Well, the results from the New York primary are in, and it’s safe to say that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. I’m not going to make excuses for the Sanders’ campaign. They lost a state in which they desperately needed a Michigan style upset to remain relevant. Whatever happens going forward with the movement that made Bernie Sanders their symbolic leader is impossible for me to predict. Martin already has a post up that analyses where the progressive alliance that supported Sanders’ candidacy this election season goes from here, and he has examined those possibilities far more effectively than I could hope to do.
In light of Trump’s overwhelming victory last night, it seems apparent that he will be the Republican challenger to Clinton. And I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that means Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States come Inauguration Day, 2017. Yeah, I’m not taking much of a risk there. Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of Hillary as a candidate, the Donald out trumps her in the flaws category by a very large margin.
But that is the end of my predictions for this election cycle (I know, famous last words). However, I am honestly interested in learning what the Frog Pond readership here think will happen with respect to Hillary Clinton, both in the immediate future, and also looking ahead to the next four years when she will be the first female President to sit in the Oval Office.
So, please, let me know your thoughts regarding the following:
1. What effect on down ticket races will the Clinton have, especially with regards to Democratic hopes to regain a majority in the Senate?
To be honest, this may be as much a matter of the Trump effect as anything that Hillary brings to the table, but regarding the contingent of anti-Trump voters (and I expect a lot of them), what will happen when they look beyond the Presidential candidates to the Senate and House races? Will Clinton seal the deal with those folks to get them to vote Democratic in other races, or will the votes she receives from the “Anyone But Trump” brigade be limited to a vote for her and her alone?
2. What will young and independent voters do?
I, frankly, have little clue, despite the “Bernie or Bust” types one hears about. We do know that President Obama turned out large numbers of young and independent voters in both 2008 and 2012. Clinton has done less well during the primaries with younger voters, and, in open primaries she has not fared as well with independents, either. Will they turn out for her in the Fall or not?
3. What will be Clinton’s major domestic policy focus during her first two years in office?
Financial reform? Health Care reform, i.e., improvements to the ACA? Reform the current justice system that has resulted in the US having the largest prison population on earth? Immigration reform? Upgrading our failing infrastructure (electric grid, roads, telecommunication advances, etc.). Climate change? Income inequality? Passage of trade agreements such as the TPP? Something else?
4. What do you foresee as the biggest challenges she will face in foreign policy?
The list here is almost endless, but let’s start with the Middle East. How will her administration approach Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two major powers in the region? What about the ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan? What will she do in partnership with the EU to address the horrific refugee crisis. Will her foreign policy be more or less hawkish than the Obama administration regarding terrorism and the use of military force around the globe? And what about relations with Russia and China?
As they saying goes, I am curious.
to answer the first question I think there will be 2 things in play, people rarely split tickets anymore and I think that will be true this time as well. Does that mean moderate Republicans and right leaning independents vote for Hilary and leave the rest blank, vote for all Democrats, or just don’t show up to vote at all is an open question.
I don’t have a huge sample size by any means, but I live in Illinois where there are still moderate Republicans and Independents who lean Republican. They say they will not vote for Hillary because they don’t trust her. It’s a dream to think a bunch of Republicans are going to vote for Hillary. Too many 90’s memories. That is not to say my sample is happy with Trump, although he won my county and there are a few Trump signs in yards. I have to look at one every time I leave my subdivision. It’s as close to the street as possible, too!
Iran is technically a power in the Arab world, but obviously they’re Persians, not Arabs.
Point taken. Muslim world – will change
If Obama doesn’t do it, the trade agreements will pass and corporate profits will be repatriated at favorable rates. It will not give the economy any shot in the arm, however, since demand is the intractable problem under our current system of primarily precariat employment gains.
There could well be a market event. We are sorta overdue. Wonder if she will keep Yellen?
I would hope she moderates on marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug. A big first step to reducing prison populations in the states that follow up. Curious, would state laws making it felonious still be in effect?
#1 – Because of the quality of DINOs that DWS has culled from the ranks I see no change here.
#2 – Clinton is the second most despised candidate. I suspect low voter turnout.
#3 – Look at a list of her donors.
#4 – Clinton’s biggest challenge will be to conquer Russia and control the world’s energy resources. I don’t think she can do it in four years. So first she will heat up Libya. She’ll find a way to renege on the Iran deal. Crank up bloodlust in Syria. Maybe death squads in Brazil for the monied class and a coup in Venezuela.
Also, for the general population, higher substance abuse rates, higher mortality rates for the white working class (as it sinks towards minorities’ high levels), hotter weather. More radical white supremacists. More murdering cops.
Record profits on Wall Street. A new depression. Another Hurricane Sandy somewhere. Another Star Wars movie. More Kadashian stories. A mediocre Supreme Court judge who votes against the working class. More privatization.
I was expecting Clinton supporters to weigh in. Where are they do you think?
