I think Hillary is off to a decent start, but she still has 199,199 brutal insults to go before she ties Trump in dishing out disrespect of her opponent’s supporters.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
133 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
And here I was just thinking ‘half’ was an underestimate.
She regrets saying “half,” but we know she was off on her math anyway. Maybe Kellyann Conway could help her with it (http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1568719)?
They couldn’t deny that some of his supporters are contemptible. How long before somebody asks them to give a percent?
It reminds me of the old joke that ends, “We have established what you are, Madame. Now we are simply haggling about the price.”
Half of trump supporters is only about 25 million people. That’s not even 10% of population… I think mental illness accounts for most of that.
Trump can get away with it. That’s his brand. Plus…in a political calculation sense, he adds followers by dissing only people and groups that are not likely to vote for him. HRC on the other hand has just seriously alienated the very group of which she needs to capture at least a good percentage of votes…undecided white working class/middle class voters.
Like I said:
Hillary’s Basket of Deplorables = Politically Tone Deaf. To the MAX!!!
Bet on it.
AG
P.S. Further…what must be going through many black and latino middle class/working class minds at he moment?
Bet on that as well.
agree, she should not be insulting voters. of course she can be defended via the usual “Trump is awful” – but doesn’t cut it as far as I’m concerned
What was it that she called Bernie supporters? Stupid, naive kids that just want free college tuition? Her campaign labeled “those kids” BernieBros. Not that the facts that more young women than young men supported him and that a “young” in this case was 18-44 years old. Oh, and her surrogates did even better. Steinem, Girls that just want to get laid by BernieBros.
Please provide citations for the statements about “naive kids that just want free college tuition” and “girls that just want to get laid by BernieBros”. Thank you.
From wikipedia:
From New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bern
ie-sanders.html
Thanks. So we are again reminded that it was a snarky writer for The Atlantic who coined the expression “BernieBro” and remarked about “pie-in-the-sky progressive policies”. To the best of my knowledge, this writer for The Atlantic did not write speeches for the Clinton campaign. And whatever Gloria Steinem said, it did not include anything about girls just wanting to get laid by BernieBros.
I get that a lot of people are still sorely disappointed that Senator Sanders is not the nominee and are not at all fond of Hillary Clinton. That disappointment is not a reason to confabulate statements and attribute them to Ms. Clinton.
Oh, Robinson Meyer is just associated editor at one of the biggest liberal publications online. It’s not like he’s an actual paid writer, so, pfffft. Doesn’t count.
Why did you ignore the other half of the citation, the one that had me explicitly showing you Gloria Steinem calling female Sanders’ supporters boy-crazy?
here’s the DWS interview, just some fringe outfit though, not to take seriously
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/debbie-wasserman-schultz-thinks-young-women-are-complacen
t.html?_r=0
Do you really not stay on top of this stuff or do you expect others always provide the research that you can’t be bothered to do yourself?
A bit more background than what deathtongue supplied to you. Know your meme seems to be a better write-up on this than Wikipedia.
Many Sanders supporters are hip to pejoratives that magically seem to appear when HRC runs for POTUS. 2008 Hey, Obama boys: Back off already! Then there was HRC’s claim that she would win because “white people” and WJC and other HRC surrogates carried the “vote white” meme (and often more blatantly than that). Summer 2015 and onward, we got from the Clinton campaign “black people won’t vote for Sanders.” All of that falls in the category of playing the race card. Despicable to some regardless if the candidate is a Republican or Democrat.
Whether “Bernie-Bro” was already in the air or Meyer did create it out of whole cloth is irrelevant (although I suspect it was the former because early on her campaign was positioning her as “the woman” and claiming sexism on the part of Bernie), because Clinton’s team ran with it as a pejorative. Either stated or alluded to as WJC did in NH.
Some people reject those that play the gender card as swiftly as they reject those that play the race card. Feminism is about promoting the best person regardless of race, color, or any other defining characteristic that we are all born with. Content of character, accomplishments and skills, (firmly held public policy positions for elective office), and the temperament to succeed at the job is the criteria.
Get a grip, Arthur. You’re echoing media spin and hysteria almost word for word after spending weeks complaining about the anti Trump media.
