I’ve seen some reports that suggest an 8-6 split, but McClatchy says that Sanders and Clinton will evenly split Wyoming’s 14 pledged delegates.
Officials say the Wyoming Democratic caucuses have resulted in an even split of the state’s 14 available delegates between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
Sanders won 56 percent of the votes cast Saturday in the 23 county caucuses while 44 percent went to Clinton.
Wyoming has a total of 18 delegates who will cast votes for presidential candidates at the Democratic National Convention in July.
Two are party leaders and two are national committee members who are allowed to vote independently for the candidate for their choice.
I don’t know who the party leaders and national committee members are ultimately going to vote for at the convention, but I guess the odds are that more of them will support Clinton than Sanders. So, I’d put money on Clinton emerging from her loss in Wyoming yesterday with more delegates than Sanders out of the state.
But even if it comes out the other way, Sanders will only net two or four delegates out of a contest he won by twelve points.
It’s tough to see Sanders win strong victories in Wisconsin and Wyoming and discover that he’s getting further away rather than closer to winning the nomination. You can argue about whether this is fair or not, but the rules haven’t been changed in the middle of the game. Candidates don’t set out to win some abstract and idealized version of the process. They set out to win a contest with defined challenges and obstacles, and their strategies should match those requirements. If there are no delegates to be netted out of Wyoming, it’s probably not worth spending any time, money or effort on it, especially if the polls show you’re going to win it easily without any effort.
This contest was won or lost (depending on your perspective) in the South. Beyond that, it was won far earlier when Clinton won enough party support to dissuade others from challenging her and to get most of the party officials in her corner. The reason this was so easy to accomplish is that Clinton maintained sky-high approval ratings throughout Obama’s second term, including better than 80% support from self-described progressive Democrats.
That support among progressives is what made me realize as far back as 2014 that it would be fruitless to try to take her on from the left. And that’s when I knew that she’d be the nominee.
Of course, I wouldn’t call Sanders’ challenge fruitless at all if we’re talking broadly about positive influences and outcomes. But he won’t win, and I don’t think he could have won in an environment where most progressives, particularly in the South, have a very positive view of Hillary.
White progressives struggle to accept these facts because Clinton is not popular in white liberal circles. But that doesn’t get you very far, as white progressive champions always fall short unless they can unite the entire progressive community and still appeal to the middle.
Obama could do that. But there aren’t many Obamas out there.
I don’t think you understand the mood of the country outside the East coast bubbles. the latest, the WY debacle where the Clinton campaign, according to reports, had affidavits instead of attendees at the caucus to bring their numbers up, well that’s machine politics in action. Clinton is being forced on us by the dem party. you’re observing the breakup of the Republican party, but not paying attention to the breakup of the dem party. it’s about the non-recovery from 2008 – what happened to the Clintons in 2008? they emerged on the billionaire side of the ledger; they may not quite have the billions, but that’s the circles they move in. 99.9% are suffering, unable to retire, unable to hand anything on to their children, saddled with lifetime of debt or hanging on by a thread. that’s what it’s about
That’s because the Democratic Party is being strengthened by the Sanders challenge rather than weakened by it. But more than anything, the behavior of the Republicans is going to create a very large coalition of Democratic voters in November, many of whom will not be even remotely loyal, but who also won’t easily walk back to the GOP.
Obama and Hillary did NOT lead significantly different factions.
Sanders and Hillary DO lead different factions.
So I would say the jury is still out on the ultimate damage. If Republican cross-overs replace millennials and bring H home, expect little help down ballot. 2018 might get very ugly in advance of a 2020 debacle. An even larger segment will be millennial, and a smaller will be boomer.
I don’t agree with the premise that Hillary and Bernie lead different factions, particularly as a comparative to the 2008 candidates. I also don’t agree with the definitive claim that this primary campaign is damaging the Party or our ability to win in November.
For example, are you going to propose that, if she wins the nomination, more younger voters would vote for the GOP nominee than would vote for Hillary, or that we would suffer turnout levels from young people which are highly inferior to their turnout for Obama in 2012?
I have not seen this claim supported by any polling I have seen. It makes the assumption that primary results and turnout levels are automatically reproduced in the general election, and that has not been true, historically.
I may be off, and you may be thinking of other things entirely. Please bring up other things I may not be considering.
Recall how many people had convinced themselves in 2008 that Obama and Clinton led different factions of the Party and Movement. That was a much more bitter primary than the one we are currently in, despite the surly mood that crops up here and elsewhere.
You steadfastly refuse to see Sanders as an FDR Dem and Hillary as a DLC Dem. Nothing I say will move you on that. It is a bit bewildering to see in one who claims to support Sanders. Why, then?
I voted FOR Hillary in 2008, mainly because she was a woman. I had no animus towards Obama, who represented the Kennedy wing. I was fine voting for him in the general.
Seeing neoliberalism play out in the economy and the society has changed my mind drastically. It was a mistake of gigantic proportions. I have no idea if Sanders can reverse that engine, but it has to be done, imo. Making a squishy middle of our politics has handed over the process to the corruptible. (True-believers get shot, but they usually don’t sell out. Heh.)
I don’t know what millennials might do with Hillary. Who will be her opponent? As I said, the jury is out. The professional smoothers are saying it’s bluster…
OK, I’ll absolutely join you on that. Hillary voters typically want to improve the status quo but are more comfortable with it, while Bernie voters more typically see the status quo and the people associated with it as unredeemable. I stipulate agreement with that definition of faction you are taking here.
You can see I was making the presumption that we are talking about the voter factions for the general election. Ultimately, what Party primaries are intended to do is to choose POTUS and other candidates who we collectively feel can both represent our policy positions and values, and win the general election.
Bernie supporters often believe that it is most important to change the system drastically, and/or to nominate candidates who will be more aggressive in their policy proposals. To many of these people, general elections concerns are less important, or are equaled by the urgency of tearing down the current edifices, in levels of importance.
I don’t think we should play around with this. The most important consideration to me, by far, is navigating the primary campaign, keeping in mind always how our electoral coalition can best be cemented to the candidate who wins enough Delegates to take the nomination. This is why I have looked extremely sideways at those who bring their buckets of Hillary haterade here.
Anyone who claims to want, more than anything else, to support Bernie’s vision of what the Federal government should be doing, would be putting a lie to their claim if they walked away from strongly supporting the nominee of the Democratic Party from August to Election Day. People sometimes lay claims here which are difficult to walk away from. I don’t feel that is a good way for them to defend their policy preferences.
Many Bernie supporters respond to the general election argument by pointing to current polling which shows Sanders does much better than Clinton against the leading GOP candidates for the nomination. They often wish to make those polls dispositive, and ask us to look away from the polls in the summer of ’88 which helped give rank-and-file Democrats the security they needed to nominate Governor Dukakis.
Now, some make the observation that Dukakis would win with the 2016 electorate because of the significant demographic changes which have taken place since his unfortunate campaign took place. I consider that possible, but uncomfortably uncertain.
Campaigns matter. I have acceptable levels of confidence that both Hillary and Bernie would conduct competent general election campaigns. I’m worried that Clinton’s campaign could become buried by the nonstop scandal-mongering and the Bullshit Mountain which has subsumed large portions of the media and the electorate, causing the actual campaign platform she is running on to be ignored. I’m worried about Bernie’s campaign suffering from having no previous experience leading any coalition of voters and interests anywhere close to this large, within and without the Party, and getting buried by bags of Scrooge McDuck money.
Either of those outcomes could happen. I don’t find either most likely. The Republican candidate will be repellent, in personality and policy planks. I can be cautious and confident at the same time.
An instructive graph, if someone would embed it for me???
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/voting-141106081503-conversion-gate01/95/voting-9-638.jpg?cb=14152617
42
To answer the graph:
The 18-24 voting demographic tends to sit at home, except every now and then.
If the 18-24 year olds had showed up to vote for Sanders this time around, perhaps Sanders would be leading in pledged delegates.
Of course, around here, I’m constantly reminded that it is verboten to criticize the people who don’t come out to vote every year/two years/four years, because that would somehow be “blaming the victim”.
Perhaps if all of those 18-24 year olds logged out of Facebook and Snapchat for a few hours per year, they’d be less of a victim.
Perhaps, Sanders’ revolution, which I believe in, would be happening.
Instead, we’re here with HRC at the top.
Not because 18-24 year olds don’t have problems, or reasons to vote, but because they continue starting down at their god damn phones and not around and about them, at their disintegrating country.
I know. Victim blaming. It’s one of the laundry list of things that makes me a bad liberal and pseudo-progressive.
I should instead bitch and complain about how the youth demographic is the key to this election, while ignoring that the youth demographic is staying at home this time around…again.
If you look at the graph (1964-2012), you will see that overall all age groups, except for the 65+, vote less by a considerable percentage. That is the trend.
The claim that Hillary and Bernie represent two opposing factions within the Democratic Party is wrong because the Bernie’s younger people are not likely to go over to the Republicans?
Not following your logic here. Possibly because there isn’t any.
let me add to that, the potential R crossovers to vote for Sanders, ppl left out of the post 08 recovery [almost everyone]; they are not supporting Cruz or Trump, they’re looking for a way forward, from what I’m seeing
that would be nice, but that’s not what I’m seeing. there’s potential for despair and giving up. I guess it depends what happens at the convention, how Sanders supporters are integrated into the party but right now the HRC campaign is not offering a way forward for the 99%. combine the wall street backing with the “untrusted” and the dem party pressure is seen as just more billionaires. you should look around the country a little. take the family on a camping trip to KS MO or OK. see what’s going on.
That’s because the Democratic Party is being strengthened by the Sanders challenge rather than weakened by it.
We shall see. Depends on whether people like Tim Canova and Alex Law can win, and replace corrupt Democrats.
Yup. It’s been waiting 8 years to be born, and finally, Sanders is the catalyst. Whether he wins or loses, that wing is absolutely essential to the future of the party. If he loses, he will continue to lead it and the DNC will not be able to do anything about that.
Those affadavits were used for disabled people, including the elderly who could not physically attend a caucus. Caucuses, by their very nature, disenfranchise, a lot of people. Most notably hourly workers and the disabled. The affadavits blunted some of that disenfranchisement
The point about caucuses inherently being about disenfranchisement is excellent.
Absentee voting and affadavits used by disabled people can be subject to their own types of election chicanery, such as care workers voting their preferences not those of the disabled person. They are nonetheless and necessary corrective if properly monitored.
The important point about these is that it takes a specially organized activity during GOTV to reach the people that submit these documents and to ensure that they get the documents and get them in. And insurgent campaign is not likely to have the resources in the timing necessary to add this everything else they have to do in a geographically large state with a small return of delegates. This is where having the state establishment in your corner is to your advantage.
The Fox News polls released this morning for NY and PA (Clinton +16 and +11 respectively) portend that Clinton’s current 212 pledged delegate lead is as close as Sanders will get the remainder of the way.
You believe Fox News?
Their polls are ranked fairly high on 538.
Want to toss out those polls? Fine; see what other pollsters are saying:
New York: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ny/new_york_democratic_presidential_primary-4
221.html
Pennsylvania: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_prima
ry-4249.html
Maryland: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/md/maryland_democratic_presidential_primary-4
312.html
New Jersey’s thinly polled, and the latest is a couple of months old: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nj/new_jersey_democratic_presidential_primary
-3443.html
Of course they want to toss out those polls. And they also want to toss out the votes of older POC. If that does not get them what they want, they then want to toss out the 2.5 million more voters she has over Sanders. Super Delegates? Toss ’em! Errrrr, unless Sanders needs them!
Read between the lines…they are crackers, and like Sanders, they want THEIR Democratic Party back. The one that did not ’cause’ racial strife by POC talking too loud, and where POC waited their turn.