There’s a gathering on at Balloon Juice, where they are conflicted between the regular FUs to Sanders supporters and essentially facing the “What do we do now?”
Clinton supporters realize that they are winning the nomination but are losing the youth vote and the independents. Clinton’s Congress won’t be that different than what’s in place now, which is fine for the neoliberals. There really isn’t much difference between a DWS-chosen DINO and a Republican except maybe some of the weird Christianist drivel. For important agenda items like trade agreements, more government surveillance and graft et al, whether it’s DINOs or Republicans doesn’t matter.
I’ve been trying to get the villagers at BJ to start a contest to guess where Hillary’s first war will be, but the only bite I got was that there would be no more wars.
I’m guessing that the MSM will effectively suppress Hillary’s money-laundering scheme, so the nozzles of money from the rich to politicians will be left on over the next four years.
Libya surely will be the first swamp.
If you attack BJ’s favored son/daughter from the left too persistently, I think you’ll find yourself on the receiving end of Cole’s banhammer. He doesn’t have as thick a skin as he likes to think.
I already got it for mentioning the US backed fascists in Ukraine.
Steven,
For months these are the people you catered to, and gave ammunition to. They are your well earned audience.
Enjoy them.
.
nalbar, now that you’re sitting in the catbird seat here, how about some predictions for the glorious next four years?
I posted this to open up a serious debate regarding what our likely next President will do once she wins. I’m not looking for what only Sanders’ supporters believe, I am looking for what Clinton supporters expect. After all, the reality is Sander will not be President and neither will any Republican.
So It is a shame you have chosen to respond this way.
Yes, it is a shame. And I am not happy about it. And it involved breaking one of my Booman Tribune posting rules.
I have read you here for years. Years. I respected you greatly, because you took on difficult issues. Thankless issues. Insolvable issues.
But you do read every post in your threads, right?
Shame is good word for it. But they don’t have any.
.
No blogger reads all the comments.
That might be for the best.
.
True.
And I do have a life outside blogs. But that’s fine. I continue to be an ardent supporter of Sanders and I do not apologize for that, just as I am sure ardent Clinton supporters do not apologize for their views.
If someone chooses to decide I am a bad person for holding those views and blogging about them, so be it. You cannot please everyone even for a small part of the time.
As for future posting about Clinton’s candidacy here and my opinions of her as a very flawed politician, I do not foresee any need, nor do I have any desire to continue, to address those matters. She’s going to be the Democratic candidate.
And, in truth, anything written on a political blog has very little impact outside a few people, except on rare occasions.
So, that’s that.
Well,
You should probably read them all today. You asked a question, and some are answering where they are.
Then you might go to the right side bar on the home page. No need to read them all, just a glance should do.
To some, it’s just not worth it.
.
I actually have read a number of them. Not all, or most, require a response from me. I’m disappointed that you seem to have some personal issue with me. But that’s your problem. I have more important ones to worry about today that are personal and I’ll just leave it at that. Go fight with someone else.
I guess you’re referencing the likes of me. Why should I be ashamed of thinking that the bottom 80% of the country has been getting the short shrift from corporate Dems and Republicans for the last fifty years?
Didn’t anyone tell you? Hillary won. It seems it’s hard to be a good winner anymore, but surely if you’re a Hillary supporter it must be for more than “get off my lawn you Bernie supporters!”
So what do you expect from Hillary? More or less wealth flowing to the working class? More or fewer trade agreements? More or less deindustrialization? More or fewer bridges falling down?
We’re finishing our blood sacrifices to Satan, of course.
Clinton supporter says:
Or maybe all those things are on President Magster’s agenda.
I can’t improve on any of this.
But as an additional data point, Hillary decided that marriage being defined as one-man-one-woman wasn’t a “fundamental bedrock principle” after all once 53% of the public felt otherwise. National support for marijuana legalization is now 52%. If that number keeps rising, eventually she’ll go along with federal decriminalization. Given the lives she helped destroy with the 1994 crime bill, it seems like the least she could do.
Do you know if that would de-criminalize it in the states that have not done so? We still have wet/dry states, don’t we?
According to Wikipedia, while there are dry counties, there are no dry states.
I live in Salt Lake City. The Mormons who run the place frown on alcohol, as you might imagine. You used to be unable to go into a bar and buy a drink without going through the charade of joining a private club. They were even going to try enforcing their sharia law on the thirsty journalists who came to town to cover the Olympics until they realized the PR disaster that would result.
But liquor has always been available for sale in the state-run liquor store. (Closed on Sundays, of course.) The theocrats can tolerate a limited amount of vice as long as they get their cut.
With neighboring Colorado enjoying a nice plump tax bonus from its legal pot sales, I can’t see Utah holding out forever if it became federally legal.
Although I support Bernie Sanders, I am not, and never have been, a Bernie-or-Buster.
On the other hand, while I have never been very fond of Hillary Clinton, I must say that my antipathy has greatly increased over the course of this campaign.
