Greg Sargent talked to Democratic pollster Geoff Garin about the two most likely Republican nominees. Garin, who works for Clinton’s Super PAC Priorities USA, had a lot to say about Cruz.
“Cruz would be the most extreme right wing nominee in modern American history,” Garin told me. “He is deeply out of sync with a large majority of voters on social issues. His role in shutting down the government is anathema to most Americans. If Republicans nominate Cruz, they concede any claim to the center whatsoever.”
Garin cited Cruz’s opposition to Roe v. Wade and his desire to prosecute Planned Parenthood over the sting videos (Trump has actually defended the group’s role in providing health services to women) as well as Cruz’s vow to continue fighting to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling of a constitutional right to gay marriage.
“The fact that he wants to defund and prosecute Planned Parenthood puts him at odds with voters in a general election and with women voters in particular,” Garin said. “His desire to roll back the clock on marriage equality will be a deal breaker with a generation of voters.”
It’s easy to forget how hard-right Cruz is on social issues, but he’s so far out on that limb that he’d have to have something awfully big to compensate for it.
The problem is, he doesn’t have anything.
Garin allowed that Cruz would have some advantages over Trump, particularly in the temperament department. “Trump’s liabilities relate in part to the sense of risk voters feel about having him as commander in chief,” Garin said. “More and more people are coming to think of Trump as a know-nothing. Cruz’s intellect and knowledge are not his problems.”
But Garin also suggested that Cruz would have liabilities that Trump might not — chiefly, that Trump, for all of his crazy ideas, does convey a sense that he cares about the economic plight of struggling Americans and possesses some economic know-how. Cruz’s instincts and interests seem more bound up with social and constitutional conservatism, and with battling whatever symbol of big government overreach (or Washington betrayal) comes along to activate his base at any given moment, than with how to recast economic conservatism for an era of anxiety over stagnating wages and inequality. Garin argued that Cruz would struggle to appeal to the middle on economic issues.
Cruz might be modestly more convincing as an economic populist than Mitt Romney, but Goldman Sachs loaned him the money for his campaign and they pay his mortgage. I’m just not seeing it.
“Trump has some credibility with voters in talking about the economy,” Garin said. “Cruz brings nothing to the table other than prepackaged ideology.”
I also don’t think we should discount just how repellent Cruz is as a personality. Generally speaking (and Nixon excepted), the sunnier personality usually wins these elections. I don’t think Bernie or Hillary are rays of sunshine, but they win that contest easily when put up against Truculent Ted.
I don’t think Bernie or Hillary are rays of sunshine, but they win that contest easily when put up against Truculent Ted.
I know a lot of people favor Sanders because of his positions but I wonder what more there is. Do people see him as the lovable, but cranky, uncle/grandfather type? That’s certainly going to top “Tailgunner” Ted.
To me he is not at all pleasant. I would still vote for him because personality is not a prerequisite for me. But he does grate. And that finger waving!
.
I like that he doesn’t do that silly Clinton non-pointing thing. But yeah I do see him as a grandfather type, gruff but seen enough to be done with the bullshit.
Birdie Sanders video says it all.
Bernie reminds me of my grandfather, an FDR Democrat with a intense devotion to the labor movement. Two photographs hung in grandpa’s living room above the sofa: FDR and John L. Lewis. If someone criticized either men, they had a fight on their hands.
Two photographs hung in grandpa’s living room above the sofa: FDR and John L. Lewis.
A shame that more grandpas didn’t exhibit similar good judgment.
What about Hillary’s smirk? And that whiny voice?
Christ, out of that ground Clinton has by far the most pleasant personality.
Who would have ever thought that possible?
.
Cruz.
No doubt.
AG
What concerns me is that while Trump has made himself permanently odious to a large swath of the electorate – he can’t slip into the “generic Republican” onesie – Cruz might still be able to pull that off. After all, Republicans on the whole are very conservative. Do general elections voters have the sensitivity to the differences between Cruz and Kasich? Heck, to me there all a pack of wolves, so I’m not sure if I appreciate the nuances.
And Cruz might be smart enough to pull it off. He probably can’t set aside the slimy vibe he gives off, but could he get away with toning down his rhetoric for a few months?
He could only do it if he was self aware. Does he strike you as someone who is self aware?
Me either. He’s poison.
.
Cruz has always frightened me. Much more than Trump.
In fact, as a lib, I’ve been silently rooting for Trump. Even if Trump were to somehow get elected, my gut is that he’d be better than any of the other candidates.
Cruz unlike Trump is a really committed and destructive person, and one who seems to have a ruthless drive and an eye for organization. I’d really hate to think what could happen if he managed to make it all the way. And because he is a really ruthless committed guy, I worry that he just might make it all the way. Year after year I notice that the GOP manages to elect their folks against all logical odds, using various measures or racism, sexism, vote-stealing, gerrymandering, religious pandering and sucking up to the money. Cruz would likely turn out to be a very capable campaigner on all of those fronts. No matter how slimy he may look to me or to anyone on this forum, because he’s a tailor-made republican whack-job robot.
Be afraid America. Root for the Donald. Cruz is the Anti-Christ.