.
That’s pretty harsh, but then I don’t know what sorts of people you are encountering locally as Sanders supporters.
But you do read the posts here, right?
Tar, I’ve been reading you for years. Your allies, many of them here only a couple months, are crackers.
I’m tired of it.
There was NEVER going to be a ‘revolution’. What a freaking joke. It’s a grift.
.
well, that’s the key, a few months old, i.e new trolls, see my comment below
And, as typical of them, I get immediately downgraded. They are ‘telling it like it is’, but then they upgrade insults, and downgrade opposite views. Post all the nasty republican crap they want about Clinton, but Sanders is a Saint.
And you go along with it Tar.
This place has become a mess.
.
Downgraded by a Sanders backer who has been here for 15 minutes.
Tar?
I think marduc is just using the grading system outside of the tradition for this blog. It isn’t welcome, but marduc’s behavior doesn’t warrant a harsher assumption than that.
In the way the blog host has enforced behavior here, there really isn’t a ton at stake in the grading system. It helps us send messages to each other about information, writing and behavior which we find particularly worthwhile (or, less frequently, find particularly unwelcome), but otherwise it’s no big deal.
Willing to hear the case that I should feel otherwise.
well, my comment above received a 1. the usual practice here as I understand it is give a 4 if it’s a valuable contribution and you feel strongly about it, otherwise no rating. i.e. we’re not like the Orange place where ppl rate everything they read, ratings are sparse on the whole and ppl read and absorb and appreciate comments without rating them all the time.
It’s only in the past couple months during primary fervor there are new poster giving 1s without provocation [I’ve had a few in recent days] or just spouting rambling talking points.
so I put Marduc’s ratings in that category, pointless provocation, adding nothing to discussion.
I’ve been here going on eight years and I’ve never rated one comment.
Is there some tradition to comment rating here that I’m missing? The prior posts seem like a classic example of trolling to me. Just insults and accusations of racist motivations for the 40%+ of the Democratic party supporting Sanders.
marduc, I’d point you to errol’s summary here as a good primer as to the recent tradition here.
If you restrained your downratings to comments you think everyone should see as trolling/insults/accusations of racist motivations, and don’t want to respond with your own comment because you don’t want to feed the troll, that would be one thing.
Where it strays from the community’s behavior re. ratings is when comments are downgraded on the basis of what appears to be more routine disagreements. If we strongly disagree with a comment, it’s much more common here for people to take the commenter on with a written response instead of a downgrade, which should be reserved for undeniable trolling behavior.
Comments one person might define as “undeniable trolling” can be defined by another as “strongly worded and well reasoned argument.” The best idea regarding our decisions is to use our ratings to speak on behalf of the community and ourselves.
I don’t know that I’ve ever overused the “1” rating in the past, though it’s possible that I’ve used it to register strong disapproval rather than as an explicit flag for trolling. If so it’s not my intent to contravene community norms and I’ll keep your advice in mind for the future.
But I most definitely don’t believe that I’ve used it inappropriately in response to nalbar’s post above.
as centerfielddj writes, we here generally respond to a comments rather than down rate them. in general we go more in the direction of dialog than flame wars. the practice here would be to explain to nalbar what you find problematic. that’s what nalbar is responding to and I agree.
Personally I don’t dohttp://sololive.scca.comn grade all that often, I bet 10 times in as many years. Even the ‘fu*k off’ I did not down grade.
It’s because I did NOT want it to disappear. I WANTED everyone to see it, and see the people who upgraded it.
People can easily look my grading up.
.
Oops,
A link for a site I watch slipped in accidentally. Sorry.
.
As a racer I like your link and give it a 4.
Also agree with Errol et al regarding how opposing viewpoints are discussed on this site. I would like to add it is the earnest discourse that occurs when the people here have honest disagreements where I learn to look at things differently than I would if left to my own devices. I appreciate the commenters here.
I also I appreciate that on occasion Booman will also respond with fervency in these comments.
I’ll give you a four because you are a racer, no matter what type (maybe I should start a diary on racers…of all types, and how addicted to going fast Americans are).
I’m an autocrosser, and am very visible in the SCCA, San Diego Region.
I’m not a road racer, but have attended Skip Barber twice, at Laguna Seca. That was more fun than can be imagined.
.
that’s not a regular and Sanders backer, probably a new troll. I understand what you’re saying, but there’s all kinds of new trolls trying to foment divisions between HRC and Sanders campaign to depress vote in Nov. I try to flag trolls so they can be avoided. yes, there’s lots of name calling going on, some tempers running high among regulars even, unfortunately, but generally it’s not about the regular Booman commentariat, it’s about intensification of troll activity.
And yet, oddly enough, the only people I’ve seen you call out as trolls are negative toward Sanders. I’ve seen at least one anti-Clinton newbie I’d suspect of trollery designed to splinter and weaken the Democratic Party — but you welcomed that person with delight.
I kept my mouth shut on that person because there’s no way to prove it and it’s not my job — or right — here as Booman’s guest to label people as trolls.
Next time you feel the urge to call out someone as a troll, perhaps you’ll think about this.
who is that, I’ll take a look.
I’m not talking about regulars who are Clinton supporters, btw. there are a couple instances where regulars have exchanges that become heated; I, for one, am not happy about that.
No, I’m not going to say because I could be wrong. I’d rather just leave the whole “That’s a troll!” sideshow alone and take every poster at face value — even when I think that value is pennies on the dollar.
You’re not wrong. They are exactly who you think they are.
.
I think I know who you mean.
Well, please don’t pursue it further; I think accusations of trolling do more harm than good. Doesn’t discourage the real trolls while it insults and infuriates honest posters.
no, not accusations of trolling, but suggestion to tone down the comments. i don’t mind doing that. not to go into too much detail but on reading the subtext of a comment (and thereby recognizing trolls) let me just say I’m trained and am expert. It can be alot of work to explain what I see – like the Thomas Benjamin exchange a few months back, but I shouldn’t take short cuts since I don’t want to lose my online friend here. The one you mentioned, I have found some comments problematic and inflamnatory.
You need to check the ratings. ANYBODY who upgrades an insult is not here in good faith. I don’t mean a ‘you don’t know what you are talking about’, but an actual ‘fu*k off’ is upgraded with a 4. That has happened here.
Over the last two months I went from ‘either or’ to ‘no way will I vote for Sanders in the primary’. Why? Because his followers are some of the most sanctimonious, ‘it’s ok if Sanders does it’, ‘let’s cook this math’ people I have ever seen. Obama is now corrupt? Really?
They are also, without a doubt, republicans. They advocate for voter suppression, for Trump (Clinton and trump are exactly the same, amiright?). And they CONSTANTLY diminish older AA voters, who have voted democratic their whole lives, in favor of younger voters, who don’t come out to vote. White young voters, of course.
.
‘White working men need to leave the Democratic Party, there is nothing for us here’
Jesus Christ, do you need to be hit over the head?
.
I see you stopped reading right there…
Unbelievable.
Don’t you have a racist you need to upgrade somewhere?
Er, in the second para…” The idea is a party that represents the interests of working people of all races and genders/orientations including professionals and small businessmen.” Class, not race.
Voice has been posting here for years. His opinions are well known to the veterans.
Apparently YOU did not read it all.
‘As I have been posting for weeks….’
It’s been years, not weeks. It’s you who are in denial.
.
I really hope you guys aren’t talking about me.
Just to be clear, I have lurked for over 10 years, but just started posting. I am very much for Sanders, and very much against Clinton.
My language can be strident because it’s fun to write in such tones.
I will vote for the Democratic nominee. But, for the first time in my life, I see a good intellectual case being made for NOT voting for the lesser of two evils. It’s just not good enough to convince me that the result of helping elect the GOP would be beneficial, even in the long run.
I am nobody’s troll, except maybe to a few mean girls in high school.
Also, due to my close friendship with a High School mate of Booman’s, I could be personally vetted if I felt the need, though I do not.
I am not sure if I am the “troll” in question. But just in case I was, I wanted to dispel any notion of that, with prejudice. (And legally, I’m not even sure what that means).
Thank you for your time.
I appreciate your explanation. what I’ve been arguing for over the past couple months is to hold off on discussing the GE until after the convention. we don’t know how the primaries will play out, who the candidates will be, what accommodations will be made to losing candidate’s supporters, and what strange events will occur between now and July. all discussion of the general does is stir up emotional responses and name calling
my 2 cents
Thank you.
I guess I still discuss the general here, and maybe I should not.
But Twitter is where I CANNOT discuss the general.
But I see your point. Why debate a hypothetical.
Although, according to Booman, it is not a hypothetical. I prefer to hope it still is just that.
Of course you should/can discuss the general. The people who don’t want you to are perfectly happy to buy into republican memes and discuss how horrible Clinton is in the most insulting ways.
Sanders has lost the nomination. His, and his surrogates comments over the last week or so made certain he will never get the super delegates to switch sides.
Sure, why not continue on? He can raise more money for his retirement. Good for him and his advisors, it’s the American Dream come alive.
.
it very much is a hypothetical. what will the Rs do? we have no idea. waste of time; go out and work for your candidate in the primary with the time you’d spend discussing the general
For the record, you’re not who I meant. You’re inclined to perhaps too aggressive a tone at times, but you are honestly stating your opinions and backing them up with argument.
And that is the last time I’ll get into the identity of the person I had in mind. Calling out people as trolls is destructive to the essential comity that should underlie all discussion here, no matter how heated it gets.
Thank you
Grady,
It’s not some mystery who he is talking about.
.
“She”, actually. ;0) Old white crone, actually. New England liberal despite my NE Republican parents. Of course, old-fashioned NE Republicans weren’t much like the current national crop. I doubt my folks would like what they’d see in the GOP were they still alive.
My apologies.
.
None needed; it’s not exactly a gender-indicative moniker, is it?
At No More Mister Nice Blog and one or two other places I’m Never Ben Better (name of my gelding), and at the Straight Dope I’m EddyTeddyFreddy (cats). “Janicket” is an amalgam of three equines’ names.
Do we detect a pattern here?
Uprated that to counteract the troll rating.
nailed it.
they want THEIR democratic party back. just like the dumbass white rednecks want their south back and the poor religious whites want their bible themed country back.
And you immediately get hit with a downgrade.
Lots of claims of ‘we the people’ (God, I hate that phrase), and ‘democracy should prevail’ but counter opinions?
They should disappear.
.
it’s marduk, what do you expect? drive by 1s
They may be right, but with Fox they are always Right.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Michael Harrington was pretty prophetic, wasn’t he?
The future comes early these days, I guess.
As I’ve been saying lately, white working men need to leave the Democratic Party, there is nothing for us here.
It’s too bad that decades of propaganda that Socialism==Communism and anything with “Worker” or “Labor” in it it is Communist, have poisoned those terms. Otherwise, Labor Party would be a good choice. Maybe “American Party” would be generic enough, like “Republican” and “Democratic”. OTOH, perhaps is sounds too anti-immigrant. I really prefer Labor Party or the even worse sounding Workers Party. Constitution Party sounds too libertarian. The idea is a party that represents the interests of working people of all races and genders/orientations including professionals and small businessmen. NO religious or social agenda other than maximum religious and personal freedom (including freedom FROM religion) but dedicated to the safety and economic welfare of the vast majority that actually do the work of making the economy and society run. That party would have to ban its candidates and institutions from taking huge contributions from individuals, corporations or unions. The aim is to take over or heavily influence state legislatures and Congress. Most third parties shoot for the Presidency. It’s the wrong target.
Professor Bill Black has joined the Sander’s team as an economics adviser.
Bill Black link. Maybe too little too late.
link Oops
thanks
Where your constituency gets played every time is the fractures between people who most are competed for local resources. Fear, uncertainty, doubt are the demagogues tools. And anger.
