the adulation of a working-class base whose goals on just about any issue were diametrically opposed to those of the donor class.

Trump did shake up the status quo on foreign policy. He tried his hardest to crack down on immigration. He did sink TPP. He was risking trade wars. He tried to undermine institutions. He made huge inroads when it comes to delegitimizing the mainstream media with large swaths of the voting public. He called out the swamp and forced the swamp to expose itself when it fought back against him. During covid and the Summer of BLM, he was pushing the country to the brink of the abyss.


It's certainly true that the Trump presidency turned out quite fine for the powers that be. But only because his ineptitute meant that he mostly succeeded to enact his policies where his goals aligned with those of the donors (business-friendly judges, tax cuts, deregulation) and failed to enact his policies where they didn't (immigration, trade policy).There was also quite a lot of luck involved, from the donor classes pov. Back in 2015 and 2016, the donor class surely didn't anticipate that Trump would trigger left-leaning folks so much that they embrace neoliberalism just to spite him, or that he would supercharge wokism rather than nip it in the bud. And let's not forget that his presidency only ended well for the donor class because he got defeated after one term... but he actually got to within just 0.63% of winning reelection!



So no, back in 2016, Trump was definitely not the preferred candidate of the donor class, JEB! and Hillary were.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 19 2023 07:20pm

I love how you say I'm doing revisionist history and then go on to deep throat the orange cheeto as though you're representing reality

You're denying that Trump was one of the least favored candidates of the donor class among the 2016 field. And you completely ignore how the powers that be/cultural institutions/the bureaucracy/intellectual and political elites all opposed Trump and fought back against him to an unprecedented degree. You're deying the lengths to which "the swamp" went to undermine Trump's presidency and defeat him in 2020, yet try to lecture me on 'reality'.

Also cute how you take a post of mine in which I'm very critical of Trump and call him out for his ineptitude and failing to live up to the potential his presidency had and conclude that I was "deep throating the orange cheeto".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 20 2023 12:42pm

Trump did not fundamentally threaten the entrenched power structure. He was the least favored in a Republican field full of corporate boot lickers, and was himself a corporate boot licker.

He's the tallest midget when it comes to going against the donor class, who are the real entrenched power structures.