Working class blacks and latinos are capable of looking at things in proper context. If they think Trump is worthy of their vote they’ll vote for him. If not…
Agree, but also think this just was not a good comment to make. No gain in it. For once, I am with AG.
yes
I truly hope the stupid run-out-the-clock strategy her campaign was employing plus this doesn’t sink her. But down ballot Dems probably don’t appreciate this. What she said wasn’t really that bad–she noted it was “grossly generalistic” when saying it–but it didn’t need to be said at all. Just gave Trump another verbal win in his media fest dominance game.
I think it was that bad. name calling a lot of voters who are discontented with the status quo. there was overlap and potentially more overlap between Trump and Sanders voters due to discontent w “the elites”; the comment just reinforces that “the elites” have no clue what the discontent is about
It was classist. Does not do to remind voters of that.
yes, it was. I assume voters will hear it that way.
This was my point (above) as well.
She referred to “people who are racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic.” In the reports that I saw, at least, she did not tie these traits to people’s social class. I would be happy to be corrected here, of course.
Who was her audience clapping? Clue: it was a big fund raiser.
She did not explicitly tie these traits to the people’s social class, she tied it to Trump supporters in general, most of whom are from that social class.
Errol and Mino explained this very well in their comments above.
We can be sure this harms her with a segment of voters that she was already struggling to win over.
I’m curious where else she might be weak but I don’t see minorities as particularly soft with their support. Most of it seems baked as anti-Trump at this point. Also… the President will go out on the road and try to bail her out.
Hillary also has an opportunity here with this gaffe to heighten the contrasts. We’ll have to see how this plays out.
Obama 2012 did very poorly with his Gen-Y voting base compared to 2008, which is very conspicuous in light of the fact that:
A.) Except for Gen-Y Obama across the board improved his vote-share with older Poc.
B.) Obama only lost a slight number of voters who weren’t already in his natural base, making the ‘disillusionment from economic doldrums’ argument suspect.
Don’t think that it can’t go down further. As in, Kerry and Gore levels. If not in absolute vote-% (and it definitely happened with black Gen-Y males) then definitely in turnout.
The idea among ‘sensible’ liberals that this and other motivational problems can be solved or even mildly positive affected by waving around party totems and giving killer speeches is a big reason as to why the party is in the mess that it’s in.
You’re not going to get out of this shit by simply talking your way out. Internalize that idea right now, or you’re in for a VERY cruel next four years.
You’re under the impression that I’m a Democrat or a liberal. That being said we’re stuck in the same boat. I’m looking purely at what will happen from here on out politically because she can’t take back what she said.
Whether she fixes the damage is, ultimately, her problem as a Bernie type candidate can potentially succeed in 2020. You’ll note Trump is running as the polar opposite of Mitt Romney.
If she wins, great. If she loses, too bad. It means her kind has no future and we can get on with it.
in my reading of your comments on this thread I conclude [perhaps wrongly] that you’re assuming ppl will vote for one or the other candidate. the problem from day1 is her inability to GOTV, depressed turnout
No, I never took issue with your point on that. I think it was a real stretch to think this gaffe was going to cause major problems with working class minorities.
It is, however, quite possible that HRC may suffer from GOTV issues and depressed turnout. That was true before this weekend. It happens to be true for Trump as well.
The history of the Democratic party in recent years is to blame the left when they lose. It happened in 68 (war protesters and hippies), 72 (see 68), 80 (Kennedy’s primary fight), 84 (liberal northerner), 88 (see 84), and 00 (Nader). Only a couple of these were actually liberal. The stage is already set to blame Bernie supporters who sit out (or vote for Stein) if Hillary were to find a way to lose.
The DNC got the candidate THEY wanted. It’s in their lap, imo.
It’s the job of the left to elect the best candidates. I think the left needs to quit blaming the DNC and the party for their own failures to elect their preferred candidates. Learn lessons from the failures and do better next time. There’s no other choice because the establishment elements in the Democratic party have their own motives and incentives that often differ from the grassroots left.
This is primarily an organization problem, in my opinion, because we’ve seen how movement conservatives have had success purging moderate Republicans.
Then the DNC needs to stop blaming the left for their failure to field candidates that people will show up to vote for. 2014 taught them nothing. Even their old reliables were not moved.
The DNC is an obstacle that needs to be overcome and not an entity you will come to terms with.
As you’ve said, the DNC hasn’t changed how it operates. So its incumbent on the left to field challengers to unacceptable DNC candidates rather than expect the DNC to change.