What your constituency lacks is an understanding of how the current parties hold power. That understanding is what BooMan has been trying to educate us about, but it comes off too often as defense of the status quo. But the way those institutions work is very much part of the problem that your constituency will have to face to win anything at all. Anyone from Chicagoland should understand that completely; covering that sort of machine corruption has been a badge of honor for local political pundits for quite a while.
Taking back the legislatures means taking back the rural counties. That means that the organizers of your new party will need to understand the way that politicians in rural counties win elections and who generally sponsors them and works the mechanics. Congenial hidden power is a way of life in rural counties. So are common secrets that outsiders are not to know.
But the state legislatures and large cities have become the Achilles heel of the Democratic Party and especially of the progressive movement. Just look at how quickly Bill de Blasio got hemmed in in New York and how Rahm Emanuel is still going like gangbusters (isn’t that an ironic choice of words to pop up).
What politics needs money for these days is media. What politics needs media for is marketing. What politics tends to market is sleaze to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt so unconscious that you might vote in the voting booth against the candidate you rationally decided to support.
Looking at the experience of the Working Peoples Party and the Coffee Party would be helpful as to how to get a party going.
Whatever you do, you have to win geography in broadly dispersed places to act as core areas for friends-and-neighbors voting. Recruiting party supporters in widely dispersed areas is difficult; they instantly become weird to their friends and neighbors. The value proposition of what you are proposing is not intuitively obvious to everyone.
And that’s just the inertia you have to overcome in the current political process. You get through that and you begin to have the calculated opposition of the two major parties. You start existentially threatening the place of even the permanent minority party in a place and you seeing the social fight of your life as they use every trick in the book to shut you down completely. You better have a superior election lawyer at that point.
Thinking through things like this is why most new party proposals remain pipe dreams. It is a hell of a lot of work without a near-term payoff.
Always listening to your tremendous expertise.
However, the rural areas have to come later. Here at least, and I’m reasonably sure there as well, they are firmly in the hands of the Republican Party. First, the Democrats must be destroyed like the Whigs. Fortunately, they are well on the path of self-destruction. The Emanuels, Liebermans, Clintons and Obamas have seen to that.
Sociologically, the cities are sinking. Industry is/has moved out leaving a melange of gang-infested welfare areas, dying neighborhoods mostly inhabited by pensioners, and yuppie enclaves occupied by the 1%. What is left of industrial America is in the suburbs. That is where the productive people left.
The rural areas are also shrinking because of increased mechanization and this will accelerate as agriculture moves increasingly to China. I see more and more Chinese food items from fish to apples in the stores. TPP will accelerate this by banning country of origin labels. In Illinois, in particular, this is accelerated by the death of the coal towns similar to that documented here by RidgeCook.
Hah! Exporting our industrial pollution back to us in produce? Irony abounds.
The fact that they are firmly in the hands of the Republican Party and the fact that the Republican Party is imploding is one of the reasons to not wait until later. Provide the sane folks in rural areas an alternative. Of course, you have to have some frustrated Democrats out there to introduce that alternative to equally frustrated Republicans.
Maybe the first non-Chicagoland places to go are Peoria, Rockville, Rock Island, Waukegan — some of the place stranded between closed manufacturing and heavily subsidized agriculture.
Ah! Rock Island! The quad cities were once rich with a robust manufacturing center based on plants from IH, John Deere and others (Sperry New Holland?) More work that has gone to Asia. Waukegan, again desperate, no industry but the nearby Naval Base and VA hospital. No one even likes to drive through Waukegan anymore. Whites won’t drive during the day. I know three black postal workers who are veterans and use the VA hospital. They go during the day and won’t drive through the area at night.
I was in Peoria a few years ago. I stopped for dinner driving from Oklahoma to Chicago. Seemed OK, at least no obvious decay. Not that can be seen from the Interstate anyway. The only other thing I know about Peoria is Bradley university and Aachen Alley (or is it Achin’ Alley? I never saw it written.) which was a notorious red light district in the ’60s. Some of my HS classmates went to Bradley.
Peoria and Quad cities; drive through, stay in Peoria somewhat often;; last week stayed in Quad cities; should look around more for details, but from what I have seen pretty much like what I’m talking about on these threads. nice ppl, hard times
Illinois is experiencing some hard times. Luckily, Central Illinois has the state capital Springfield and Champaign-Urbana has the U. of Illinois; otherwise, from Jacksonville to Danville it’s not looking too good. Southern Illinois has been in a recession forever. Coal mining jobs are gone–replaced with service jobs and correctional facilities. There are some decent medical jobs. Illinois still has some of the best farmland in the country, but farming has become more corporate now. Republican Governor Rauner has been a disaster for the state and that doesn’t help.
stayed in Danville earlier last year, bleak. seeing the corporate farming also bleak in my book for multiple reasons. seems to me, though I don’t know the numbers, IA has done better preserving family farming. but I know nothing about the dynamics and history of what happened.
Read up on the man who was responsible for most non-weather related problems the US farmers have faced since Tricky Dick brought him to Washington;
Earl Butz
You might start here;
http://grist.org/food/the-butz-stops-here/
Thanks! will read today!
Ah, the papa of our agribusiness foreign policy that is creating famine in once-food secure African nations…
thanks for link, to fill out how we got here, and distressing
This campaign has shown the impossibility of taking over a party internally. And, no, the Tea Party didn’t take over the Republican Party. The Kochs and their ilk are firmly in control.The Tea Party provides the ballot box numbers and they stoke the fires of their prejudices just as the plutocrats who control the Democratic Party stoke the fires of non-white prejudices. So the two parties with their elite masters maintain power by feeding religious, racial, gender hatred. Occasionally, as with Trump, they fear it is getting out of control. Someday it will, when there is nothing left but super-rich international investors, their paid lackeys, and a desperately poor populace who can no longer afford to but the foreign goods. Perhaps, like Flint, the uber-rich will just poison the excess populace.
Tarheel, I fear that you are correct.
What we really need…and what we all most rationally fear…is a collapse of some kind on the Great Depression level.
Will it happen? Economically and/or in terms of a cataclysmic even of some sort?
I dunno, but short of that kind of movement the status quo will remain essentially unchanged. The centrist parties will continue switching good cop/bad cop roles as the ongoing scam continues.
So it goes.
AG
Collapse could bring a snap into economic feudalism. Only the presence of some tough and battle-hardened labor unions and a war that needed their services put the New Deal into the base reality of the 1950s.
The politics of the new society have to be in place before the crisis can create a helpful direction. That was what 9/11 should have shown us. Republican neo-con neoliberal politicians were ready to react to any crisis as an opportunity. Progressive types were in a 32-year funk.
I don’t see the fragmented progressive movement any more prepared now. The billionaires, however, can pay for preparation–thus Hoover. It’s when they collapse as they almost did in 2008 that the way becomes open to alternatives.
It’s beyond human control, Tarheel. Chance operations at work. All we can do is continue to throw our own dice and hope for the best.
ASG
Would be very curious to see a modern national party that is strictly class biased. I can imagine the hyperventilating.
Labor’s comeback in Britain has upset the “liberal” Guardian, even.
Just more PermaFix, mino. No different in the UK or any of the other so-called NATO “democracies.” Stray too far from the permanent center and both sides get to whup on yer ass.
AG
We have never had one over here. We are the “classless society.” LOL
Of course we’re far, far from a classless society, and we should stop kidding ourselves. But I lived in England for more than seven years. COMPARED TO THEM, we’re a classless society. Seriously.
Compared to France and Germany? The rest of Europe?
I was talking about the UK.
Mutualist Party
Independence Party
“Third” Party
Until the Republican party is dead nationally, this future party you speak of simply puts the Republican party in office in places it can’t currently get elected.
Burning the village down in order to save it didn’t fair very well in Vietnam or Iraq, but I guess we can try.
Maybe they could run candidates in places that Democrats don’t bother. See a lot of that here in Texas.
Sounds like an excellent idea.
I’m sure the 50%+ of the population that wants to vote for a real progressive, but sits home (again and again and again and again) instead because BothSidesDoItTM, will soon be organizing to put up candidates and provide voter outreach to get their candidates elected to office.
One never knows without trying…that is how Republicans took over the South in local elections.
The Republicans took over the South after the Dixiecrats left en masse from 1948-1990.
The South has always been a one-party region.
Not in Texas. Ambitious Dems began running as Republicans. A few wins and they built on that. Texas Dems have always been “bidness” Dems.
Right.
There were Democrats in the South who should be called Dixiecrats, who began flirting with something other than the Democratic party after Truman desegregated the Army and signed various anti-discrimination laws.
Ambitious Democrats, who saw the writing on the wall, and didn’t mind earning the vote of racists, started switching in the 70s and 80s, after the Dixiecrats really began leaving after the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Either way, the South has always been a one-party region. It went from Democratic pre-civil war to 1964, and then switched over to the Republican party from 1964 onwards, after the racists were told to GTFO.
The Second Southern Strategy…fascinating.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424702/how-states-turned-right-john-hood
wow thats exactly what tea baggers have been saying. and also hillary is leading with older white men so you can take all the young white men as thats the only demographic she isnt winning right now.
Hillary loses big among Independents–the largest political group now ( >40%). She loses big among voters < 45 and her support from white women is shrinking.
‘Independents’, aren’t.
They really aren’t.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx
Driftglass nails “Independents”.
Most of them are Republicans who have some situational awareness, and have scraped their Bush/Cheney ’04 bumper stickers off their cars.
As I’ve been saying lately, white working men need to leave the Democratic Party, there is nothing for us here.
really?
seriously?
When a White man with a high school diploma will get a call back sooner than a Black man with a college degree?
When a White man with a CRIMINAL RECORD will get a call back from a job sooner than a Black man WITH NO RECORD?
When Black unemployment ALWAYS runs higher…
I’m supposed to have the violin out for White Working Class Men who fall for every piece of bullshyt the GOP can trot out?
Seriously?
Stop, you’re both wrong. First of all, haven’t you noticed? — white working men already have left the Democratic Party — in droves.
We need them back. It’s really not good to be demonizing a whole, huge class of your fellow-citizens.
Admittedly there are assholes among them. Most of those are now supporting Trump, along with others who were never Democrats. You want even MORE of them supporting Trump?
No, they are not both wrong. One is advocating changing the orientation of the Democratic Party from inclusiveness to bigotry towards people of color so white people feel more comfortable.
The other is calling this out.
.
This is the most bullshit thread I’ve seen here in a long time.
If it could be explained to me how the Democratic Party is acting against the interests of white males in whole and demonizing them on the POTUS campaign trail, then I’m willing to consider the plea.
At the moment, I don’t agree that these accusations are true at all. We’re losing white males for a number of reasons, but it appears to me a central cause is the Southern Strategy and its related panderings across the nation. It would be foolish for the Democratic Party to pursue votes in this way.
This doesn’t mean we give up entirely on gaining the votes of white males. Many of them should be gettable on the Union question and its associated issues, but that doesn’t seem to be working. If you’re a white male who is still voting Republican in, say, Wisconsin, even as work compensations and job security for you and others have dropped as much or more than your taxes, then it becomes difficult to ponder what could be done within the Democratic coalition to address your issues.
Abandoning trade deals would be the best thing that comes to mind for me, but I simply don’t see the evidence that we would win white males currently voting against us on that issue alone, particularly since the Republican Party is also fragmenting on that issue. Abandoning trade deals would drive up the cost for goods, so the electorate would be made unhappy with that, and the conservative movement would be only too happy to wrap that around our necks.
What’s your best ideas here?
You might get a majority of white males to vote democratic if the democrats in congress started impeachment proceedings. And used the n word doing it.