I just re-read my post, so good for me. And a postscript below:
I don’t mean to imply Trump the best candidate! But that he is the better GOP candidate at this point if you are a Democrat. And I’m not rooting for him to win it all, just to beat Cruz…
Cruz is more toxic. But we’re only comparing the two, right?
Good question, Booman. But you forgot Hillary Clinton.
Her unfavorables are worse than Ted Cruz. That means she is probably more odious than him to most people.
Now, these people are nuts, because we all know that a Christo-Fascist power mad perpetual liar who oozes phoniness is worse than a Wall Street liberal perpetual liar who oozes phoniness.
It’s just that, when you are talking about Ted Cruz, the idea that his unfavorables are lower than that of the DNC favorite daughter, we have a problem. And it’s not going away.
Any democrat who thinks Cruz vs Clinton or Trump vs Clinton would be good for America does not know America. It’s a choice between two depressing, corrupt, low quality people.
Clinton vs Cruz. One just happens to be a 1980s Republican, while the other is a Christo Fascist nightmare.
Damn, that is impressive, worse than Cruz.
Damn — I’m sorry, I’ve got to post this again : Hillary’s favorables/unfavorables compared with Bernie’s.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating
Hillary’s unfavorables started going up THE MINUTE people started to realize that she was going to run again — late 2014 — and have continued ever since. It’s been net unfavorable, and rising, for the past year.
The standard answer to that is, well yeah, but it’s the Republicans pushing that. However, the fact is that as of today, about about half of Democratic voters prefer Bernie.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-24/democrats-evenly-split-over-clinton-sanders-in
-bloomberg-poll-im63yb0w
It’d be impressive if it were true.
Ok, thank you for the link.
Still, the unfavorables are tied at 55%. He is more underwater.
But she is also underwater. The former SOS of a 47/47 President and a former popular Senator from NY is tied in unfavorables with a Christo Fascist nightmare that shut down the government. And he only got elected Senator because any psycho who can get the majority of the 17% that vote in the Texas GOP can win the general in that state.
So, we have to ask. If Clinton has the experience, the endorsements, is smack dab in the middle of policy debates, is right on all the social issues, and is from the party whose incumbent President sits at 47/47, then why are her unfavorables at Christo Fascist level?
Because we know who she really is. Decades of statements, speeches, votes, and diplomacy have led us to believe she is craven and untrustworthy. Just because the GOP routinely puts up unfit people for office, does not mean it’s ok when the Democratic party does.
“have led us to believe she is craven and untrustworthy”
What do you mean by “us”, kemosabe? I don’t think that at all, and neither do a lot of dems. OTOH, I don’t listen to Fox or drink Bernie’s Kool-Kid-Koolaid either.
This,
.
I mean “we” who hold our leaders to a higher standard than “way better than the GOP.”
It’s like saying, “Well, Clinton is not perfect. But she sure is better than any nominee from a party that traffics in racism, homophobia, misogyny.”
“After all, she only agrees with that party on the following:
-endless war, regime change, arming everybody in the Mid East on the eve of the collapse of multiple states
-Neo-liberalism, easy flow of capital to tax havens, easy flow of labor to slave wage countries
-Raising money from huge corporations, enriching herself at their trough while out of office, helping them when in office, and then playing dumb”
-Playing dirty politics of innuendo and distortion and then crying foul at every little slight, real or imagined, with the crocodile tears of a sociopath.”
But hey, she only agrees with them on that stuff. So, no problem. All you hippies shut up and let us listen to the Eagles in peace! And please, pass the sweet and sour shrimp.
Once again, I mean “we” who hold our leaders to a higher standard than “way better than the GOP.”
Debbs/Alinksy 2016!
Yeah, those voters back in 1932 should have stuck with Hoover.
In responding to snark with some sort of witty reply, you’ve confused me as to what you mean.
Are you implying that Hoover was better than FDR?
As far as I know, Hoover wasn’t running against FDR in the Democratic party primary, and minus a minor miracle, Sanders won’t be running against Republican X in the 2016 General.
Debs (you should spell his name correctly) didn’t run in any DEM presidential primary either; so, exactly how was anyone to know that your “snark” (often repeated here as a DFH punching catchall and is exceedingly tiresome) was referring to the 2016 DEM primary?
Honest debates require all parties to own what they espouse and changing that with whatever way the winds blow today is dishonest. Sort of like HRC who is for and against practically everything and which is why she isn’t viewed as honest.
Because, right there in my snark, was the “2016”, giving away that I’m being snarky about this here election cycle.
I’m still confused as to what your comment is trying to elide, in terms of the voters of 1932, Hoover v. FDR in the general, and the whole “vote Sanders or bust”, which I find…”exceedingly tiresome”.
Good snark has a valid reference point. How could “Debbs/Alinsky 2016!” (sic) be interpreted as a reference to the primary as party tickets only come into being for the general election? If your intent wasn’t to mock lefties as seeking an impossible and loser dream ticket because lefties are nuts, then you failed.
I’ve heard crap like this from ConservaDems since I was fourteen years old. And in all those many years, they’ve always been wrong about the right thing to do and wrong about what lefties were advocating.
Debbs(sic)/Alinksy 2016 was snark in that it represents the idea that we have to put in the most socialist, leftiest-of-leftiest wing people on the ticket or there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican.