Democrats/liberals have a lot of faith that when a candidate is struggling that she/he can be bailed out by bringing in bigger guns to move the candidate over the finish line. It explains why they continue to criticize Gore for rejecting more assistance from WJC in 2000 regardless of the facts that were in evidence to Gore that WJC hurt more than helped him.
Such campaign bailouts should be used sparingly and selectively. Otherwise, it only adds the perception that the candidate is weak on his/her own. HRC’s team probably gets that because it did backfire on her in NH and now she carries the baggage of having surrogates bailing her out in various primary states. Don’t know how well all her celebrity surrogates will end up playing with the general electorate; sometimes less is more.
as I understand, turnout looks to be a problem with youth vote across the board – I may be wrong, others here are more astute with the polls
Polling doesn’t directly reveal turnout projections. We’re in unique territory this time with far more people paying close attention to the election than has been seen since such polling has existed. In the past that was an indicator for high turnout. OTOH, enthusiasm is low and the unfavorable ratings for the Dem and Rep nominees is exceptionally high and both of the third party candidates are viewed as nothing other than a protest vote.
This is unlike ’92 when voters chose Perot for a reason and had some expectation that their voices would be heard. They were quickly disabused of that fantasy. Wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many have given up on voting altogether since then. What a large portion of the electorate wants isn’t on offer in this election. So speculations on how they’ll weigh their options and who they’ll end up voting for (or not voting at all) will probably be mostly wrong.
Obama invites having his own quotes about representing ALL Americans turned against her. The ones he made in response to Mitten’s 47%.
I’m not disputing that it’s a bad comment. Just find it strange that he expects blacks and latinos to overlook at least 1.5 years of contempt from Trump for one twisted comment by HRC.
did he say they’ll vote for Trump?
Yes, he has. But half or more of what he says is discounted as showmanship (carney barker schtick) by everyone except a tiny segment of people that are delusional and believe what Trump says and believe that Trump believes what he says.
Do you have some good reason to think that Trump does not believe what he says?
Do you have a good reason to believe that he does? And can tell what he does and doesn’t believe?
He’s a huckster and hucksters tend to have few beliefs other than closing a deal with a mark.
I accept that Johnson supports the TPP and Stein opposes it. Formally — or officially and on the record — both HRC and Trump oppose the TPP. I don’t accept that that’s an authentic position of HRC. Trump just latched onto his position because it was selling with the primary electorate. Sort of chasing after those old Perot voters. His authentic position? He’ll look into it because he doesn’t know much about it and hasn’t thought through what little he does know. It’s a TBD position. However, his business track record, which is all we have to go on, suggests that he’ll be for it if elected.
“Do you have a good reason to believe that he does?”
Yes. He’s in a long line of demagogues seeking power by demonizing entire groups of people. There have been plenty of demagogues who said crazy sounding stuff and then did just what they said they were going to do. I hardly need to give you examples; you know your history quite well.
You call Trump a “huckster”, or elsewhere, I think–apologies if I confuse you with someone else–a “carnival barker”. I’ve seen similar verbiage on other blogs. These labels then become excuses for not taking seriously the threat Trump poses to the American republic.
I’m sorry, Marie3, but the idea that “his business track record…is all we have to go on” strikes me as absurd.
We’re not going to convince each other here so I’m going to wrap up my comments.
Trump believes in only one thing … himself. In that sense, he believes everything he says, for the simple reason that he is the one that says it. Doesn’t make any difference if he just made it up or if it contradicts something he said the day before.
Let me put this another way. Trump’s use of language is not referential, it is functional. When he says something he is not referring to any external reality, he is producing an effect. He believes in his ability to produce that effect.
Your second paragraph summarizes Trump’s use of language perfectly — Thank you.
Ditto pricianus jr.
AG
No, he didn’t. It’s speculation either way as we don’t know how minorities will feel about comments that weren’t describing them.
see, that’s the problem. every critical comment about HRC is slammed as promoting “voting for Trump”. Every non braindead person on this blog knows that blacks and latinos for the most part are not voting for Trump – maybe a few who are rebelling against their parents or something (or a South American I talked with who agreed with Trump about Mexicans)-. the problem is they may not make the effort to vote, the problem is depressing the dem vote, making the election close enough to steal as Tarheeldem frequently puts it. It is a problem that our candidate is so flawed and here is another example.