Then called Clinton the b word and declared themselves all in for Trump.
.
The only problem with this hypothetical example, is the people who claimed to be democrats and doing what you suggest, would be the political equivalent of clinical insanity.
FOR FUCK’S SAKE, BOOMAN.
Will you and other people in your clique stop trying to erase the youth from your stupid demographic sneers? The biggest divide with Bernie Sanders is age. Not race, not sex, not region: age. For God’s sake, acknowledge it. Acknowledge that the stereotype of a Sanders supporter only applies to the 45+ voter set.
Beyond that, I find this line of attack and the willful myopia of people in your pundit class really goddamn stupid because you can’t sustain an American multiracial coalition if you punt on age. Demographics only favor the Democratic Party in the medium and long-term if we keep youth on board. Yes, Hillary Clinton can probably win off of the back of older racial minorities even if youth support collapses. But only she’ll be getting hers. HRC can run an IBGYBG campaign because she won’t have to deal with the aftershocks of youth support collapsing. Assuming that you’re not going to die in 12-16 years, you’ll be stuck with the check. Come 2024 or, god forbid, 2020 people like you will be left holding the bag wondering why demographics don’t favor you no more.
I’m really trying not to cast the terms of the debate in generational politics, but with people like you pushing your stupid ‘white male Berniebros shit’ I’m getting on my last nerves.
That’s fine and all. But frankly, I’m not worried about 2024. I’m worried about keeping my head attached to my neck in 2016.
Assuming the truth of your post (and, largely, I do), so what?
“Youth” didn’t put Gene McCarthy in the White House. “Youth” didn’t put George McGovern in the White House. In fact, “youth” hasn’t put anyone in the White House as far as I can remember. And the reasons for this are legion, including the fact that “youth” is notoriously unreliable at even getting to the polls, let alone doing the hard work it takes to get someone elected.
And one thing no one is talking about is age from the other direction. I can assure you that there are plenty of non-“youth” Democrats, older ones, in fact, who understand that there are grave questions about the wisdom of installing a president who will be 75 on Inauguration Day. I am one of them, and I have heard from many others. The simple fact is that this is a job that requires energy and stamina. That’s one reason both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were/are so good at it. Obviously, Hillary is no spring chicken either at 68, but that’s a damned sight better than Bernie’s 74. And it seems obvious watching the two of them in action that she is the more spry, agile and quick of the two. I think that Bernie’s age has contributed to his recent missteps.
As one who is learning the hard way what age does, I assure you it is not a trivial concern. And it’s painfully obvious that “youth” doesn’t have a clue about this.
I think they might have put Bobby in the WH, though.
Hmm, you think you would like to see ’68 replayed?
Disenfranchising/disaffecting youth led to quite a few years in the wilderness, did it not?
On the evidence, so did the CIA. .
AG
At age 67, I share your bitter lessons learned on the inescapable effects of aging, and harbor doubts about Sanders’ physical capacity to withstand the rigors of general election campaigning, let alone the Presidency. This is, as you say, not a trivial concern.
Hillary is no spring chicken. She will be 69 in October–70 years of age is closing in fast. It is ridiculous to assess someone’s health by age, and you know it.
I’m not as young as I used to be either, but it is just ridiculous to automatically assume that ‘a’ 68-year old is in better shape than than “a” 75 year old.
Presumably because the 68-year-old is seven years further away from the “Great Beyond”. But actually, you have no fucking idea. I mean, if you can’t see the logical flaw in that assumption, I pity you.
Clinton may have had a stroke. If so, her health prognosis at 68 may not be as good as Sanders’ at 74.
I hold the Clintons to a great deal responsible for the fact we don’t have a viable presidential candidate under 60 years old. They took over the party for their own interests, which meant no potential competitors were groomed to run.
Not till Hillary “won”.
not to worry, if Hillary becomes disabled in office Bill can run things
The young v. old divide among DEMs is so much larger this year that demographics are only a part, and possibly the smallest part, of the primary/caucuses results. And even that is contaminated by a racial and sexual component. Those that feel an identity affinity with BHO have been voting more heavily for HRC and women that have elevated having a woman POTUS above other considerations are also voting more heavily for HRC, although that is a weaker factor than the BHO affinity vote.
The divide is sources of information. Those dependent on MSM — newspapers, TV, cable, and radio — are backing HRC or one of the GOP scumbags. They are ill equipped to connect the dots between their personal financial well-being and the economic policies of either party over the past forty odd years and get plenty of reinforcement for their pre-existing forms of bigotry. For example, white working class men that have been reliable GOP voters for decades loathe HRC. If they were informed and rational, they should loath her and the DEM “third way” economic policies but they should also loathe every GOP politician for the same reasons. Instead, their hate for HRC is an activation of their sexism.
So why hasn’t the youth vote come out to push Sanders to the forefront?
Is this one of those instances where non-voting 18-24 year olds busy staring at Facebook are not to blame, but those of us who voted for Sanders but publicly say they will vote for HRC if she is the nominee are to blame?
I’m less worried about the groundswell or lack thereof when discussing the youth vote. I’ve actually worked as an election worker on multiple occasions. I see a few young people, a lot of middle-age people, and a lot of old people. Anecdotes aren’t data, and all that.
Just like everyone knows that smoking is bad for you, everyone knows that voting is done each year, and that Presidential elections are every four years.
Where is this youth vote that is so important for the Democratic party? Because if it is unwilling to come out and vote for Sanders in the primary, it sure as shit isn’t going to come out and vote for Sanders in the general.
While I respect your opinion, focusing on youth demographics is a losing strategy for the general, and a winning one for a primary. Sanders has failed in getting out the youth vote considering he is still losing to HRC in pledged delegates.
Sanders is winning where? Caucus states where an impassioned few win? And HRC is winning where? Where there is actual vote casting?
Whether Sanders can win this is one question, and for our moderator and many others it’s not even a question.
However, putting that aside, if you don’t think Sanders campaign is a lot more dynamic than Clinton’s, then you’re not paying attention.
Now that might sound paradoxical, except when you consider that one of them started the game on third base, while the other wasn’t even in the ballpark yet. So Bernie’s just scored seven consecutive runs, but he still isn’t winning.
And if they gave more delegates for being dynamic, then that would be relevant.
But the contest is to win the most delegates.
.
You can’t see past the end of your nose, can you?
You can’t observe objective reality, can you?
Sanders is winning more delegates than, like, someone from CNN thought he would be able to win.
So what? Is he leading in delegates? Does he have a realistic chance of winning enough delegates between now and the convention to tie and give superdelegates a reason to switch over to Sanders, a Democrat-come-lately?
This isn’t a case where people who see HRC as the eventual candidate are being deplorable pseudo-liberal scumbags who want to personally murder Sanders in the face because we enjoy neo-liberalism.
This is a case where y’all basically look starry-eyed and oblivious to the reality that HRC is currently leading in delegates and minus some sort of political miracle, is going to be the general election nominee.
You can focus on Sanders mounting an unsuccessful attempt to be the nominee, whereas I’ll acknowledge that Sanders has changed the conversation, although he won’t be the nominee.
It’s a matter of perspective.
And if by ‘started the game on third base’ you mean ‘started the game as a democrat’, then I agree.
.
Ok.
To use that analogy, Sanders has scored 7 consecutive runs and isn’t winning. As an Independent-turned-Democrat, he had no one sitting on base every time he got a hit or a home run. Sure, he’s made it competitive, but he’s been down since the first inning.
HRC, on the other hand, already had a team that had put runners on base. Even though she hasn’t gotten a hit in a while, her early home runs and hits allowed her to build a lead, making her strike outs, ground-outs and pop-flys disappointing to her “fans”, but not substantially important in terms of winning the game.
(“Fans” mean not just avid supporters, but bad pseudo-liberals who will vote for her in November).
For a Sanders win, he will literally need hits and home runs from here on out, with the umpires siding with him in case of ties.
(Umpires mean superdelegates, who will award all ties to the runner).
As a Sanders supporter and voter, I hope he can pull it off, but it’s the top of the 9th inning. Any more hits and runs by HRC makes Sanders’ bottom of the 9th even more difficult. Sanders needs some excellent pitching just to keep a win possible when at bat. In other words, even a couple more hits by HRC makes it virtually impossible for extra innings, never mind a Sanders win.
So, Booman and I would agree that the game is almost complete. Fortunately or unfortunately, this game isn’t the last game of the World Series, but the last game of the League Championship.
You miss the point. I’m not saying he’s winning. I’m saying he’s pulling off something amazing anyway. And what I find frustrating is that nobody here has any appreciation for that or anything constructive to say about it.
With one exception. Booman did say something about the future of the party.
This thread is so bad that I’ve gotten far more insight tonight reading MSM releases tonight than I have here.
Bernie Sanders has been pulling off an amazing feat. He gets tens of thousands of people at his rallies; tens of millions of dollars from “the little people”; and he is very well-liked and trusted. It’s really a modern-day David and Goliath story. It wasn’t supposed to happen and that’s the problem.
Plenty of people here discuss Sanders’ campaign positively.
Many of us see the Sanders’ campaign as a good thing.
The problem is that some of us who prefer Sanders also see that Sanders as the general election candidate is very, very unlikely. Perhaps HRC drops out for health reasons, or the email nothingburger, and Sanders can step in.
That’d be amazing.
But most likely, HRC is the candidate in the general. And anyone who acknowledges that, and says that of course they’ll vote for HRC, is instantly denigrated as some neo-liberal neo-conservative with questionable ethics and morals.
Which is exceedingly tiresome.
You started the baseball analogy. Yes, Sanders is really knocking the shit out of the ball in western, small-population states that elect delegates based on the caucus system.
It doesn’t change the outlook of the game, though. And many of us, including myself, acknowledge that, and would rather focus on how to incorporate what Sanders has started into everyday Democratic politics, instead of just saying “Bernie or Bust” and threatening to sit at home and watch it all burn, because fuck it.
Candidates who oppose the establishment do not get establishment votes. So-called “unpledged delegates”, being ex-officio in some fashion or another are all establishment votes.
The only establishment votes that Sanders will receive are those with personal dislike of the Clintons or those who realize that business as usual is a losing proposition (the Talleyrand types) and think that now is the time to jump.
Ordinary people tend not to like to be deprived of a voice by procedural wrinkles introduced to deprive them of a voice.
Frustration with the election system in general and the primary rules of the parties is growing. And actions like those that occurred in Arizona with the number and siting of polling places add passion to the overall issue.
Knowing that business as usual will not deliver peace and prosperity and being actively prevented through procedural manipulation in Congress and the in the electoral process from being able to change the direction of the country is making people in both parties increasingly angry.
And what we get in the media from both parties are ad hominem fights and the usual horse race commentary. Zero policy.
Whoever wins the presidency under those conditions will have zero mandate, zero latitude, and at least four years of partisan political hell.
I’m not sure the old jitney can hold together for four more years of business as usual.
“I’m not sure the old jitney can hold together for four more years of business as usual. “
I think they can. See my dark nightmare in response to your response to my post below.
wish more would realize now is the time to jump.
“And what we get in the media from both parties are ad hominem fights and the usual horse race commentary. Zero policy.”
Very true. We hear empty talk. Everyone will talk about more jobs and the middle class but seldom or never any real policy. We like to talk about foreign policy most of the time or other hot button issues. But economics—– almost never. These days everyone assumes it is all too expensive and an increase in taxes is anathema. So we watch as the safety net is gradually negotiated away in favor of lower taxes. But the top 1% keep on trucking along.