Obviously I am not alone. I don’t know if there has ever been a putative front-runner with as high negatives at this point in the campaign, as Hillary Clinton has.
Unless you count Trump and Cruz, of course.
So, to be honest, I see this as a pretty bizarre situation. America, and the world, stand in great peril on many, many fronts, with an urgent need for positive change. Yet somehow we are about to decide between two awful, widely disliked candidates, and the only consolation is that one is even worse than the other.
The fact that the Clintons and the Trumps have had a long and mostly friendly relationship only increases the bizarre nature of the situation.
I mean, somebody I’m not particularly keen on, there’s nothing new about at that. It’s rare I’ve had the privilege of voting for a candidate I wholeheartedly support. But voting for somebody I really don’t like — because I have to?
But I do have to. I don’t see any way around it.
So, the only thing I can say right now is this. Booman has talked about how this movement will continue, “with or without Bernie Sanders” — almost as if Sanders were just an incidental feature. “With or without.” I’m afraid his analytical skills have once again gone beyond the limits of ordinary human psychology: even in that there is a psychological factor in that, too, because something about Sanders makes our moderator genuinely uncomfortable. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were somebody else? Eh, Booman?
But that somebody does not exist, and probably could not exist. The irony all this is that what makes our moderator and many others uncomfortable, is the very reason for Sanders’ success, namely, that he’s not part of the Democratic Party power structure.
The “movement” was ready to start 12 years ago, with Howard Dean. Except Dean was destroyed. And it was ready to start 8 years ago with the financial meltdown, except no one — Obama included — was capable of leading it. The nearest to that was Elizabeth Warren. She is very important, but she isn’t leading a movement. And Occupy Wall Street was a moral outpouring, not a political movement. Only Sanders has been able to get this thing going.
Therefore Sanders is going to have to continue leading this movement for the foreseeable future, because he’s the only one that can. In conjunction with the not inconsiderable political network that has grown and will continue to grow, around him.
The key to the whole matter is this. Sanders has said many times, most recently just a few days ago, that if Hillary is the nominee, he will support her. The only way I could feel even halfway good about supporting Hillary is if Sanders and the whole movement does, and the only person in the world who even has a hope of getting that to happen is Bernie Sanders himself. Even for him, it’s going to be a knife-edge balancing act.
Some people here think “politician” is a dirty word, others think “Sanders” is a dirty word. But I mean only praise when I say that Sanders is a brilliant politician. And what needs to happen now demands extraordinary political skills.
The equation is this. On the one hand, the Clinton machine holds a very high degree of control in the party. On the other, the party really needs Bernie and his supporters. But I’m not at all sure Hillary appreciates that. She’s on a first-name basis with the Masters of the Universe, what does she have to worry about Sanders? More likely she thinks she’s going to dictate the terms, and he can take it or leave it.
In conclusion, I feel I am just now learning the meaning of real political leadership. Because of the trust I have in Sanders, my first question is, what does he think is best. I will also continue to pay attention to what Booman has to say, and Steven, and others here whose good judgment I trust — and just see how things develop.
A very smart response. I wonder what you think it would take from Sanders to throw support to Clinton in a meaningful way? Does he have a preferred VP pick? Will Elizabeth Warren make a difference? And I’m not sure I agree that Hillary doesn’t know the importance of Bernie’s influence with voters. I think she knows that he brings a degree of integrity and “stick it to the man” enthusiasm that she could use right now.
I wish I could share your sunny optimism, but actually I’m more in line with Bob here:
“A question I’m asking today? Who will Hillary betray, the working class or her donor class?”
I think the answer is obvious. And Marie, when you say she can’t betray the working class because she never promised anything, then why are many unions supporting her? Somewhat of a rhetorical question, I know, but since we’re in the world of charades here, it’s worth asking.
Anyway, what it really applies to is the question of what Bernie can get out of her. And so, if he represents the working class … you see where this is going.
The UAW, AFL-CIO, and the Teamsters have not endorsed anyone yet. It is true that some of the public service unions have endorsed HRC, but their membership is not happy since they had no real input into the endorsement. The large majority prefer Bernie Sanders and their opinions are registered on their union’s Facebook and Web pages. I’ve seen some discussion that this union dilemma could result in some unions raiding others. It’s been done before and unions are political. But it could just be talk. It is rare for a Democratic presidential candidate to address working-class issues during each stump speech, as Bernie Sanders has done. Although Unions endorse Democrats, it’s been slim pickings for them for quite a while.
I do want to say that the Obama administration has been better for labor than some past Democratic administrations. I have linked an example:
http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/252232-enraging-industry-labor-board-asserts-its-power-under-oba
ma
That Tom Peretz…interesting person.
Now I see the reason for my comment much better.
That’s very interesting. I knew a lot of this, but I hadn’t really thought about it. It suggests to me that they might actually be able to exert some meaningful influence by working with Bernie.