You can clutch your pearls about how I’m punching hippies by mocking the whole “Sanders or Bust” movement if you’d like, but many of us here who have voted for Sanders and would prefer Sanders, are just as exceedingly tired of the constant shit-on-HRC contest as you and your fellow “Sanders or Bust” movement is with people like me holding up a mirror while you shit on HRC.
Don’t worry, though. I won’t call into question your principles or ethics just because I disagree on whether or not constantly attacking HRC is an effective way to get Sanders a majority of pledged delegates for the convention.
I’m sure if you grunt and push a little harder while shitting on HRC that Sanders will retroactively pick up a few hundred pledged delegates. In fact, perhaps it could create a singularity in the space-time fabric and allow a few million “bad liberals” to go back in time to change the results of a few big primary contests.
Was that snark? Am I punching hippies? Am I just being a bad liberal?
I’m sure you’ll have the answer. I’ll wait here for my lesson.
And you think Clintonism is superior to the views of these two men? Then you must be pretty happy with the status quo. I hope you own a wetsuit.
You want to have a discussion, and defend your candidate? Go ahead and make your point. I will debate you. It took the original response to my comment, that linked to something contradicting my info on Cruz’s disapproval rate, and I admitted my error and still engaged on a factual level.
You should try it some time, if you are intellectually capable.
Let’s see if we can agree on three things. I think we can.
Proposition (a): Clinton will probably be the dem. nominee.
Proposition (b): Clinton is an imperfect candidate.
Proposition (c): Either dem candidate is a damn site better than the repubs.
So given a, b, and c, who you gonna vote for come November? Who you gonna work for before that? Are you gonna work hard? Or are you going to sit on your hands, like a lot of Sander’s Kool-Kids have said they will do if (when) Clinton wins the nomination? If you are in that group you are a useful idiot for Karl Rove and Co. , and you deserve to be hippy-punched.
I don’t like some of what Clinton has gotten involved in myself. But I think you exaggerate her flaws, and I think she will be a better president than you do. Time will tell, assuming that the Kool-Kids don’t succeed in throwing the election to the repubs.
All of that may be true, but if you’re not willing to let the Republican party burn the country to the ground to prove that you’re PureTM, then you’re just a Republican anyway.
Or something.
I think it would be helpful if, for the rest of the primary/election season, IP address locations logged which states people are from.
Booman: please make that happen. It’d sure be interesting. If people really need their super-ultra-mega privacy, they can log on through proxies.
I’d love to see if the PurityBrigadeTM members are from happy little blue states with democratic governors and democratic legislatures.
I live in deep-south, red-state hellhole Georiga, with a Republican governor, Republican legislature, and Republican everything else outside of essentially Atlanta and Athens.
Move to Georgia and f-ing tell me that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Seriously. I need a good, hearty laugh.
Enjoy what is happening to Republican Governor Bentley in your neighboring state of Alabama. I am. It has to be very embarrassing to the people who voted for him and the story appears to be getting bigger. Some of the wing-nut Repub nonsense can’t last.
Hey, I was never a Nader guy. I will vote for Clinton if the polls in California are close. If she is ahead by more than 10 points in the state I may vote Green, since this is not Ohio.
But Clinton has done everything in her power to avoid a fair fight. It is the height of privilege to use superior $$$ and connections to crush the populist in the race, and then try to shame people into supporting your candidacy in the fall.
Strategically, I would never enable the GOP, if only because I care about the court, and people on the margins.
But the Bernie or Bust people actually have a strong intellectual point, but it only works in the long run.
For instance, if Clinton squeaks by Sanders and then beats a weak Trump or Cruz, the message to all the fat n happy DNC people will be “hey this stuff works. Keep the lobbyist money flowing ,baby!”
If Clinton were to lose to Trump or Cruz, the results would be devastating for the country and would have lasting effects.
However, Clintonism would be dead. The model WJC set up that Obama continued, of out-corporate hustling the GOP at their own game, will also be delegitimized.
That will clear the way for the Warren wing of the party to be ascendant. The Clintons won’t be able to call the kids unrealistic idealists, because it will be proven that they themselves are the unrealistic $$ grabbing elite suck-ups.
Also, these kids don’t believe in the lesser of two evils. Maybe because many are a bit too young to fully comprehend this country pre-W and post-W, to see the damage GOP rule can cause. But they do get points for integrity, because they refuse to give their vote to somebody that does not represent their values. That may not be smart, but it is very American (like gun culture).
In the long run, if Clinton were to lose, it might bury Chelsea’s political future, and then the Clintons would go away. Now that would be a welcome development for 70% of this country. Including myself.
But will I vote for her? Yes. But some would say that is only because I identify abuse as love, and I am glutton for punishment who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome. And they would have a point.
The only thing I find off-putting about her is on foreign policy, where she’s awful. Some of that I think is a function of being craven and thinking she needs to be hawkish as a woman.
On domestic policy she’s basically Obama but surrounded by idiots.
On foreign policy, Bernie doesn’t seem to have any actual philosophy (which is still better than Hillary, admittedly). On domestic policy, he seems to be really great at demagoguery and renaming post offices. And protecting gun manufacturers and other less-than-stellar stances.
I hope she’s paying you well for the Bernie Bashing.
Continue believing everybody’s part of some grand conspiracy and demonizing them, Cletus, even those of us who’re with you on the issues. It’s gonna win you all kinds of stuff.