Heard the same from my Belizan neighbors about Mexicans. No love lost there.
True with many native Central and South Americans, too.
Slamming people of other nationalities is unfortunately a universal phenomenon. I take absolutely nothing from this about the Mexican people.
Don’t think I or the other commenters were saying anything other than there are various groups in Central and South America that do not feel solidarity with Mexico. Many Maya, for example, do not consider themselves Hispanic, even if they speak Spanish, which quite a few don’t.
Understood.
It’s gringos who lump brown skinned folks south of the Rio Grande as “Mexicans”.
no, Trump speaks specifically about Mexico and Mexicans.
the point was that some Latinos or Hispanics or whatever inaccurate term one wants to use agree with Trump about Mexicans. just a suggestion: read the commentariat a little more carefully
I have no issue with critical comments about Hillary. I’m weighing Arthur’s comment in line with his diary on the story… in which he thinks its going to be a difference maker. I happen to disagree with that.
Doubt if they will vote fr him. Her worry should be if they bother to vote at all.
yes, that’s my point also.
That she said it in front of well to do donors and not at a campaign event makes it all the worse. Reminds everyone of Romney dissing 47% of the voters in front of wealthy donors.
Have to imagine how pleased with themselves the author of the really catchy “basket of deplorables” was–for a time.
Echoes of “nattering, nabobs of negativism.” If I didn’t know better, I’d think that I was transported back to ’68-72 and Nixon was the Democratic nominee.
My thought exactly.
Where in her remarks did Hillary Clinton single out working class voters?
this is a good question, that you should be able to tackle yourself.
This is Hillary Clinton getting frustrated that her ‘appeal to reasonable people on the edge of the GOP party’ gambit isn’t working. And it’s not working because she’s making the mistake that every other soi-disant pragmatist Democrat makes: the majority of voters don’t pick their candidate through min-max. They pick it through branding.
Those voters were ripe for picking, but not with the current Democratic Party platform and certainly not with the current Democratic Party nominee.
“How come my restaurant is failing?”
“Because word around the block is that you should’ve gone to jail six months ago for conspiring with the Mafia but only got away with it because you’re friends with the DA and judge.”
“Look. All of the restaurants around here are shitty. My food has excellent reviews, I use top-notch ingredients, the prices are below market average, I’m in a great location, and my staff gives excellent service. Even though that’s true, I just don’t see why that should affect how my restaurant is doing.”
The restaurant owner? That’s Hillary Clinton voters right now, baffled as to why they’re not completely blowing away an obvious cretin and racist and etc.
you need a better analogy. I remember a restaurant in Oakland with AMAZINGLY low prices, and the rumor that it was a mob money laundry only added to the cachet. It was full, all the time.
Maybe the difference is that the restaurant owner wasn’t running for president of the United States.
funny how one candidate really does have mafia ties, but nobody cares about it.
What changes to the platform would have made those folks on the edge of the GOP decide to vote Democratic?
That’s an inartfully worded question.
The people on the margins of the GOP that Hillary Clinton was trying to attract and the people on the margins of the GOP that Bernie Sanders was trying to attract are different. They’re not the same groups of people. Bernie Sanders is trying to woo back poor whites/the white working class and Hillary Clinton is trying to woo back middle/upper middle class whites.
As far as Hillary Clinton’s task is concerned, as she’s the one I mocked, I’d say that it’d be pretty much impossible to do so without losing the base. I think that the HRC faction realized this to, which is why the campaign leaned so heavily on passive appeals to bipartisanship, endorsements, and a lot of ‘Donald Trump is so danger that you have no choice’ rhetoric.
Siiiggghhhh…..Now we get to once again witness the masterful work of the conservative faux outrage machine, and the national media running right along with them. I can imagine that the combined efforts of these two groups are probably going to go off the scale over the next week, and nothing else is going to dominate the news. This is going to get twisted, pounded and worn out. They are not going to rest until Clinton issues a full blown apology. These are the kinds of silly shiny objects that our media love to grab ahold of and beat to death. And you can bet your ass that Donald Trump knows it. We are going to be hearing about this every fucking day,from now on. She should have just doubled down on it and pointed out just how true the statement is. Her “clarification” is the blood in the water that gets the right wing sharks in a feeding frenzy. And the ignorant and brain dead lemmings in the media will dutifully follow along, with their heads fully up the ass of Trump, acting as his outrage stenographer.