Kasich has indicated he will cut SS bc, well, you know, it is insolvent, Obama wanted to use chained CPI to reduce increases due to inflation and others want to increase the retirement age or raise the cap. The truth is it is all unnecessary. But that is another discussion. But it all sounds “responsible” doesn’t it? Once you agree there is a problem, you go searching for some bullshit answer. Sanders changed the game a little. He wants to increase SS. Now what?
Supposedly Social Security was “saved” in the 1980’s when Reagan and Tip O’Neal cut a deal, which increased the age of full benefits and cut benefits for millions of retirees. I was in my 30’s at that time. Now that I am in my 60’s, I am affected by both of these parameters.
I meant to type Tip O’Neill.
Ah, yes. Tip got rolled on that Grand Bargain. And lived long enough to admit to himself it changed SS from a trust fund into public debt for Republican tax cuts and wars of choice.
Sanders’s chances of victory are more or less the same as they’ve been for months. 4 or 5%. God forbid, Clinton might slip while leaving a stage and break her hip.
The process is the process, though. Sanders, and his supporters, knew that going in. The possibility of a relatively unknown, Northern, Jewy-sounding Jew winning the South was always extremely remote. If he’d been a well-known Southern Baptist who sounded like Jimmy Carter, things would’ve been different. Still, he’s proven that there is a core of Volvo-driving, latte-drinking, body-pierced hippies who will donate bazillions in support of even a not-charismatic candidate if that candidate supports a fringe leftie “New New Deal without the racism” type platform. That is the best news for the party since Obama’s first win.
The most shocking thing is how poorly Clinton’s doing against this puny campaign. I’m not her biggest fan, but she’s whip-smart, knowledgable, experienced, and tremendously hard-working. And I’d expected that she’d mastered the process, too, such that she’d effortlessly shrug off a challenge from a goofy-looking finger-wagging small-state Democratic socialist with zero establishment support.
But her campaign’s inability to decisively squash Sanders–and worse, her campaign’s inability to display real confidence in her inevitable victory, by focusing on capturing the votes of her primary opponent–makes me doubt her competence. I support Sanders, but what I liked most about Clinton was the Death Star-like overwhelming firepower of her campaign. I want a Democrat who destroys her enemies, and I don’t give a shit about playing ‘fair’ with Republicans. But her campaign is like a lumbering punch-drunk heavyweight. Sure, they’ll eventually beat the Boy Scout in the ring with them, but they’re sweating and swaying and it’s not a good look. I just hope that this pre-game workout actually whips the Clinton campaign into shape. So far, not impressed.
Hard to sell when the public has stopped buying. In more ways than one.
It does take time to evaluate what a set of policies will produce. Neoliberalism is proving to be our worst mistake ever. It has played into the hands of corporate cronyism and facilitated looting of the commons on the state and federal level. Austerity is biting the ones who can least afford it. Social Darwinism is ANTI-social. You can see why electing Hillary and expecting different might be a hurdle too high.
Agreed. Add to it, a lot of people don’t hate Hillary or see she and her husband as evil incarnate. Some people even admire Bill Clinton because of his come-from-nothing background. Heck, some people remember Bill Clinton as a reasonably successful president, the first Dem to get elected–and reelected!– after 12 years of Republican White House rule and, really, a quarter century of Republican presidencies.
These horribly misguided folks also remember Clinton succeeded in spite of a heretofore unseen scathing media climate–Drudge report was new then, so was Ann Coulter!–withering legal attacks sponsored by right wing billionaires, and a Republican Congress that was willing to do anything to get its way. Clinton, despite these efforts, and with his flaws, was the first Democrat to stand tall against this kind of sustained assault, driving the right crazy. After all, they’d seen other Dems stumble under less duress–Clinton kept winning. And he left office more popular than St. Ronnie according to many polls at the time.
The Clintons have their warts, but they have their strengths too.
Not over till its over, same as ever. For me thats the moment HRC wins a majority of pledged delegates or if the supers put her over the top at the convention. Sanders has consistently improved closer to election day outside the south and even the polls in friendly Sanders states have often undercounted his result.
Longshot it was and remains.
Please stop using the word “progressives” to describe HRC supporters. Black, brown and beige.
Hillary Clinton is not a “progressive” and neither are they. By definition.
Ain’t nothing “new” about HRC or her supporters. Same old, same old neolib bullshit, now pushing 40 years of utter failure. Same with “social reform.” Social reform is impossible without financial reform, and you should damned well know this by now. All the words in the world will not change the economic position of this nation’s permanent poverty classes…again. black, brown or beige…and without adequate wages to live at least a line-level working class life they are going to remain a boulder tied to the legs of a drowning country. HRC is permanently in the pocket of the .01% that is itself tied to another boulder…immense, meaningless and ultimately useless profit through domestic and international economic imperialism.
I mean…how much money can one use in a lifetime?
Please!!!
Many of our cities are now essentially war zones because of this single fact, and I guarantee that unless the U.S. makes some kind of turnaround regarding the monetization of human life the problems are just going to get worse. Poverty-stricken, hopeless kids mostly grow up mean and angry, and that goes for Chicago kids and people from places where the U.S. has waged blood for oil/blood for power wars since the very beginnings of the country. Eventually the sheer weight of well-earned, worldwide enmity is going to take this country down. From within and from without. Bet on it.
Refer to these Dems by their proper names. They are by no possible definition “progressives,” and the use of that word to describe them insults the very term. Call them centrists if you wish, although that is not nearly a negative enough term to describe them and the cumulative effects of their policies. Call them neo-liberals, maybe. That word (quite deservedly) now holds plenty of negative ju-ju. Call them “mainstream Democrats,” because a working majority of about three generations gag at that thought. Whatever. But do not refer to them as “progessives.”
If you want to be perfectly accurate, simply call them “the next wave of tar pit denizens,” because the country is changing right under their feet and they are apparently as oblivious of this fact as have been the old-line white Republicans. The only difference between the two groups is that the Dems are are maybe a decade or two younger that the Rats and on average a tiny shade darker as well. Dassit. The tarpits of history await them as well if they don’t wise up.
Wise the fuck up.
AG
There is more cant and reliance on buzzwords in this post than anything I’ve read today. And damned little in the way of analysis and consideration.
First, I don’t really give a toss about “progressives”. “Progressives” are those who’ll fight to the death for a politician until he or she actually tries to govern. Then they’ll kick that politician to the curb, just as they’ve done with Obama. The last thing this country needs is more “progressives” of the ilk we’ve seen in this election cycle.
You seem to think that Bernie can handwave away the actuality of politics, the opposition of Congress, and a populace that, no matter what you imagine, doesn’t really want a “revolution”. The lack of reality is astonishing. Somehow, electing a senator who is tolerated by his peers as a sort of crazy old uncle, and taken seriously by none of them, will lead your Children’s Crusade to a socialist paradise. (And I’m talking about his Democratic peers.) This is a candidate who has spent his career as a likable, if obstinate gadfly by choice. His chances of accomplishing any of his agenda are precisely zero.
Meanwhile there is a Supreme Court to protect, and a minimum wage to raise, and a host of other issues that he is simply uninterested in. No thanks.
I’m guessing you’re new here and don’t understand Arthur Gilroy style
He’s a republican.
.
No he’s not, but such black and white categorization of politics is common among top-down, strictly partisan voters. (Conforms to Piaget’s third stage of cognitive development.)
Black-and-white categorization of politics is suddenly being complained about by this community member now.
My neck is hurting from the whiplash here.
And ‘strictly partisan voters’.
MAHAHAHA
.
I think they’re talking about jsrtheta; everyone knows Arthur isn’t a republican
He is.
Supported Ron Paul
Supported Rand Paul
Supports voter suppr Asian of minorities.
I’ve been here awhile.
.
.
Perhaps a bit too long.
He seems to be familiar with all my uplisting of racist comments…
Lay down with dogs, you will pick up fleas.
.
imaginary ones?
Well to be fair, AG’s post above had paragraphs in it, so it might have thrown people off…
Nice catch! true indeed!
errol. i would like to take this opportunity to address your comments in a previous thread. i believe you alluded to me as a “troll” and a new one at that. if thats not true i apologize but its hard to read these threads sometimes. if you do think that let me say i was here from day one of booman tribune, i was on kos from the beginning under this very id until he banned me a very long time ago. i may not post much but im not new or a troll. i was on dfa all the way back in the beginning and i still have a dean for america bumper sticker on my car because i am keeping the dream alive. you may not agree wth what i have to say or with my delivery or even with my grammar but nope not new or a troll. but thanks for playing.
ooops i need to edit that to my id on kos was annainphilly not annainflorida. i forgot i changed that recently.
Huh? Try that one again please. Sounds nonsensical, like if you really want it, forget it, too hard to do.
You want to blow off Progressives/Liberals, go right ahead. They are about 50% of the Democratic party.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183686/democrats-shift-left.aspx
who isn’t. I am one and I support Secretary Clinton.
Oh, that’s good.
One thing that impressed me was the Benghazi hearing. She had a sense of humor to the end.
Who can do what she did? She’s constantly accused on insincerity, but you can’t act for 11 hours. No, you can’t.
.
Oops,nth is was in response to Cam’s post
Well argued. More of the primary conversation should be of this tone, but won’t because of team tropes.
Hillary’s plan also relies on state funding for college education
Also her plan has eligibility requirements, just another gotcha.
Is going to have eligibility requirements. Sanders just doesn’t mention it explicitly in his plan BUT by saying we should be like Denmark and Germany the implication is quite clear. After all they have pretty stringent tracking systems where someone is on a uni track or they aren’t and if they aren’t no free uni education.
Now maybe he doesn’t think we should be like them in that way but then I have to question how he thinks we are going to pay for a 4 year college education for people who shouldn’t be going to a 4 year college either because they are unprepared or because that path simply isn’t for them.
we arent horribly misguided folks and we are most certainly progressives as is hillary clinton who has actually gotten done more progressive policy than your candidate bernie sanders.
you want to know what else we are? we are winners. and we change things.
Well, you all go nuts. We’ll be watching.
Prepared with the sympathetic “hoocoodanodes.”
Wow. Sixty-six years on this earth trying to do good and now I’m labeled one of those worthless white progressives. Who’d a thunk?
When has it ever been different? White liberal/progressives have also been labeled as worthless. Even long after whatever LPs advocate for has somehow (mostly because the opposition as run out of non-functional alternatives) come into being, we’re still worthless. Almost always right and always worthless.
It just takes time.
There is one point that many that try to discredit Sanders candidacy seem to forget. There is a very real danger to any party to ignore and over rule the populace vote. All of those in power of the party might want another candidate and that is fine. They risk another 2010 response from the voting public. They also risk the younger generation walking away for numerous years.
As for me I will vote for the chosen candidate because I see the big picture. It is very unfortunate that so many only react to the here and now when voting.
So you really want change but will vote for no change anyway? Incomprehensible!
Well, we could not vote and see the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ACA, net neutrality, increased cafe standards, supports for solar and wind power, as well as the possibility of a majority left leaning Supreme Court disappear. That sounds pretty peachy, right? It’d give us more of an excuse to march and protest, which our side of the aisle excels at doing. Then, when outcomes disappoint us, we can sit out off year elections too! That’ll show ’em.
Sounds quite peachy if you have managed to stay in the middle class.
Well, I guess if things help the middle class they’re worthless, or something. Let’s sit it out and march! That’ll show the sold out Dems and corporate Republicans.
Did I miss a march? Because I like to march for good causes.
Hillary has already vowed to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And how much else during those non-recorded quarter and half million dollar one hour speeches? Look how Lieberman screwed the ACA. And Obama let him! Senate Dems were going to throw him out of the caucus but Obama urged them to keep him and let him retain his committee chairmanship!
A little speaking fee will gut the CAFE standards and anything else too. When will you party-above-all people realize that you cannot depend on a candidate that takes bribes?