I just know this will piss everyone off, but I have to ask. And I am all for gun control before I say it. But what does that have to do with gun manufacturers? There is still a second amendment and so they have a right to make guns so you can’t stop it. I know some want to sue them for what some nut did with the gun they bought. Why? Hit someone with your car and they sue GM? I’m really missing it here. I know I am biased since in my younger days I lived in upstate NY and owned several guns I used for hunting. Guess I was an evil mutha back then.
Because we know what neoliberalism does?
Because y’all think that somehow simply voting for Sanders is going to end US Empire, end racism, bring about universal health care, universal college education, and personal bullet trains. Probably in the first 100 days. Because T̶r̶u̶m̶p̶ Sanders says so.
The rest of us principle-less, dumb-dumb pseudo-libruuls realize that there is still, literally, a supermajority in Congress that oppose those things. And that HRC, as much as she is clearly Satan in disguise, is way better than a Cruz/Inhofe ticket.
Don’t mind us, we’re just really, really bad liberals.
Yes, you are a bad liberal. You claim to be for the things that Bernie espouses, but you refuse to reach for them. Instead you embrace the economic Pollock of Bush. And push Bush in a pantsuit, just because of her party label. That makes you as bad as the Republicans that don’t believe that religious crap but vote for fanatics anyway because of their party label.
Or, once again, we just think you’re wrong.
Not even that. I voted for Sanders in Georgia. As I’ve stated over and over.
You won’t find me saying HRC is the best candidate, or that Sanders is the worst.
Instead, even calling into question the vitriolic, sanctimonious “Sanders or Bust” rhetoric gets you labeled as some sort of evil neo-conservative neo-liberal “bad liberal”.
It’s hilarious. Sad, but hilarious.
I’m way to the left of the PurityBrigadeTM members, but I’m somehow a sellout because I’m not shitting on HRC and saying I’m just going to let the Republican party burn this fucker down if I don’t get my pony and unicorn come July.
I equate Libertarians as political toddlers, who shout and shout and shout that “they don’t wanna”. I guess I should add in the PurityBrigadeTM members as their counterparts.
In that case, I apologize for having called Clinton “your candidate.” I stand corrected.
If your point is to fuck with Bernie people, because a few of them might be the type to go on local news during Occupy Wall Street, and say things like “I’m here because we need to abolish money,” then you should realize that this movement is far more broad based than that. For instance, yourself.
Many of us are reasonable people, who thought Obama would be way more of a progressive fighter, and we will not settle for less this time. That simple. That’s why we voted against Clinton in 08.
Now, the Bernie or Busters run the gamut. Many will stay home or vote green. But many, IMO, are just instantly defensive about voting for “the nominee,” because they view it as code for giving up on Bernie. They don’t want to hear it at all…for now. Many women, especially, will be strongly motivated by different factors in the fall. I hope.
I AM a Sanders person. I say Sanders rather than Bernie, though, because I don’t pretend to be on a first-name basis with Sanders, and because regardless of how much I agree with Sanders, he’s still a politician. In 2008, I was an Obama supporter. But I also considered him a politician, so I of course didn’t assume he was going to fix everything, or be some progressive. It’s enough, for me, that he wasn’t John McCain, and that Biden wasn’t Sarah Palin.
Low expectations? Nope. I live in observable reality, where there were exactly two options, and I chose the best option.
I’m not trying to fuck with anyone. I am tired of reading the constant “Bernie or Bust” sloganeering that doesn’t have an effect on me, but perhaps could persuade some fence-sitting liberal to just stay home if Sanders isn’t the nominee. There are most assuredly a lot more lurkers than commenters here, and perhaps a few of them live in red states that could possibly go one way or another in 2016. The people whose rhetoric could possibly convince them to just sit at home if S̶a̶t̶a̶n̶ HRC is the nominee deserves to be countered.
It’s not me calling into question the principles, ethics, or liberal bonafides of people who are essentially saying that if Sanders isn’t the nominee, we might as well give Trump the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
Instead, because I question or hold up a mirror to the rhetoric that HRC is evil incarnate, I’m pointed out as some sort of political traitor who clearly wants more Empire and more Wall St.
It’s…exceedingly tiresome. Especially here. A blog post by Booman can be about the Republican party falling apart, and the “Bernie or Bust” crowd comes in and starts throwing bombs, and then gets upset when someone throws one back.
I am not Bernie or Bust, but the rest of your comment is appreciated.
In retrospect, I did sort of distort the diary, but when I asked about including Clinton in the question, that was not my intention. I am genuinely concerned with the idea that she is WAY more unpopular than polls even show. Maybe I am paranoid about that, and maybe I have been spending too much time in spaces that are at war right now, and the tone spilled over. For that, I apologize.
I am new at this and should be a little more attentive to staying on topic, and watching my tone with people who are straight up.
Thanks for engaging.
I have no problem with someone writing about whatever they want to write about. But when people write things that sound “Bernie or Bust” to me, I’ll speak up and make sure that the opposite argument exists next to it for the less-vocal lurkers who come here.
I wish the US Congress, White House, and Supreme Court was made up of Sanders, Warrens, and the like. Unfortunately, that isn’t the option about 99.9% of us get to choose from. So, if you have a choice between a typical Democrat, typical Republican, or staying home, I’d chose the typical Democrat every time.