Dammit!!!
It’s totally stupid of any candidate to attack the opponent’s base. They should stick to attacking the opponent himself, as well as racism in all its forms.
Although clearly Trump’s got the racist vote, a good percentage of his supporters are angry populists who might have been won over by Sanders. The main fault of these people is that they have poor judgment. They will never get what Trump’s promising them. It’s not enough for HRC to have written them off, now she has to attack them. This plays right into Trump’s strategy.
Way too much pearl clutching for my taste. Hillary’s main problem is her words seem too guarded. The opposite of Trump’s problem in that uniformed people, in other words the voters who decide elections, see him as authentic. I’d like to see her do more of this. She shouldn’t be afraid to express an opinion, particularly one that’s more than reasonable.
Yes, she should, but the problem isn’t that she’s not doing enough of it, it’s that instead of doing that, she’s attacking these uninformed people themselves, i.e. voters. That’s not exactly going to make them want to listen to anything she says.
She only attacked uninformed people if they are also bigots. She clearly separated the bigots from the people who simply feel that they are being ignored and need more attention. If someone chooses to identify with the first group, they weren’t going to vote for her anyway.
Here’s the problem. It is of course true that a lot of Trump’s supporters are racists. But if you belong to that “half” who are not, you might just think Hillary is lumping you in with the racists, and therefore that the whole “Trump supporters are racists” thing is way overblown.
The Clintons have a habit of attacking supporters of their opponents, often by creating a false generalized picture of them. She did this in a big way with Sanders supporters.
In this case, what she’s saying is true. But as the old saying (discussed here before) goes, “a liar is not believed even when she is telling the truth.”
You may wonder how any sane person would not understand that Trump is attracting every racist in the country. But Hillary herself admits half of his supporters are not racists. If racism is not why they support him, they are likely to be ignoring and discounting it, even though they are aware of it. So they will take it as a smear. And if they don’t, the Trump campaign will repeat it until they do.
to ignore that critical distinction (which Hillary actually made herownself, very clearly, in her statement) may have already passed merely “frustrating” and “depressing” to infuriating to me. Which is why I’ve stayed out of it until now, and will probably go directly back to doing so. This whole thread has mainly been just depressing to observe, so determined so many seem to pretend she said something different from what she actually said (else write irresponsibly from ignorance of what she actually said, or deliberately [i.e., dishonestly] misrepresent what she actually said).
Meh!
Clinton Derangement Syndrome is one case where “both sides do it” applies.
Bit of hyperbole as to the number of insults required, but correct that she’s behind on this score. What’s overlooked is the follow-up to spewing and insult.
Donald: Yeah, so what? Whatever.
Hillary: Regrets.
Trump is a crude, disgusting character with zero political experience and skills.
Hillary is the most experienced, etc. Presidential candidate evah. When she says something that’s crude and insulting, she regrets. Satisfies only liberal pearl clutchers. Everyone else hears a nopology designed to deceive or simply another lie as she once again doesn’t own her own crap.
Pick your poison.
Self-righteousness: always a winner. sigh
“Well, she was right!”
They are courting different voter mindsets, not the same voters at all. Trump doesn’t have to walk a thin line like his opponents do.
The have to both discredit him and provide a reasonable alternative.
That means that Clinton has to do both attitude and policy, and she’s already behind the curve on policy.
Trump has been given a pass on policy.
“Trump has been given a pass on policy” by his supporters.
and the media. we discussed that yesterday
Given that Hillary Clinton can influence peddle all she wants with Wall Street speeches, Kissinger vacations, and Negroponte endorsements I’d say that the Democratic base is in fact not caring what Hillary Clinton does on policy so long as she touts the liberal side of the kulturkampf.
Remember when McCain posed an existential threat because he was going to get us into another war in the Middle East?
I think a lot of people on our side want her to say exactly what she said. I do think there is a sense that Trump gets away with murder and when we say something slightly off kilter we get killed for it.
But does it work?
I keep waiting for the lead to get to 10. I really don’t get why this is a 3 point race. Clinton owns the airwaves.
As much I dislike her she is 10 times the person she is.