There is NO possibility of a left leaning Court under HRC OR Sanders. One or two appointments won’t do it.
I’m not sure I want a Court that leans any particular way other than common sense and human decency. The Court is not supposed to be political!
Yep, HRC already sold us all out! Let’s sit it out and let Cruz have the White House. He’ll appoint honest judges who just vote “common sense.”
Win by losing, folks. Win by losing.
Lose by Winning! When you elect your ENEMY, you win?
Exactly. (I exhale and set the bong aside.) In a two-way presidential race, we’ll have to sit it out, write in Sanders, or vote Green. That’s the only way we can make positive change in this country, change we’ll all feel.
With Hillary-Cruz/Trump/kasich/xyz there is no way to make positive change. The only hope is defeat Hillary badly enough that her masters get scared and give us a future candidate that will do something for the working class.
thats a true sandbagger for you. do everything the teabaggers are doing, get the candidate you want in trump. then lose by a mile to the dems and probably destroy your party and any hope you ever had of getting things to go your way. no thanks.
It’s not my party. It’s Goldman-Sachs’ party. What does the Democratic Party do for me but sell me down the river. Bank bailouts, forever wars in the middle east, shipping jobs to China, this is what the Democratic Party stands for today.
Why the Hell can’t you understand that? Why should I support an institution that is against my interests? Because it supports your interests? This is a two way street.
We have to burn the village down in order to save it.
Wonder who these “progressive” Floridians will be voting for in the primary? A DWS-newly-recruited Republican or an icky long-time Dem like Grayson? (Was BC a problem for them?)
I think you need a nap.
Definitely change with that strategy! Why, with four, even eight years of President Cruz and a Republican Congress, we’ll hardly recognize the country! I can just imagine how all the fiery progressives will be feeling it.
Win by losing, it’s what we’re good at. Then we’ll march and protest. Voting’s for Republicans and politics is icky!
Progressives/Liberals are about 50% of the people who vote Democrat. IMHO, they are “the base” of the Democratic voters. FDR is the “godfather” of the 20th Century Democratic party.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183686/democrats-shift-left.aspx
If Clinton wins then we’ve lost. Sanders is the one opportunity to have a chance to reverse some of systemic rot that is in our body politic.
On multiple fronts, we just don’t have the time. All this talk about 2020 and 2024 ignores the fact that changes, both social and environmental, won’t wait that long.
“Hillary has already vowed to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”
Hey, this is an outright lie, exactly the opposite of the truth. Bring us whatever you want to cite to try to back it up, and you’ll get plenty of evidence in response.
Tremendously bad faith here.
Certainly you are not shocked. I know you read every single post.
Certainly you are not shocked.
.
I’ll say this, that comment was particularly brazen in its disrespect for the facts. So, a little shocked, yeah.
You’ve been in the snake pits to the right, correct?
Sorry to appear to harangue you, but nothing surprises me. Nothing is in good faith.
They are republicans.
.
Kettle, meet pot.
Brilliant
I will agree that the claim is not true. But there is evidence that HRC and her allies will roll back some of Obama’s better actions.
The DNC, under DWS has undermined Obama’s attempts to put some limits on the craven $$ chasing of the DNC. She quietly has allowed lobbyists to begin donating to the DNC, where Obama had put an end it it. That does not happen w/o HRC’s approval.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/0
2/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has sided with payday lenders, in saying that they should not be covered by the CFPB.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/warren-wasserman-schultz-clash-over-payday-lenders
So at at time when the grassroots of the party, and zeitgeist of the nation, are calling for transparency, less pay for play, and more fighting for the little guy, DWS has gone the other way.
Now, does DWS=HRC? No, but it’s close enough that we can assume that HRC will roll back SOME of Obama’s progressive legacy (what there is of it).
There’s more countervailing evidence against this claim than not. It comes down to a matter of belief, which can not be disproven.
While belief is a powerful thing, the thing that Americans center their vote on more often than not, what is bothersome about people seeking to support evidence for a belief in something which is in direct opposition to Hillary’s very specific campaign pledges on this issue is that it supports the belief that Both Parties Are The Same.
In a general election with Hillary on the ballot, this particular belief, expressed without relent or reconsideration, would encourage voters to disengage or engage counterproductively. These would be more destructive to the policy preferences of Bernie voters than any other group of voters supporting the major candidates remaining in the Party primaries.
Those aren’t pledges, they are rhetoric that change4s with the wind. Or “pivots” if you prefer the media euphemism.
Very simple.
Hillary releases her speeches she got hundreds of thousands to give, to Wall Street bankers, who lobby to derail then new regulations of Dodd Frank, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, etc.
THEN
and only then
we can asses her real intentions.
Till then my faith in her ever changing IE (ttp as gold standard, before her campaign position caused her to flip flop on that one) policy positions, isn’t very high.
And if Hillary’s campaign refuses to accept this singular standard which is demanded of her and of no other candidate…OK, that’s a way to run your primary campaign. I don’t believe that’s the best way to goose turnout or turn Hillary supporters into Bernie supporters, but I get it, the primary is in play.
Then, if she wins the nomination, you…do what? Withhold your support and lodge maximal bad faith claims and assumptions against her all the way to November? How would that forward the interests of people who want better government policies?
I accept that today is not the day for those who mistrust Hillary to decide on what they would do in the general. That day is likely to come, however, no matter how certain we are that Sanders’ policies and trustworthiness are better than Clinton’s.
UM, she is the ONLY candidate running in the democratic primary who has done so.
And continues to do so, claim the people who she wants to trust her with the white house, aren’t going to know what she said to the un-indited white collar criminals who sold, as they admitted, shit sandwiches to the public, for as much money per speech, as most of the wage earning class make in 4-5 years…..
Yes that is how I want my enthusiasm for her campaign to be created.
Trust her, only when she shows me a reason to.
PS; as for the clown car reminents,
I could give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what ever they promise their delusional racist base. h/t Kurt Vonnegut
All POTUS candidates, and frankly all major elected officials, have taken private meetings with people and delivered speeches to interest groups. Hell, Bernie is likely to conduct a private meeting with the Pope in a couple of days.
What will Sanders promise the Catholics?
Could we define this as campaign pandering, conveniently taking place right before a major primary?
My answers:
Who gives a care, he and all other elected officials and candidates have every right to have a private meeting! and
It’s pandering if you consider any campaign action meant to persuade voters within important interest groups pandering.
If your concern is about Wall Street and Wall Street only, well, then you’re completely fine with demanding a standard from Hillary regarding private meetings which you do not demand of Sanders.
Sanders’ admirable decisions to not have a SuperPAC and not meet with leaders of financial institutions come at the price of his campaign being less equipped to properly finance and win a general election by overcoming his very own Bullshit Mountain, fueled by a compliant media and billions of $ from the Kochsucker Krew. It’s a debatable choice if you’re running for the presidency in 2016.
You may choose to believe that Hillary signed a blood oath to Goldman Sachs and others in her private meetings with them. I’d ask you to consider Jess Unruh’s famous quote, for ill and (mainly) good, about lobbyists. It’s likely you know it already:
“If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you’ve got no business being up here.”
Unruh was perhaps the most important and effective leader for change during a long era of California politics. Our governance was much better back then.
Senator Clinton’s record in this area is inferior to Sanders’, but she did not lead on industry-friendly legislative and anti-regulatory efforts (as her colleague Senator Schumer tends to do) and she voted against their wishes more often than not.
And that was then. The political situation re. Wall Street is remarkably different a decade later. The next President and their Congress will have much more political room to oppose financial industry priorities and support stronger regulations.
https:/www.hillaryclinton.com/issues
That’s why Hillary’s campaign policy platform looks as it does. Campaigns matter.
Not sure, why don’t YOU ask HIM, who knows, he might answer you.
Yes, if and only if, she becomes more honest about it then she has been willing up to now.
PS: it wasn’t a private meeting;
it was a paid event.
Yes, more consolidated, richer, more powerful, and secretive, hence the request for her to stop being so secretive also.
There is plenty of evidence to show that the financial industry has lost power in whole, politically speaking.
The Citizens United and McCutcheon SCOTUS decisions certainly strengthen their hand, but those are judicial acts, not legislative and executive ones.
Base voters in the Republican and Democratic Party both despise Wall Street. The old calls that “we’re hurting the job creators!” lack any juice with the voters these days. We don’t hear it from the Republican POTUS candidates, even Cruz. Heidi Cruz’s seven-year employment with Goldman Sachs is a political liability with GOP primary voters.
As to whether Dodd-Frank and other regulations from the Administration and elsewhere are having their effects, there’s evidence for that as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/opinion/paul-krugman-dodd-frank-financial-reform-is-working.html?_
r=0
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/dodd-frank.shtml
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_04/obama_administration_is_taking060199.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cory-booker/hard-working-americans-retirement-security_b_9629556.html
When Paul Krugman and Elizabeth Warren are expressing happiness with many of the things which are happening, it’s worth considering.
I didn’t specify who made the criminals on wall street stronger,
just the fact they are,
thanks for the verification.
And no response to the areas I bring here where they have become politically weaker? It would be valuable to have your responses to these.
Keep in mind that if we keep the Executive we will be able to reverse the losses we have taken in judicial decisions in recent years. Democrats don’t appoint judges who are maximalists for corporate power. Many liberals are unhappy with Presidents Obama and Clinton, but they didn’t appoint any of the Judges which have been screwing American workers and consumers in the most consequential rulings.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
Justice Powell’s letter spurred a coordinated campaign which took decades to bear its full fruit. We will have to be similarly determined, but it’s unlikely to happen if we allow American voters to believe that President Obama has allowed financial institutions to run as wild (or, by your construct, even wilder) as they did during Republican Adminstrations. That’s just not true.
Man for a supposed Sanders supporter you spend an inordinate amount of keystrokes defending Hillary.
Me until the primary is over I’ll resist wasting keystrokes supporting the candidate I want to LOSE THE PRIMARY.
It’s a ruse. Several at dKos have played it for a long while before the reveal — “Sanders has now lost me” or “I’ve seen the light and am now ready for Hillary (b/c Bernie is a loser.) Haven’t paid enough attention to notice if they gained a following during their fake support for Sanders and then they followed the lead to HRC, but doubt their efforts were rewarded b/c they weren’t so good at being fake Sanders supporters.
My last two comments haven’t defended Hillary; they’ve defended the record of Obama and the 111th Congress. Asking for a consideration of where we are in full; disappointed you’re unwilling to engage these defenses.
I’ve explained today why I refuse to countenance without response nonstop, factually flawed attacks on the record of the candidate who is more likely than not going to gain Sanders’ endorsement in a few months. Why should I allow this to proceed without response? It doesn’t serve my interests; these missives don’t move Clinton supporters. I’m not even sure some of them are intended to move Clinton supporters, which makes them doubly unproductive.
If Hillary wins the nomination, Senator Warren will be stumping hard for her as well. I think it’s foolish to write things now that are poorly defended by the record and will seem odd if the #1 Congressional hero of our movement begins to talk about how vital it is for us to vote for Hillary.
I was going to weigh in before but it seemed others have been dealing with you quite well.
I do say bullshit when you deny that almost everything you write including the current comment you’re responding to is not in direct support of Hillary and her neo-liberal agenda.
Do you ever consider the benefits of taking a nap?
The Soother for Centrism.
centerfielddj, I’m going to join the chorus of people calling you on your BS.
You don’t just go after “factually flawed attacks” you go after matter of opinion and personal belief. You appear to take great pleasure in tearing down the Sanders supporters, usually in multi-paragraphed responses; to the point of being obtuse on the point at hand.
You talk about moving Clinton supporters: do you think the content of these threads will move Sanders supporters? Why are you not concerned about this?
You’ve done more to trash Sanders and his supporters than some acknowledged Clinton supporters.