And in the larger sense, a lot of other sectors, like environmental, justice, etc. could also do that — by working with Bernie. That gives me a little more hope. It’s not just about delegates and it’s not just about Bernie making demands, but about the people and groups who want to align themselves with him.
WRT unions. Exactly what has HRC promised the members of those unions that endorsed her? What was promised to the union leaders? How was the decision to endorse her handled? Was the endorsement pushed by the leader as a defensive move not to be totally ignored or was any promise extracted for the endorsement and if the latter was it for the benefit for the members or those in leadership positions? (It has been reported that members of several unions weren’t permitted to weigh in.)
Union membership in the private sector is very low today and most of them are in low paying industries. The salaried class of unions (mostly if not exclusively public employees) aren’t so inclined to relate to people not in their income and/or educational class. Doubt that they recognize how vulnerable they are becoming. How many nationally prominent DEM politicians publicly rallied in support of the WI teachers? How about the Chicago teachers?
I’ve seen the race to the bottom since Reagan. I wish the public service unions had joined in more with the private sector unions at the appropriate time. Instead, it was divide and conquer. And to think the Air Traffic Controllers (PATCO) endorsed Reagan. Mercy.
Wisconsin “breaks my heart.” Home of Fighting Bob LaFollette and birthplace of AFSCME. I tell myself things will change there.
I realize I didn’t answer your questions. I think you meant “FOR Sanders to throw support to Clinton . . . ” ?
what would it take? I don’t know. Something like that. Something important that can’t be reneged on.
I would hope that Elizabeth Warren can play a major role.
You write: ‘I think she knows that he brings a degree of integrity and “stick it to the man” enthusiasm that she could use right now.’
Indeed she does, so she’ will try to get the most out of it with the least concessions. To her it would be no different than negotiating for the rights to a brand with good market share. She would love to co-opt the movement.
Bernie has a long track record in working to get the most concessions possible. If he and his supporters bolt the DEM party, we get nothing and lose whatever power that has been gained in this election cycle. For the most part, we were instrumental in Obama’s primary and general election wins. But that power was subsumed in the person of Obama (a weak tea vessel for progressivism) and therefore, we had no identifiable seat at the table. The Clinton faction was the winner of those seats and demanded and got their price.
How much can Bernie get? Probably very little. He/we aren’t in as strong a position as HRC was at the end of the ’08 primary which is when any such deals have to be made. McCain was a more viable in the general election at that point and it wasn’t unreasonable to consider that she could have thrown the election to McCain by simply sitting on the sidelines with her loyal fan base. Trump/Cruz/X aren’t viable. INDs can sit out, but for the most part, Sanders’ DEMs will respond to fear and hold their noses and vote for lesser evil again.
When Obama won in 2008 the neoliberal corporatists of the Democratic were still in control. So while we can debate where either of them might be on a left to right scale, the people on the top to bottom scale were just fine. Clinton got to run the foreign policy in a sort of arrangement like the old Roman republic had, one leader for domestic affairs, one for foreign affairs.
Since the neoliberal model doesn’t need or want to have actual progressives in Congress, expect the makeup to be essentially the same. There may be a bump in DINOs this cycle, a bump in Repubs in 2018.
A question I’m asking today? Who will Hillary betray, the working class or her donor class?
HRC doesn’t promise the working class anything; so, betrayal isn’t part of the equation. Should they ask for anything, she’ll promise to “work on it” and they’ll overlook or rationalize why she doesn’t “get things done.”
Foreign policy wise is always determined by events, I expect as a starting point enforcing the nuclear deal with Iran and continuing to move forward with Cuba.
Russia isn’t as strong as people think and hopefully she doesn’t take a threat from them too seriously and just continue to bleed them like the President has done so far.
Syria/Iraq will be determined by how much progress the President makes there which so far has been significant. Foreign policy will take more center stage in the general because Republicans still think that’s their place of most credibility so I’m sure we’ll learn more then.
“Foreign policy wise is always determined by events,…”
Sigh. Has not been true since the days of the East India Company. Not even close to true when corporates are handed the keys to State, like Ukraine.
Oh wait! That leader who’s been on the CIA payroll for thirty years is not giving Unocal a big enough cut. Why, looking more closely at him, I believe he is a BAD MAN. Time for regime change or a war.
behind every rock, there must be a conspiracy
Thanks Jim. We all know there are no conspiracies, especially where the CIA is concerned! I mean, the very idea.
I have little patience for people who claim special knowledge or that when things don’t go their way that there must be some nefarious group of people who prevented it.
Sometimes you’re wrong, sometimes you haven’t done a good enough job persuading people to your side, and sometimes you just have persuaded enough people yet.
There isn’t a conspiracy around every corner or under every rock
I have little patience for people who remain in ignorance. Your comment is vague enough that I’m not sure what you’re condemning, except for the general concept of conspiracy.
Over at Balloon Juice today the villagers refuse to recognize that there may be a connection between campaign donations and politicians’ post-electoral behavior. I guess that could be branded as conspiracy theory, you know, that there is a connection between money and anything.