Or, to put it another way: If Sanders isn’t the nominee, vote for the person that Sanders is going to vote for.
Funny enough, I voted for Sanders.
Funny enough, you’re not going to find me shouting to the rooftops about how HRC is the best candidate, or how Sanders isn’t the best candidate.
You and your fellow PurityBrigadeTM members’ sanctimonious “You’re Bad, I’m Good” comments are exceedingly tiresome to those of us who are rooted here in observable reality, where there is plenty of difference between HRC and Trump/Cruz/Kasich.
The same observable reality where Satan herself is still leading in pledged and super delegates, by the way.
It’s hilarious, and yet pathetic that PurityBrigadeTM members constantly call into question principles and ethics of people who aren’t shitting on HRC in public. You’re free to stay home and stay pure this November.
What you won’t find me doing is calling you a piece of shit in public for doing so.
Questionable principles and ethics. Good and bad liberals.
Yeah, definitely in play here.
Keep on keepin’ on, American patriot.
Be sure to vote Trump or stay home in November, in order to prove how much better of a liberal you are.
Really, don’t thank me for links you didn’t want. You’re presumably an Internet-savvy person. You could’ve looked that up instead of spouting off bullshit you wanted to believe.
Here in Reality, we try to deal in facts. I know that’s a foreign concept with some of you, but, as Neil deGrasse Tyson once said, the great thing about science is that it’s true whether you believe in it or not.
Yeah, ok. Great talk…see you out there.
Indeed, great talk. Yay math. Good times.
But no. Hopefully we won’t run across each other out there. I’m from Florida, so I have enough purist extremism in my my life.
There is a word for people like yourself.
Floridian
Thank you.
Head to head polling between Cruz and Clinton is close.
You have a person few trust – and Clinton has trouble with Democrats on that issue.
I saw Ted Cruz twice. It is hard not to conclude he is just an asshole.
So you have someone no one trusts against someone very unlikable.
Clinton will probably win, but it is far from a sure thing.
Candidate preference polling this far in advance is just incredibly volatile.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2004/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_kerry-939.html
You beat me to it. Thank you.
The real question is:
Who is more odious, the corporate centrist masquerading as a liberal or the (
un)reality TV celebrity masquerading as a political thinker?Trump might get lucky and actually get something done in spite of himself.
HRC would most certainly “get some things done.” But …what things, exactly?
UH oh!!!
Caught between Scylla and Charybdis?
Flip a fucking coin.
A three-sided coin, ideally. The third side reading “None of the above!!!”
We can dream, can’t we?
Later…
AG
Thank me? “No! Thank you, Mr. Accavano.”
-Wise Guys
Danny DeVito
Joe Piscipo
great moments in American cinema
Nice.
I worked w/Danny in his early years in NYC.
Good people.
A great theatrical talent.
Bet on it.
AG
Cool. My favorite TV actor of all time
Check the avatar
@squeakbaxter
The only real question in any of this is:
How the hell have you never learned to write in paragraphs?
That’s gotta be the fault of the PermaGov, too.
Bet on it.
OK. Fuck this guy.
Gotta remember what Errol told me about feeding the trolls.
Drew J Jones: User ID # 5317
GradySeasons: User ID # 337346
Is that a secret code only known to the CIA? What’s mine? LOL
Oh I get it. I am “newer.” Well, my ass has lurked here almost every business day since 2003 or 04. I am buddies with a high school mate of the proprietor of this site. He hipped me to it during the Dean days.
So I just started posting recently. Maybe I’m not so self important to think people just MUST hear what I have to say. I post when I fuckin want to post. Got it?
This guy #5317 has been here awhile, huh? That shit means nothing to me. You can judge me by what I write. The rest is bullshit, and you know it. If he is such an upstanding and long established contributor to this place, maybe he should try a little harder to act like it. I won’t hold my breath.
Ok, ok, you want to talk about tenure and you send this through the door? Well, we play your rules, don’t we. Well…don’t we?
I really couldn’t care less what your signup number is.
Hell, I don’t even really care that you felt the need to make shit up. I just felt like pointing out that you were making shit up and don’t find you the type to be terribly sincere in thanking me for pointing out that you were making shit up, based on your commentary thus far.
It’s not trolling at all. It’s (1) being sick of the populist idiocy that has infected a lot of otherwise smart people here and (2) wanting to have a laugh at Arthur Gilroy, who should be in a psychiatric hospital (and should’ve been years ago), quite honestly.
I appreciate this, j, but you don’t need to defend me. 🙂
I unlearned.
Dizzy Gillespie taught me.
Miles too. And ‘Trane and Monk and Bird and Pops.
Play the phrase.
Breathe.
Then play the next phrase.
Time.
Rhythm.
Bebop, in a word.
You don’t like it?
Great.
Don’t listen.
Your loss.
AG
…adding:
/wanking motion
We all laugh as we watch the Rethug establishment forced to rally around Cruz. How sad and pathetic, we say.
But rallying around a corrupt loser like Clinton is just as laughable and dangerous.
That liberal bubble is pretty resistant to logic, as well.
Stay pure and stay home on election day.
It all depends, n1cholas.
Cruz vs. HRC?
Vote for HRC.
Trump vs. HRC?