So yes, I’m going to call BS on your stance. If you really are a Sanders supporter, you have a funny way of showing it.
And by the way, if Warren is the #1 congressional hero of the movement, I think we are in bigger trouble than we realize.
No unique critiques of Sanders have come from me on policy, and I’ve offered no criticism at all of his character. I have criticized some of Clinton’s policy positions. Perhaps that means something.
I might be inclined to offer more Clinton critiques, but those spaces are awfully well filled here, particularly from those filing attacks on her character. I don’t offer my own bashing of Clinton supporters here partially because it’s evident that all others trying that tack are having a lack of success moving said Clinton sympathizers into our camp, a highly predictable outcome.
Explanations have been given for why I feel that some, far from all, critiques of Clinton can be damaging to the campaign and policy interests of people who support Sanders. I feel the same about critiques of Obama and his Administration which distort or misreport the record. People are choosing to agree or disagree with my case supporting these views, but I’ve made it.
Like BooMan, I would like Sanders to pile up as many delegates as possible. That has value. I can root for that without harboring expectations which are unlikely to be met. Hillary has been attacked here for taking her 2008 campaign to the convention by many of the same people who are anxious to defend Sanders’ right to continue in 2016. Some of these people are so anxious to defend Bernie’s need to continue that they occasionally claim BooMan has called for Sanders to suspend his campaign, which he has not done. Much the opposite, in fact.
No Sanders supporter here is going to move an inch. That has been made exceedingly clear. My exchanges have most typically pushed Sanders supporters even harder against Clinton. It’s the primary; feelings are hot, and polarization is the thing at the moment.
If the Sanders movement is going to amount to anything, people within it will have to be able to disagree without being accused of being a traitor. That’s no way to build a big movement which can accomplish something.
Name your #1 Congressional hero of the movement. Warren has been the apparent choice of many here.
My apologies for being unclear; I was referring to your criticisms of other posters, attacking their opinions and beliefs. You just don’t go after facts.
That seems like a weak argument; by piling on Sanders you come across as a Clinton supporter no matter how much you protest. I would be more inclined to believe you if your criticism were constructive, not destructive.
But you don’t appear to want Sanders to win; just pile up lots of delegates. This is why I find your statements about being a Sanders supporter to be suspect. It comes across as though you are trying to make Clinton stronger for the general election, at the price of Sanders being the nominee.
And no Clinton supporter is going to move an inch. As Atrios has said several times, people are basically shouting at each other that they are right; not changing minds. As you admit, your posts only make this situation worse. In fairness, I’m guilty of this as well.
Maybe you should make the same arguments when Clinton supporters do the same or try to “shout down” their opponents. It’s almost like Krugman’s lecture to the Sanders campaign about how they should act. Pathetic.
Sanders. Warren is awesome when it comes to most matters of the economy; I don’t want her near foreign policy or the environment.
If Hillary made a campaign pledge about it, then it must be true. Debbie can vouch for that.
Grady, she has said that the Act needs to be “loosened” to remove some of the “restrictions” that hurt business. Given the money that she’s collected from the bankers, not only campaign money but personal money how can you doubt what she means? Now that may be a lie since it seems everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie. It’s not even “what did she say today”, it’s “what did she say in the last hour”.
But, as a private citizen she’s not entitled to the income she made because she is Hillary Clinton Never To Be Trusted. She is a corporate stooge–she gave speeches, man, speeches! For a lot of money! Who would do such a thing? Plus her husband was solely responsible for all that horrible legislation that Bernie voted for, like the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (the original and amended version, which guys like Paul Wellstone opposed) and the 1994 crime bill.
Stop, you’re making me cry.
She can keep ALL the money
as long as she tells the people
she is asking to trust her
with the presidency
what she said
to earn 5 times
most people’s annual salary
in one speech,
It’s not that hard
unless she has something to hide.
She is a private citizen who gave closed door speeches to firms that helped destroy the banking and finance industry. For more money than most of us will ever make in our lifetimes. While knowing she was going to run for president.
Did I miss something?
The reason people don’t believe her and mistrust her in general is because of shit like this. How stupid or arrogant does someone have to be to pull this stunt and then act surprised when people get upset and demand answers?
So at least try to apply the proper context to the situation rather than grandstanding.
That’s how I look at it.
Thus far she supports the CFPB despite DWS. For the moment I don’t assume she will roll back any of Dodd Frank. One of her negatives, however, is her untrustworthiness. Let’s hope we are not here a year or two from now confirming that.
hillary has vowed to gut the CFPB? thats a bold faced lie. she was one of the people who designed and pushed for it to begin with.
the next scotus appt sends the court to the left. nobody is going to be as conservative as scalia.
the next scotus appt sends the court to the left. nobody is going to be as conservative as scalia.
First, it is not an official election it is a party process. Everyone knows the rules, and has chosen to play anyway. It is not a question of an “election”. It is only a means of nominating a candidate. Assuming you mean “popular” vote, Hillary is way ahead on that. In fact, it is a little curious that Bernie has had most of his success (though by no means all of it) through caucuses, which are incredibly anti-democratic.
2010 was a more or less typical off-year election. That had little to do with a disappointed base and much to do with the fact that Democrats have proven near-impossible to get to the polls in such races. The exception is 1998, when voters punished the Republicans for going after Bill Clinton.
As for the “younger generation”, they remain such until the day after they graduate college, then they become “just voters” like everyone else. Look at what happened to the “younger generation” of the late ’60s when the ’70s hit. What happened to all that peace, love and idealism? I’ll tell you what happened: They had to get jobs, and leave childish things behind them. If there were no colleges, there would be no support for Bernie. That’s what the vaunted “younger generation” always is – college kids. And they have to leave school sometime. And their politics change as fast as their friends do.
” it is a little curious that Bernie has had most of his success (though by no means all of it) through caucuses, which are incredibly anti-democratic.”
Not curious at all. Activist insurgents tend to do better in caucuses. Obama dominated the caucuses in 2008.
“White progressive champions always fall short unless they can unite the entire progressive community, AND STILL APPEAL TO THE MIDDLE”!!!
So true. it always comes back to that doesn’t it?? Progressives and conservatives always rail against the moderates. They call us weak, mushy, take both sides of an issue. This has been said for years, but it isn’t true. Moderates are not weak-kneed. We have opinions just like the rest of you. We just don’t have the outlets and websites to express those opinions like the liberals and conservatives do, most of the time. We don’t go on radio and TV shows nearly as much as one side of the other. In fact, most of the time we are totally ignored.
I am a moderate, and I vote. I am an independent, but lean most of the time with Democrats on a majority of the issues. Bottom line is WE DECIDE ELECTIONS!!
What the heck is a moderate? What exactly does that mean?
Those who buy into, with little to no thought, the crackpot realism of the elders in their chosen political party.
I kinda thought free-riders, myself.
I actually was looking for an answer. The statement that independents decide elections is sort of like saying an average person is in the exact center of a normal distribution. It tells you nothing at all about preferred political directions, policies, or political principles.
In fact, some independents are not toward the mean of a normal distribution but toward the extremes, and they still vote. If the culture causes a move dramatically in their direction, they might wind up being at the mean of the distribution despite their best efforts. Then what? I beg you look at the recent history of the Republican Party for insight.
Independents or moderates? Social or economic?
I don’t think independents are necessarily moderates.
While we’re at it, what ever happened to the “undecideds”? I guess they’ve gone out of style.
I think the most illuminating aspect of this primary is that racial voting and division is still present in the Democratic Party, if not as strong or as outwardly open as the antipathy spouted by the Democratic Party. The fact that a lot of white progressives have been so quick to write off the southern African-American vote is extremely disheartening.
* the second time I mention Democratic Party above should be Republican Party, clearly
Figured that. But the Southern black vote that is determining the national candidate can’t even elect a Senator or Governor in their own states or even a congressman except in special gerrymandered districts.
I think that’s more a function of the racism in the South (given that white folks in the South vote 90%+ for the Republican Party, even though it is against their economic interests). African-Americans aren’t a majority, so there is only so much they can do.
You can also argue that a lot of Bernie’s wins are meaningless as well. When was the last time Wyoming sent a Democrat to Congress? What about Alaska (outside of Mark Begich, who got lucky)? Kansas?
It’s a stupid argument to make. Everyone’s vote counts, whether it’s black people in the South or white people in the flyover states.
Stop it, PsiFighter37. You are coming dangerously close to making sense here.
” The fact that a lot of white progressives have been so quick to write off the southern African-American vote is extremely disheartening. “
But you admit they can’t elect anyone. Yet you write off Bernie winning Wisconsin and Michigan, states which have in the past elected Democrats as Senators, Governors, and President. Or is that just “flyover territory”?
I’m not writing them off, but pointing to individual states as a sign of electability in the general election is a fundamentally, intellectually dishonest argument to make. Look at 2008: Obama lost CA, NY, OH, and PA – he won all of those in both general elections.
Bernie winning WI and MI has virtually no impact on predicting that they would not vote for Clinton in the general election. Nor is it a sign that he is the more electable one. If I use your logic, Bernie should just quit after NY – if he can’t win the state that supplies Democrats with the 2nd-most EVs in the general election, CLEARLY he has no shot.
Right? Or do you see how silly that sounds>
Isn’t that what Markos and Booman have been saying? That sanders should just quit?
Except for the part where every time I’m offered an opinion, I’ve said that Sanders should stay until the bitter end and collect as many delegates as he can so he can influence the convention committees, the platform, and give his people valuable experience.
So, Voice, do you break with the many here at the Frog Pond, myself included, who feel that Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy which the DNC began to pursue during his time as Chair of the Committee was a very valuable strategy which the Party should return to?
There are many white male voters in the South and elsewhere who would be abandoned to the Republicans, according to the vision you appear to be forwarding.
White males need to be part of a coalition; they can’t win national elections by themselves any more. Who do you propose would be in your ideal electoral and governing majority, and how would you campaign for their votes?
As I said before, the coalition is everyone who works for a living regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation. That used to be what the Democratic Party stood for. Why must we have a master race and an inferior race? Regardless of which is which? Why does there have to be an aristocracy, rather than a meritocracy?
I have not seen anyone advocate for a master race or denigrate another race.
I’m not sure what you’re seeing here
Read the post just below yours.
the one by Camussie? I’m confused, there are over 200 comments on this thread can you be more specific
When social security specifically excluded job categories filled mostly by people of color? When FDR threw anti lynching legislation aside to get the new deal passed and when many new deal programs specifically excluded people of color? When LBJ ramped instituted the draft which disproportionately affected the poor and therefore people of color because they didn’t have access to college defferals.
The idea that people of color should just trust any D platform that basically relies on a rising tide lifts all boats requires ignoring the history that that has never been the case, with one exception – the economic prosperity of the 90’s.
This is not to say I disagree that more needs to be done for working people. The D party needs to completely revamp it’s visa platform a d if that means losing some tech money so be it.
There was a big bubble during the 1990’s. The collapse of the bubble took place during 1999-2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotcom_bubble
http://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes8.asp
Add to the bubble the one time initial build out of the Internet in the USA, IE major infrastructure spending.
Blind squirrel finds acorn. Touted for all time. Greenspan’s bubble produced that economy. Hoocoodanode???
“That used to be what the Democratic Party stood for. “
Yes, until a couple of weeks ago, apparently. LOL.
AA vote in the south is much more religious (aka Christian) and conservative on many issues (anti gay marriage, etc…) than the rest of the Democratic party. Democrats have been trending in the opposite direction for many reasons, not the least is that the Republicans have increasingly turned themselves into a fundamentalist christian theocratic party.
Certainly, running against a non-christian in the primaries was a huge boon for Hillary in the south, but otherwise I’m not sure how many other conclusions Democrats should draw from that.