That’s what they want you to think.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
Harriet Tubman helped do Benghazi for Hillary, and that’s why 0bummer is putting her on the 20.
You know what? you’re absolutely right: There isn’t a conspiracy under every rock. But when a rock looks a little dodgy, it’s worth checking into it. And there are a lot of dodgy rocks, if you care to look.
Here is a standard definition of “conspiracy”.
“a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.”
Do you honestly think that that is a rare occurrence in this world? Or were you really born yesterday?
could you please use gender neutral pronoun “it” for countries, not “she”. or something metaphorical, the russian bear …
thanks in advance.
Are you an editor, by any chance?
no, but was very active on this issue for some years (could email you more about it if you’re interested). did work as a copy editor for a while,
If the Dems win, they probably retake the Senate.
Be mad for a little while after Bernie drops out, then get over it and vote for the Dems.
Appointing a SCOTUS justice and asking Janet Yellen to not raise interest rates.
Working with the Russians to get a peace deal in Syria once ISIS collapses later this year.
…adding:
…and working with Iran on getting the idiot Iraqi government to reconcile with the Sunnis.
Hillary will paint the White House black, invite her coven to join her at the helm of power, and declare herself empress of the country in a dark ceremony wherein Congress members will drink a broth of boiled endangered yellow legged frog and hemlock. Through loud cackles and chants filled with Wall Street ferver, she will ingest dollar bills and sign trade deals in ink made of sacred independent voters’ blood. The Curse of Oligarchy will beset the land, making once clean drinking water polluted, infecting most, except the purest, with the Spell of Political Blindness, enabling her to hide her terrible pact with the always pernicious DNC. War, famine, and not-left-enough Supreme Court justices will be her means of ultimate assumption; her power unchecked over all those of insufficient political righteousness.
Dark times my friends, we are entering.
Close.
LOL.
http://youtu.be/WfVcvyxLj-s
.
Well thanks, KC, I feel better now. It was all a dream …
Where are the Hillary supporters?
Still celebrating their victory over those that were working for less income/wealth inequality, less war, and more and larger efforts to mitigate AGW. Although few of them aren’t too chickenshit to own what they support.
Yes. And I just got out of a cabal meeting, Wall Street Commenters for Hillary, where we plotted our next step in our pernicious agenda: to seek out, take over, and seed comment threads with evil center-left propaganda. No thread shall be untouched by our efforts to push our vile, incremental approach for positive change.
Muhawhawhaw . . . .
We Came, we saw, they died:
The UN refugee agency said Wednesday that up to 500 people are feared dead in a shipwreck in the Mediterranean Sea last week, AP reported. The disaster happened in the waters between Italy and Libya, based on accounts from 41 survivors who were rescued on April 16 by a merchant ship, according to UNHCR. The survivors had been among 100 to 200 people who left a town near Tobruk, Libya, on a smugglers’ boat. “After sailing for several hours, the smugglers in charge of the boat attempted to transfer the passengers to a larger ship carrying hundreds of people in terribly overcrowded conditions,” the agency said, adding that “at one point during the transfer, the larger boat capsized and sank.”
Don’t bother. Facts are irrelevant to those that have embraced a religion or a human being they’ve put on a pedestal.
Hillary’s fault.
You’re not paying attention. Regime change has consequences.
Boring! Not even making an effort to post amusing DFHs bashing screeds.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to own what you support even if you find it embarrassing? At least then you could engage in honest discussions and arguments. As it is all you have is mocking and bashing those that support what I listed in my prior comment. That’s exactly how Limbaugh debates/argues and only appeals to ignoramuses.
I feel reasonably certain that if you polled Clinton supporters, you’d find many favor the same things that you do.
“Where are the Hillary supporters?”
All they have is “Vote for Hillary because…Republicans.”
Since this all she has, there’s nothing to vote for, she’s going to lose.
Might be better to concede that she’ll probably win — it really doesn’t get much worse or weaker on the GOP side for the nomination than what we’re seeing this election cycle. That way if or when she does win, her fans will be in a weaker position to mock Sanders’s supporters and gloat.
I caught a snark fest from one of them just up thread.
There are too many unknowns for me to make any useful predictions at this point; I can’t see the future as clearly as Boo does. Will Sanders rally behind Clinton and really work to bring his supporters along? Who will be the repub. nominee? (I’m not at all convinced that it will be Trump, given the dealing going on over convention rules). Will Clinton have coat-tails? That will depend greatly on the above two issues, as well as on her own (not-so hot) campaigning skills. Her governing decisions will be based on the make-up of congress, which will depend on all of the above. It’s going to be a very interesting few months until November.
What do you expect she’ll do once in the WH?
dance in the oval office
The macarana or something more recent?