It’s a toss-up, really. Two sides of the same dangerous coin.
Bernie vs. anybody likely available?
Go out and vote for Bernie!!!
At least he’s got some remnant of a soul…a major accomplishment in U.S. politics today.
Bet on it.
AG
I’ve already voted for Sanders in Georgia.
The most evil person in the world beat him though.
If it’s Trump v. a rabid racoon, I’m voting rabid racoon, because I’m 100% always against the authoritarian-backed candidate, which is clearly Strongman Trump.
That, and being in my 30s, I’m stuck here for another 50 years or so. I mean, y’all can say “burn it down or Bust”, but I’m the one who has to spend another 50 years in the burned out husk. Which apparently makes me an ethically-compromised bad liberal, if I go by the “Sanders or Bust” crowd’s pronouncements on my political soul.
Tough spot to be in, for sure.
nicholas – some of us haven’t had the primary vote yet; we’re not thinking about the General yet. it’s not about Bernie or bust, or purity or staying home – right now it’s about the NY primary.
Go and vote for Sanders. I did.
That said, there is a difference between advocating for Sanders, and shitting on the currently-likely nominee.
After awhile, I’m basically left making the same points I would when discussing HRC with a Trump-supporting Republican. While I’m not dissuaded from voting for whomever the nominee is, I know there are people out there that will be. Which is fine, I guess, but I’ll also hold up a mirror to the people trying to convince other people that “Bernie or Bust” is the best way to advance progressive causes.
“Trump vs. HRC?
It’s a toss-up, really. Two sides of the same dangerous coin.”
Excellent call from the Gatekeeper of Progressivism.
Hey, Arthur, how you feeling about your support for voter ID laws?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/todd-allbaugh-voter-id-wisconsin-gop
“You wanna know why I left the Republican Party as it exists today? Here it is; this was the last straw: I was in the closed Senate Republican Caucus when the final round of multiple Voter ID bills were being discussed. A handful of the GOP Senators were giddy about the ramifications and literally singled out the prospects of suppressing minority and college voters. Think about that for a minute. Elected officials planning and happy to help deny a fellow American’s constitutional right to vote in order to increase their own chances to hang onto power. A vigorous debate on the ideas wasn’t good enough. Inspiring the electorate and relying on their agenda being better to get people to vote for them wasn’t good enough. No, they had to take the coward’s way out and come up with a plan to suppress the vote under the guise of ‘voter fraud.’ The truth? There was almost none. Oh wait, GOP Speaker Voss’ estranged wife voted twice in both Idaho and WI, and a GOP staffer was caught voting twice. But it was good rhetoric. Yesterday, one of my employees, born in California went to get his WI ID. He was told he couldn’t use his CA ID to get a WI ID without his birth certificate which is back in CA. The result? He’s not able to vote today. Here’s a young man in his early 20’s, who is taking part and interested in voting for the first time in his life. He was excited to go to the polls. What kind of a state, a legislature, a political party is it that denies this young man his right? The GOP was born out of greater opportunity and equality. Wisconsin, yes the Wisconsin Republican Party, under the leadership of Republican Governor Robert M. ‘Fighting Bob’ La Follette lead the country in creating greater voting access to its citizens. The WI GOP was seen as a shining example of equality. THAT was the party I joined in the 80’s and fought for. That party no longer exists. I don’t belong to any party now. I don’t think the Dems have all the answers either. But my God, to watch a party I once fought for deny a young man his voting rights…it boils my blood, leaves a pit in my stomach. It’s time for a #GOPImplosion”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/06/3767043/glenn-grothman-voter-id-wisconsin-partisan/
Here’s some populist parlance you’ll recognize:
Steal a voter’s rights outright or steal them by duplicity.
Like I said…two sides of the same coin.
Theft is theft.
AG
In fact…the duplicity approach of the DemRats is actually better, because when people are discriminated against quite plainly they get madder than hell but if…like you, apparently…they don’t even know that they are being taken for a ride? That’s a win!!!
AG
Arthur Gilroy remains a supporter of voter ID laws. Remember this each and every time he lectures here.
Hey, AG, how’s your buddy Cliven Bundy doing in jail? Have you written long, rooster-filled emails to the authorities, calling the BLM part of the PermaGov and raging on about how “fucking right” Bundy is?
You remain a lockstep DNC centrist. Try to remember that every time you try to paint me as some kind of quasi-right wing troll here. Maybe it will help you.
But I doubt it.
Go work for a real Dem. Your kind of Dem.
Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (Aka Payday Loan Annie)
You are a party functionary, right?
You work for people like her.
Get a life.
AG
I’m voting for Bernie.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz works for me. She isn’t doing my bidding on lots of stuff. If I had the sole ability to fire her, I would.
If you can’t see how DWS has undermined her credibility and power in the last year, you’re failing to see the world as it is.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/warren-wasserman-schultz-clash-over-payday-lenders-n551681
You think HR 4018 has a chance in hell of becoming law? Dream on.
Meanwhile, voter ID laws which deny low-income people the franchise in many States are very real, and you support them. Very principled of you.
I repeat:
This country needs a a thorough cleaning-out. It is not going to happen under the Republican and/or Democratic parties as they are currently constituted. Stop working for them. You support Sanders? Go work for him.