The true believers weigh in above. No surprise. They are right as DemocRats….if majority makes “right”, of course. We are increasingly likely to see HRC as our president for the next four years at least. I for one think that such a result will simply be a continuation of the ongoing combined neolib/neocon disaster of the preceding 25 years or so.
All’s well that ends well???
What if it ends not so well?
What then?
We shall see.
Soon enough.
I hope I’m wrong. I really do. But I think I’m not.
AG
A majority doesn’t make “right”. All it does is turn a candidate into a public official who is hard to get rid of.
OT:
uh huh
uh huh
thanks to Zandar for the h/t:
The Voter Support Agency Accused of Suppressing Votes
By MICHAEL WINES
APRIL 8, 2016
The federal Election Assistance Commission was formed after the disputed 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore and given an innocuous name and a seemingly inoffensive mission: to help state election officials make it easier to vote.
In this ideologically riven election season, it turns out, that is not easy at all.
The election commission is in federal court this month, essentially accused of trying to suppress voter turnout in this November’s election. The Justice Department, its nominal legal counsel, has declined to defend it. Its case instead is being pleaded by one of the nation’s leading advocates of voting restrictions. The agency’s chairman has disavowed its actions.
The quarrel exemplifies how the mere act of voting has become enmeshed in volatile partisan politics. Seventeen states will impose new voting restrictions for November’s presidential election. Many are the object of disputes between those who say they are rooting out voter fraud and those who say the real goal is to keep Democratic-leaning voters from casting ballots.
The lawsuit’s origin is straightforward. The agency’s executive director, Brian D. Newby, had been in his job less than three months in January when he unilaterally reversed a policy that the body’s commissioners, two Democrats and two Republicans, had endorsed since the agency’s creation in 2002: that people registering to vote need offer no proof, beyond swearing an oath, that they are American citizens.
That decision gave Kansas, Georgia and Alabama officials a blessing to alter the federal voter registration applications handed out in motor vehicle offices and many other state agencies, replacing the oath with something stiffer: a demand for proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate.
There was but one problem, critics say: Mr. Newby had no authority to make policy, a power reserved for the agency’s four commissioners.
………………………………………..
A head-scratching legal battle has ensued. The Justice Department refused to defend Mr. Newby’s decision, arguing that it was clearly illegal. Mr. Newby’s defense was assumed by the Kansas secretary of state, Kris Kobach, a former Republican Party chairman in one of the nation’s most conservative states, and perhaps the leading advocate of tightening requirements for registering new voters.
The dispute raised eyebrows for another reason: Mr. Newby came to the commission from suburban Kansas City, where he was an election commissioner appointed by and answering to Mr. Kobach. In an interview, Mr. Kobach said he played no role in Mr. Newby’s hiring or his registration decision.
A decision on whether to issue a preliminary injunction over Mr. Newby’s action may come soon, but the battle is unlikely to end quickly. Mr. Kobach has twice taken a crusade for requiring proof of citizenship to the Supreme Court, and twice lost. Many expect this case to end there as well.
Kris Kobach. Why am I not surprised.
OT:
but Kasich is the ‘ reasonable one’, so I’ve been told.
h/t Zandar
Tens of thousands of Ohioans could lose Medicaid coverage under fee proposal
By Catherine Candisky
The Columbus Dispatch * Thursday April 7, 2016 11:48 AM
Gov. John Kasich’s administration projects tens of thousands of poor Ohioans will lose Medicaid coverage while taxpayers save nearly $1 billion under a plan to charge new fees for the government health coverage and impose penalties on those who miss payments.
The proposal, subject to federal approval, would require those being treated for breast and cervical cancer, teens coming out of foster care and other working-age, nondisabled adults on Medicaid to make monthly payments into a health-savings account to help cover their expenses beginning Jan. 1, 2018.
……………………………………….
State officials project about 15 percent of Medicaid enrollees will lose benefits if the plan is enacted. They would either be disenrolled for failing to make payments or choose not to sign up to avoid the cost.
Zandar’s take on it:
The problem of course is that Ohio has a much larger population than Indiana, so we’re talking about hundreds of thousands losing their Medicaid for not being able to come up with the $99 per year.
When that happens, it’ll be the fault of those lazy people for not paying into the system…as system many of them already pay into thanks to sales taxes, payroll taxes, and state income taxes.
But of course kicking half a million plus off Medicaid is the entire point. Kasich’s plan is to do that all over the country and make it tens of millions instead.
Another reason why we can’t trust the neoliberals to get to the White House. We need people to understand that the Dem party is corrupt through and through. Letting Republicans destroy our institutions will teach everyone that only voting tried and true non-corporate supporting, non-cash dealing, non-GMO eating, non-deodorant or perfumed product 100% natural leather sandal wearing, all natural leftist liberal will solve our problems.
Wow, haven’t seen hippie bashing like that since Kent State!
Admittedly he deserves it — but the rest of us don’t.
Actually, now that I think of it, I’m not sure the neo-liberals have really been all that good for the country — or even the world! And as for the Democratic Party, maybe it’s just a wee bit corrupt? No, sorry, forgive me, I must’ve forgot my meds.
I’m waiting for the ultimate insult:
“pointy-headed intellectuals who can’t park their bicycles straight.” George Wallace
LOL
…nattering nabobs of negativity? Oh, wait, that’s the other side this time…
Ahh, time to punch a hippie?
Maybe if you punch them enough they will agree with you.
OT:
where are all the 2 piece and a biscuit Preacher Mofos that were shuffling for Bruce Rauner?
Where are they now?
……………………………
Chicago State, a Lifeline for Poor Blacks, Is Under Threat Itself
By JULIE BOSMAN
APRIL 9, 2016
CHICAGO — The lack of a state budget in Illinois has been dismissed by many here as politics as usual, another protracted ego contest between the Republican governor and the Democrats who rule the Legislature.
It does not feel that way at Chicago State University, a 150-year-old, predominantly African-American school on the city’s far South Side.
Since last July, when the fiscal year began, the university has received zero dollars from the state, though it relies on Illinois for 30 percent of its $105 million budget. If no one swoops in with a rescue plan, the school could shut down, stranding students mid-degree, eliminating hundreds of jobs and shuttering a path forward for a poor and underserved community.
In February, the school declared a financial emergency. Officials canceled spring break and moved commencement up to April 28, rushing to finish the semester before funding goes dry. Last month, members of the faculty and staff were notified that the school was making contingency plans to collect their keys. Reserve funds to pay employees will run out after April 30.
“People are losing their minds,” said Barbara Ameyedowo, 28, a math major who is expecting to graduate in December. “Students are leaving. I’m hopeful that it will be resolved, but I’m so sad. Chicago State is all this part of the South Side has left.”‘
Governors and legislatures around the country have made deep cuts to state universities in recent years, leaving the smallest and least prestigious schools financially stressed, as tuition is hardly adequate to sustain many institutions. In Illinois, the absence of a budget means there has been no state financing, straining state universities and prompting some to furlough and lay off employees.
…………………………………
The crisis has left many of the 4,500 students at Chicago State, the vast majority of whom are black and from low-income backgrounds, shaken and angry: Why are they, rather than their peers at more elite state universities, at risk of becoming the first major casualties of the budget stalemate?
“It’s aimed at hurting minorities,” Glenn Weston, 23, a junior who is studying accounting, said of the budget conflict. Though Chicago State University is not a member of the historically black colleges and universities system, he said, “Chicago State is like the H.B.C.U. of Chicago. Other schools here would never close.”
For months, the students have organized in protest, their cries largely directed at Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican. In January, a group of students drew attention to their cause by forming a human chain and shutting down part of a busy expressway. At a rally downtown in February, students marched on sidewalks, chanting “Black education is good for your health” and “Black minds matter.”
Students are fearful that the school could shut down, leaving them with unfinished degrees and few options to transfer nearby.
For many students, the university is a lifeline. Originally founded as a teachers’ college during boom times in the 1860s, the small, austere campus of concrete plazas and low-slung brick buildings now occupies 160 acres of land deep on the South Side of Chicago. It is bordered by an expressway and a residential neighborhood that was once solidly middle-class but has been upended by poverty, gang violence and declining population. Streetlights are marked with dark green banners, the school color, stamped with the Chicago State logo.
“There’s a lot of frustration in the community,” said Phillip Beverly, a political-science professor at Chicago State, who grew up five blocks from the school and whose grandmother and wife are graduates. “You’re closing off an avenue for people to change their lives.”
Now where are the Pritzkers?
Or the Illinois equivalent? Neoliberalism is all about voluntary charitable acts, no?
Well, if there were a primary being held in Illinois on Tuesday, Clinton and Pritzker would be there with a private grant to save the school. Rahm would show up too, of course.
Oh well, too bad for them. It’s not their turn to be a political pawn in a philanthropy game. Maybe next life.
Until then, taste the neoliberalism.
Counting their winnings from all the tax cuts they got from the neo-liberalism of the last 24 years.
The Guardian – Wendell Potter and Nick Penniman – US elections 2016: `The system is rigged, the government coin-operated’
Those that support this rotten system and its pitch men and women are not only handmaidens to and/or rubes for the elites, but also active subversives of the people.
ummmmm…good luck with that.
CALL OF DUTY
04.08.16 12:15 AM ET
The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President
Gen. James Mattis doesn’t necessarily want to be president–but that’s not stopping a group of billionaire donors from hatching a plan to get him there.
An anonymous group of conservative billionaires is ready to place their bets on a man dubbed “Mad Dog,” hoping to draft him into the presidential race to confront Donald Trump.
Think of it as a Plan B should Trump be nominated by the Republican Party in Cleveland: swing behind retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis and press him into service yet again as a third-party candidate.
Mattis is the former commander of Central Command, which includes the strife-afflicted conflict zones of the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, and has developed a reputation among troops as a general officer who cares about the little guy. This reputation blossomed into the political realm during the 2012 presidential contest, when a Marine Corps veteran started an online campaign to write-in Mattis on presidential ballots–it ultimately lacked the backing to take off.
We can dream!
This comment is now a stand-alone post.
Progressives? What Are They, Really?
Please go there if you wish to comment.
Thank you…
AG
This is a provocative analysis, but it seems to imply that Sanders’ failure to “united the entire progressive community” can be traced to the fact that he’s white or that he doesn’t appeal to the somewhat mythical middle. His numbers are good with voters from rural areas all over, white voters in the Bible and Mormon belts, self-described “independents”, and even crossover Libertarians. If you can’t find the political “middle” in one of those groupings, I’m not sure where you’ll find it.
Rather than failing to appeal to the middle, Sanders has failed to appeal to the party faithful: People who have thrown in their lot with the Democratic Party as the most probable vehicle of progress, however cautious or zealous their own political tastes may be. He has also failed to establish himself as a successor to the current president.
Neither of these failures are incidental to his candidacy. Sanders has always placed conspicuous distance between himself and the party. And although he has learned to be somewhat tactful on the stump, it’s evident that he thinks himself more desirous and more capable of furthering progressive ends than the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Both of these traits make him wildly appealing to segments of voters, while slamming the door on others. He isn’t where he is on accident. Bernie has been, exuberantly, Bernie.
The funny thing is – what’s holding him back is not at all what people thought it would be before the campaign began: Few are bothered that he pitches his tent deep in left field. That’s good news for those of us who favor those positions, whether or not we think he’s the best one to get us there.
“Few are bothered that he pitches his tent deep in left field.”
Interesting indeed, if his detractors in the general population even knew his positions. Which few have bothered to investigate, judging from the typical criticism that tries to discuss a policy issue. It seems more reflexive loyalty to me. Electability is the most common counter.
But maybe you are right. I can hope so.