By your answer I’m guessing you see the grim road ahead too.
not particularly, I’m happy with the progress we’ve made during the last 8 years and HRC is running to continue and build on it
Her web site has a big laundry list of reform issues she is pushing; criminal justice reform, campaign finance reform, wall street reform, health care reform, among other things. I doubt any of it would get past an intransigent republican congress, so what she actually chooses to focus on will , I think, depend on the make-up of congress after the election.
Will Sanders rally behind….
No. Right after the convention he will drop his democrat sham and take his money and run. Probably use it to run for governor. A token amount to down ticket, but only a token. Millions left over.
Rep nominee
Trump. All along I thought it would be Cruz. But it’s Trump. Cruz would be crazy to not go for the VP spot, if offered.
Coat tails
Yes. Senate flips. But not really because of Clinton. Because of Trump, and so many prominent Republicans skipping the convention. If it does not flip, Clinton does not get the Scalia seat.
Interesting take on Sanders actions after the convention. Sanders strikes me as someone who is more principled than the typical pol, almost to a fault. I don’t think he would cut the legs about from under Clinton if he felt he had a duty to support the dem. nominee. Thing is, I’m not sure he feels that way, so you could be right, he might just take his campaign back to Vermont and stay there; he could even continue to snipe at Clinton from the side lines. That would be a shame. He would do himself and his own legacy more honor by pushing hard for the dem. nominee.
Saying ‘I’ll support the nominee’ leaves a lot of wiggle room.
Sorry, I don’t see the ‘principled’ Sanders. I just don’t see it. There is just something about him that I find ‘off’. And he attracts the most interesting supporters. Not much time is spent actually supporting him, 99% is spent attacking something. And so many grifters and con men (women)!
My one sure prediction is Sanders runs back to safe, white Vermont with his money. And you know what? I really don’t blame him, he saw a chance to fleece the suckers and legally make some dough for his family. He probably watched the 2012 republicans and decided ‘what the heck, free money’.
.
Yeah the future Budget Committee Chairman is just a grifter. Why didn’t I see it before?
Past is never prologue, I guess, to some.
If certain people had had megaphones in the 1990s and if the internet had been more developed by then, we might have been able to save ourselves some grief by exposing in real time the dreadful policies that WHC supported. Would at least have been more interesting to argue with Clinton DEMs than having to defend WJC over his other activities. On the latter, we should have shrugged and told them to go ahead and set that new standard for impeachment and forever more DEMs will trawl through the personal lives of every elected GOP.
May have cut down on child molestation on the Republican side in the House.
safe, white Vermont
The racial makeup of different states is a complicated matter of history. Why it should be a matter of criticism is just bizarre. Do you criticize Mississippi, say, because of its racial makeup? No, you criticize it for its antediluvian politics.
I hear this kind of “this place is so white” rigamarole all the time here in Portland, Oregon. Maybe think about why the demographics are what they are…When the great migration of African Americans from the South occurred in the early decades of the 20th century, they went to big cities in the northeast and Midwest, especially for industrial employment. Oregon was a long way away, offered no attractions employment wise, and was in fact actively hostile to blacks. Black migration here finally did occur, in modest numbers, during WW2: people came to work in the shipyards that were building ships for the war effort.
It’s more complicated but that’s enough for now. Just stop using demographics as an insult. It’s silly.
Normally I just let this stuff go by, it’s nothing to me if people know little about where they live.
But this is just wildly inaccurate. I’m not sure if you know what a ‘sundown town’ is, but Portland been one for 140 years, and Oregon is a ‘sundown STATE’. http://m.mailtribune.com/article/20131020/News/310200330
It’s not that it was far away, it’s that they killed POC if they showed up.
I grew up in THREE notorious sundown towns, one of which they were still killing POC in the 60-70’s. I did not go to elementary, middle, or high school with a single American POC except in high school we had one Asian, one Colombian exchange student. Total high school population when I graduated? 2100. All three of these cities were in the Los Angeles Basin.
Yet I had also never heard of sun down towns until I was in my 20’s
Look it up.
As far as legacy, let me ask you a question clearskies. Sincerely.
When Sanders got that contrived invitation and ran off to Rome to throw his panties at the Pope, with his whole family in tow, did that look like someone interested in his legacy? What is your opinion of that incident? Am I wrong to see that as a ‘tell’?
.
I saw it as good politics. The pope is regarded as a bit of a reformer with respect to the rich/poor issue, and is well-liked (I like him although I’m an atheist and a feminist); allowing people to infer that the pope has come out in favor of Sanders may be a bit shady but not really going against Sanders’ particular progressive set of principles, especially given that Sanders does not have that much to say about reproductive rights.
We certainly see it differently. I did not bother with a political view of it, because I found the private/personal so objectionable.
Looking at it as you, as a political move, I disagree. I think it hurt him, badly. The potential leader of the free world, running off to Rome? Yikes. I find the optics terrible.
Well, thanks for responding. Maybe I have this one wrong. But it’s nice to have a civil give and take.
.
Interesting, may be you’re right. What do I know, anyway? And, you’re welcome!