And stop wasting people’s time here trying to paint me as some sort of villain. You know damned well that this little Voter ID laws schtick you repeatedly run about me is a red herring.
So I repeat again:
You are a high-level Dem functionary?
Do you get paid for it?
Too bad.
Quit.
Go to work for Bernie.
Can’t afford to quit?
Sorry.
We all make mistakes.
Deal wid it.
AG
THIS COMMENT IS A REPEAT FROM ONE IN AN ABOVE THREAD in this diary, but I wanted to make sure St Nick sees it:
Hey, I was never a Nader guy. I will vote for Clinton if the polls in California are close. If she is ahead by more than 10 points in the state I may vote Green, since this is not Ohio.
But Clinton has done everything in her power to avoid a fair fight. It is the height of privilege to use superior $$$ and connections to crush the populist in the race, and then try to shame people into supporting your candidacy in the fall.
Strategically, I would never enable the GOP, if only because I care about the court, and people on the margins.
But the Bernie or Bust people actually have a strong intellectual point, but it only works in the long run.
For instance, if Clinton squeaks by Sanders and then beats a weak Trump or Cruz, the message to all the fat n happy DNC people will be “hey this stuff works. Keep the lobbyist money flowing ,baby!”
If Clinton were to lose to Trump or Cruz, the results would be devastating for the country and would have lasting effects.
However, Clintonism would be dead. The model WJC set up that Obama continued, of out-corporate hustling the GOP at their own game, will also be delegitimized.
That will clear the way for the Warren wing of the party to be ascendant. The Clintons won’t be able to call the kids unrealistic idealists, because it will be proven that they themselves are the unrealistic $$ grabbing elite suck-ups.
Also, these kids don’t believe in the lesser of two evils. Maybe because many are a bit too young to fully comprehend this country pre-W and post-W, to see the damage GOP rule can cause. But they do get points for integrity, because they refuse to give their vote to somebody that does not represent their values. That may not be smart, but it is very American (like gun culture).
In the long run, if Clinton were to lose, it might bury Chelsea’s political future, and then the Clintons would go away. Now that would be a welcome development for 70% of this country. Including myself.
But will I vote for her? Yes. But some would say that is only because I identify abuse as love, and I am glutton for punishment who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome. And they would have a point.
for my part, i politely request to hold off on that discussion until after the convention
That is the wise choice. I learned the hard way.
On twitter.
I’m going to defer to Jimmy Carter on this one:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/jimmy-carter-donald-trump-ted-cruz-218707
“The reason is, Trump has proven already he’s completely malleable,” Carter explained. “I don’t think he has any fixed [positions] he’d go the White House and fight for. On the other hand, Ted Cruz is not malleable. He has far-right wing policies he’d pursue if he became president.”
THANK you, karl and Jimmeh!!!
Pins it!!!
AG
There is no plausible analysis that makes Cruz a more attractive candidate. If the GOP leadership had any sense they would be doing whatever they could behind the scenes to make sure Trump is the nominee (take your lumps, move on), but I’m just an anonymous and unserious person.
Ted Cruz is like an extra unlikable, more assholish Rich Santorum. I don’t think Hillary is a great campaigner, certainly not an inspiring one, but I suspect she would love and relish to run against Cruz. Barring some kind of blackswan type thing, there is no way he even sniffs election.
He’s more attractive to them because Cruz will do their bidding and Trump is a loose cannon.
Cruz vs Clinton = win-win for Wall Street, lose-lose for Main Street.
CRUZ has a face for a Criminal Minds Episode.
The GOP attempts to ‘ moderate’- when, in reality, they just try and convince you that the dogwhistles mean something other than what they mean.
We do have a lot of good clips on Cruz. Just yesterday, I read a tweet about him saying, ‘ Yes, rape is bad, But…”
There is no BUT, Rafael.
He does!
But are semi-sane Republicans terrified of Cruz to the same degree that they are terrified of Trump? I feel like both would unify Dems, but Trump has the greater potential to split Repubs.
I’ve been asking for someone to explain the difference in POLICY between Cruz and Trump.
I argue – there isn’t any.
It’s just that Rafael talks in Frank Luntz-approved dogwhistles.
Cruz would send cruise missiles to Tehran and Moscow and Trump would negotiate with Putin to install Yuuge, first-class Trump Towers in Tehran and Moscow.
Bingo!
Actually, wouldn’t Cruz want to set off a regional war in the Mideast? That’s the desired trigger for Armageddon per the Christian Zionist narrative.
Yes, but he’s also the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy; so, he’ll want to decimate Russia as well.
Trump or Cruz, name your poison. Trump is a megalomaniac but at heart I think he’s mainly a grifter who’ll say whatever he needs to say. Call him rat poison, because he’s an oily rat.
Cruz, on the other hand, is a psychopath. It wouldn’t surprise me if he had a kill room in his basement. He’s botulism/ebola/sarin. Both are toxic, but if I had to choose I guess I’d prefer the megalomaniac in order to keep the country out of Steven King territory.
I hope the repubs. come to the same conclusion and do not nominate the psycho, but I could be wrong.
Who is more toxic?….. YES!
Seems to me Cruz is the embodiment of the Amerikan Taliban.
Well, that will make a great bumper sticker, at least.