We can get so hung up in our biases, prejudices, and preconceived viewpoints, that it can become difficult to see ‘truth’. That has certainly happened to me. I find some supporters so objectionable, and their arguments so disingenuous that I now scrutinize Sanders every move to find fault. Add to that my bias towards the papacy and I might not see clearly.
.
On an individual basis I don’t like it. I didn’t like it — and I said so at the time — when he went to Liberty University. And I don’t like going to an anti-woman organization that is covered in toxic sludge and crimes.
On a political basis? It was great politics, and I would have gone as well if I were running. Further, the Vatican is a country, and it has a lot of power. It’s not the same thing as endorsing the Catholic Church, or even having a political rally at a conservative, religious university. More like meeting a head of state.
Now there are of course moral reasons to reject it out of principle. A BLM representative rejected a WH invitation for moral and principled reasons. But I don’t know that I can see them on the same level — running for president of a nation-state versus an individual citizen.
I had the same take as clearskies. The Pope is fairly popular, and they agree on some of the economic stuff, so it’s arguably good politics.
It’s somewhat offensive to go hunting for optics that imply that this or that high religious figure endorses you, but as offensive things from religion go, that ranks somewhere between “Christmas songs are all terrible and annoying” and “They serve really stale crackers for communion”.
I’m an atheist, so it’s all nonsense to me, but I wasn’t really bothered by it.
Er, from what I have read, he is more absolutist than Hillary on reproductive agency. Typical of Jewish doctrine. Hillary gets squishy on late term.
Don’t really mean to come off so negative on HRC, but for what it’s worth, we haven’t really seen what strong opposition to her will look like. Prepare for lots of lefties to be SHOCKED! SHOCKED I SAY! at their temerity, baselessness, cravenness, etc — and just a little queasy that the facts aren’t…cleaner. Clintons gonna Clint…
Before you write Bernie off completely, Bernie says he still has a path to win a majority of pledged delegates. It’s not over until it’s over. About Hillary:
1) Effect on down ticket races – The people who will refuse to vote for Hillary will probably still vote Democratic unless those candidates are closely tied to the DNC. Many will not vote at all. The Green Party could see a surge. Republicans will remain in control of congress and State Houses.
2) Young and independent voters – You can expect a large number to either change registration back to Independent or remain Independent until a new party is founded. Most will go back to their lives and tune out politics altogether, not an altogether bad idea.
3) Clinton’s major domestic policy focus – Nothing, same as Obama since she will have no coat tails. This is where pragmatism hits a wall.
4) Biggest challenges she will face in foreign policy – Hillary’s biggest challenge will be in dealing with the backlash against the war she is surely to start.
Really? Is that anything like Nixon’s plan to win the Vietnam War?
Let’s take a look at what he needs to accomplish: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/20/bernie_sanders_won_t_win_here_s_the_math.html
Latest polling:
Pennsylvania: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_prima
ry-4249.html
Connecticut: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ct/connecticut_democratic_presidential_primar
y-5353.html
Delaware: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/de/delaware_democratic_presidential_primary-5
805.html
Maryland: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/md/maryland_democratic_presidential_primary-4
312.html
New Jersey: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nj/new_jersey_democratic_presidential_primary
-3443.html
California: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_democratic_presidential_primary
-5321.html
Hillary has blown almost every lead she has had except where serious establishment voter fraud is involved.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/277010-sanders-we-still-have-a-path-to-the-nominat
ion
Sure. Sure. You just keep telling yourself that — oh, and send him more money, I’m sure he’d appreciate it.
I think that from right about……………..NOW…..his whole campaign is a money making enterprise. Weaver and his ‘we will fight them at the convention’ is professional speak for ‘send money to continue the fight’.
.
http://berniepost.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-powerful-new-ad-going-viral/
Yep, total voter fraud everywhere she’s won, especially in New York. When she wrote the law 40 years ago regarding registration in a closed primary, we all know what she was up to–taking away independent voters’ rights. Speaking for myself, when I chose to be an unaffiliated voter, I totally expected to vote in party primaries even though I was told I wouldn’t be able to. It was outrageous that I couldn’t participate in primaries for ten years and that I chose to do that to myself. The system is corrupt!
There was a strong case made for vote-flipping in the New Hampshire Dem primary in 2008.
Here’s an article on that.
I’m skeptical of a ’08 NH DEM vote flipping because it’s not uncommon for a candidate to gain or lose large numbers from the pre-election polls. Bernie moved from an average of 54.5 in the polling to a 60.4 win. And HRC had more NH insider/institutional support this year than she had in ’08 and finish two points less than her polling average.
1 Green party goes into hibernation after the election – like always.
Trump will certainly fill that idiot role by being the only populist candidate left to oppose Hillary’s brand of neoliberalism. He will have more credibility adopting Bernie’s positions on trade and foreign policy than Hillary could ever have considering her track record regardless of how much she tries to triangulate. He already calls her “Crooked Hillary” going to the heart of her neoliberalism in case you’re wondering which direction this is going to go.