The question is sort of like which is safer to stick in your mouth, a thirty-aught-six or a three-fifty-seven.
.30-06
It’s harder to reach the trigger with the barrel in your mouth than the .357
Republicans would be better off nominating a puddle of vomit than either of these two clowns. But, as others have said, they’ve got a problem. The base, being its own puddle of vomit, really wants someone who reflects their values. If the party tries to inject what passes for sanity (at least amongst the MSM and the idiot voters who aren’t paying attention), it’s hard to imagine the party holding together. Will Cruz’ and Trumps’ delegates not get together around refusing to allow the 8-wins rule to be changed, essentially forcing the party to choose between them? There isn’t enough popcorn in all the land!
puddle of vomit, very picturesque!
If the GOP had any sense at all, they would blame all of the insanity on Trump AND Cruz. It wouldn’t be true, but it would give them an out. Then they could claim that they’re very sad about how many of their lovely people have been brainwashed by these monsters, but that it’s their responsibility to do the right thing and save the party by choosing someone completely outside of this tarnished campaign.
Yeah, they would lose this election by a mile. That’s going to happen anyway. But they would be able to drop the lunatics and racists, regain the moderates, and restore a bit of legitimacy to their party. Then they could get back to their real jobs of making more money for the super-rich.
Can they do it? Do they have the guts to take a dive now in return for later rewards? Or have they been banging their heads against the wall for so long they’ve come to believe their own hype? Beats me. I think they’re all nuts at this point.
Lulz props to tb92; I believe he may have transcribed last week’s closed-door RNC Convention strategy session, up to and including the coda “I think we’re all nuts at this point.”
Also, too, the excellent vibes up this comments thread (snark) illustrates why I am so looking forward to the end of the primaries and Convention. Today, I was talking to a colleague who was forced to deal with the hottest emotions among organizers and activists during the ’08 Dem POTUS primary. We took comfort in remembering it all ended with this:
Political grownups deliver moments like this, and help run successful campaigns to win the Presidency and Congress.
Yeah … I’m deeply deeply torn on the issue of whether to hope for Cruz or Trump as the nominee. More specifically:
Ahh, yes, the original topic. Great questions. Solid way to think about the problem. Game theory at it’s finest.
Still Thinkin, but my first impression is that Trump could more likely get blown out and cause a Dem wave, OR win solid in a low turnout election.
I don’t see him losing a squeaker.
Cruz to me is the more traditional RW nut and they will easily coalesce behind him despite their dislike of the man. It will be close and Clinton better get some mojo with the kids and new explanations for the attacks, if she wants to win this tight race.
As to who would be more dangerous? If we had a history of strongmen I would say Trump. He is an unpredictable fascist, but he won’t be able to rise like a strongman and cancel elections.
However, he COULD do untold damage.
If Cruz wins, that means the GOP will probably control all branches.
That WILL cause untold damage. I guess Lindsey Graham had this contest summed up nicely. Pick your own way to die.
I generally agree with your take on Trump and Cruz. I think there’s also a possibility, though, that Trump does something to throw the election in the fall. I’m not sure he wants the presidency and we could see something like what happened last week, where he seemed to be intentionally torpedoing his chances.
One last factor to consider, though – with Trump, the Kochs don’t need to waste money on the presidential race and can concentrate all firepower on Congress. With Cruz, they have to split their focus. Again, I’m not sure if that is meaningful or not.
From Benen:
At least in public, Republicans are supposed to say voter-ID schemes have nothing to do with rigging elections by suppressing voting rights, though some on the right occasionally slip and accidentally tell the truth, as Grothman helped prove.
Now, another shoe has fallen. A former Republican staffer in the Wisconsin legislature wrote a Facebook message this week, confirming that he saw GOP state lawmakers who, while considering voter-ID measures, “were giddy about the ramifications and literally singled out the prospects of suppressing minority and college voters.”
The staffer talked to MSNBC’s Zack Roth today about the Republicans’ disenfranchisement campaign in Wisconsin.
Todd Allbaugh, who served as chief of staff to a Republican state senator, said in an interview Wednesday that at a closed-door caucus meeting in 2011, GOP lawmakers openly discussed how the ID bill would hit minorities and students hardest.
“One of the senators said, `We need to think about the ramifications here, what this means, particularly in Milwaukee and college campuses across the state, what that could mean for us,'” said Allbaugh. “What I’m interested in here is winning, and we need to use the opportunity, because if Democrats had the power to do it to us, they’d do it,” another senator said, according to Allbaugh.
“…but that’s an artificial and temporary boost …”
Assuming their vote is sincere, then if their candidate wins, and if they continue to feel (s)he’s more or less representing them, and they are benefitting from it in some way (including “morale”) – I would bet they’d be more likely to stay in. They now have a stake in it.
This is also a social thing, of course. They also feel a sense (however vague) of community with others who feel (more or less) the same way.
It doesn’t mean they have to agree with everything (s)he does or says, just that they sense a significant improvement, from their point of view.
If their candidate (now in office) is under attack for the very reason that persuaded them to vote for him or her, that will probably strengthen their conviction, and bring about a “rallying” effect.
The corollary to this of course is that if their candidate loses, or if (s)he wins and they get “buyer’s remorse”, they will have no reason to identify with the party.
The more general corollary is that making the party more appealing to more people strengthens the party.