This is how she loses an otherwise winnable election.
I’ll just throw some uneducated guesses out there.
1. What effect on down ticket races will the Clinton have, especially with regards to Democratic hopes to regain a majority in the Senate?
Generally positive. I think having a candidate more towards the middle of the political spectrum gives down-ballot Democratic candidates flexibility in defining themselves to the left or right of her, as necessitated by the political conditions on the ground in their jurisdictions. With Sanders, I think the point of attack would be to tarnish him as a commie-pinko-liberal, and then argue that Candidate X has signed onto his “extreme liberal agenda,” with the result that Candidate X has to either repudiate Sanders or waste time explaining the difference in their respective positions. Of course this will also happen with Clinton, but my gut tells me that it would happen to a lesser degree, or at least be less plausible.
Also, I think Clinton would be a better fundraiser for down-ballot Dems, so that would also be helpful.
2. What will young and independent voters do?
I think they’ll be terrified of Trump and will turn out in sufficient numbers to get Clinton elected. They probably won’t turn out in the same numbers as they did for Obama – he’s an electrifying guy – but sufficient nonetheless.
3. What will be Clinton’s major domestic policy focus during her first two years in office?
Depends a lot on what kind of Congress she gets. First, she’s got to get a fifth liberal justice on the Supreme Court. Probably also some mix of immigration reform, tax/economic, and perhaps financial regulatory reform. Tackling environmental issues would be great, but I just don’t know if she’ll have a serious Congress or a clown Congress to work with. If she’s stuck with a Republican Congress, she’ll probably be mired in unending shutdown battles, Obamacare repeal attempts, and all that other bullshit.
4. What do you foresee as the biggest challenges she will face in foreign policy?
Not getting into a war on behalf of one of our Middle Eastern “allies.” Dealing with Iran and Russia in a rational manner. I’ll admit that she seems to want to appear “tough” even when diplomacy may be the better course.
Part time lurker. First time commenter.
Not sure about your predictions (re:1-3, from your lips to god’s ear), but upvote for your username
The Atlantic
And that explains why:
Must be Mitt’s 47% that just wants free stuff. Or Hillary’s nanny version — pay your debts.
Hillary’s fault.
I for one will do everything I can to ensure I am not a pauper under the Clinton syndicate. Much rather sit this one out and be a pauper under the Trump or Cruz syndicates. I’ll have more to complain about when they make their court appointments. Plus, who wants to keep the boring changes Obama’s made?
I think you’re unclear on the concept. You generally don’t get the choice of whether or not you become a pauper.
Well that’s my point, isn’t it? To read some of the Hillary’s-the-worst screeds on here, it’s all going to hell if she’s the nominee. Better to abstain then, knowing I’ve kept my vote pure, than pull the lever for a corporatized sell out, right?
I came in to offer honest answers, but the first dozen or so responses are attacks on Clinton and her supporters, so never mind. I have better things to do than be attacked yet again. I can only hope that time will open the hearts and minds that have been closed by this campaign.
Same here — not worth bothering with.
You’d have a heart attack if you went to Balloon Juice. I read comments there for the first time in weeks. Half of them are basically saying a vote for Sanders — in the primary — is a vote for the GOP.
Which is just as stupid and counterproductive as the attacks on Clinton supporters that infest this blog. The hyperpartisans on both sides need to keep in mind the real enemy — and it ain’t either Clinton or Sanders.
No, it’s internet-wide, this sudden inability of Hillary supporters to offer any clue as to what they believe will happen with her in the White House, satanic rituals aside.
You won. What next?
Now everyone’s fee fees are hurt because people still don’t like Hillary. So hurt they can’t formulate the simplest sentence about what happens after the coronation.
Okay. Does this mean Hillary supporters are going to stop commenting on the internet now?
All bullshit answers.
Here is what HRC is going to do.
She is going to wrek to continue the .01% control of the U.S.; she is going to try to convince the American public that this is what is best for them, and she is ultimately going to fail in that attempt because this is most definitely not what is best for the American public, it is what is best for the .01%.
Does HRC, in her heart of hearts, actually believe in what she is doing?
Yes, I believe that she does. And further…I believe that she is wrong. You cannot make a profitable deal with the Devil.
Faust found this out the hard way in German mythology, and the German people also found it out in an even more brutal manner in the mid-20th century.
We’re next in line for the Faust 101 tutorial.
Watch.
You cannot make a profitable deal with evil, and the rapacious greed of the .01%…always with us, always and forever with us…is that evil about which the best and brightest of us have been warning for eons.
So it goes.
Buckle up.
Win or lose, it’s gonna be a rough ride, both in November and afterward.
Bet on it.
AG
1 Clinton wins back the senate. Can’t control SCOTUS without it.
2.Independents will split between staying home and supporting her. Heavens knows we don’t need Trump or his evil twins.