And yet this is pretty close. Close enough for a terrorist attack or a bad debate for the election to be in doubt
Hopefully the debates squeeze the 3rd party vote and she gets to where I think she will
But it hasn’t happened yet. And I wonder if this is the way to win
Maybe she showed passion and maybe that is what our side needs.
or if it breaks through the media’s giving T a pass which perhaps it has maybe it will work
Another make-over is the last thing she needs. She’s already had too many and that’s why she gets terrible ratings on favorable and trustworthy. Possible that without all the prior makeovers she wouldn’t have been a viable presidential candidate. With them, she managed to be a contender in ’08. How far would she have gotten this time in the Democratic Party hadn’t cleared the decks for her? Considering how far into the primary season an authentic and experienced but little known 74 year old candidate that built a campaign operation practically on the fly (instead of the two year advance planning that most candidates do) got, she may not have made it out of Iowa.
She showed disdain for blue collar workers. But I don’t know how much she lost. Every blue collar worker I know is voting for Trump except the Liberals (yes, they exist-all blue collar workers are not Klansmen despite what middle class Democrats say). The Liberals are holding their noses and voting for Hillary, but they can be lost. Women may not understand, but the easiest way to lose a man’s vote is to attack his masculinity which you do when you try to dehumanize him. Women are more pragmatic, but men are much more into status. RR boosted their egos while advocating destructive policies. Jimmy Carter blamed the public for the economic woes. Bad bad idea from a politician. You NEVER blame the public. It’s got be an enemy, even if you have to make one up.
When you projected a 10-point lead, I expressed optimistic skepticism.
I think the “natural” state of affairs is in the range of 2008-2012 until proven otherwise. That’s still a relatively strong position, but I’ve felt that Republicans were always going to come home. It does highlight the serious danger that we are in (not just in this election, but going forward), given Trump’s obvious evil and lack of qualifications.
She regretted saying “half”. That could be taken as implying that the number is actually greater. The people I know found it hilarious and clever.
In light of my earlier comments agreeing with AG, I do want to say that there’s been huge pushback on Twitter towards Trump, Republicans, and the original AP tweet from people regarding this story. It’s clear Clinton touched a few chords that a lot of people are feeling. Lots of ugly videos from Trump rallies being posted, stories from journalists who were called derisive and ugly things, and lots of criticism of a press too willing to look for false balance.
Clinton may not have been as artful in her language tactically as I’d have liked, but there’s no doubt a lot of people are tired of Trump and his ilk getting a pass. While tough to see, it’s possible Clinton could come out of this situation stronger.
Yes. This is about more than one election. The racists that Trump is normalizing need to be curbstomped. Clinton’s comments open the door for the mass media to honestly scrutinize the filth Trump is wallowing in.
Weighing in here with the most superstitious, superficial news of the day in terms of who might win in November: several music industry sources are confirming that Irish rock band U2 will release a new album in 2017. Some fans expected it this year, but apparently this will not be the case.
Now, as any contemptible suburban liberal would, I like my mainstream rock like I like my presidential candidates: corporate, compromised, and past all sell-by dates–so this is great news for me when you consider this bizarre bit of trivia:
Every time U2 has released an album in a U.S. presidential election year, the GOP candidate won (’80, ’84, ’88, ’00, ’04). If the album was delayed or released in an off-year, the Dem candidate won (’91, ’93, ’97, ’09, ’14).
Forget about baskets and emails and foundations. This could mean the ballgame, and in favor of HRC.
good to hear, thanks
I live to serve.
And if the Cubbies win the World Series? We’ll know by November 2, won’t we.
Oh cripes, how could I forget that one? Bowie and Prince dead, a woman president, and a Cubs series title. Truly, we will have entered a bizarro universe.
According to some people. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQD-dXfHrvk
As a Black person, I am glad Hillary did her speech a few weeks ago as well as what she did yesterday.
While I don’t see the difference between dogwhistles and what Ferret Head has been saying. .
There IS a fundamental difference in keeping the dregs on the outskirts, and legitimizing them . Da phuq is “Alt-right?”
Call them for what they are:
WHITE SUPREMACISTS
Soledad O’Brien was correct in her lambasting her former employer.
Some people don’t seem to take the entire scope of what Ferret Head has been saying to heart.
Maybe, because you are White, you don’t think that what he says can come to pass.
As a Black person, there is nothing in the history of America that makes me NOT take the man at his word.
You say…but, he hasn’t said that stuff to Blacks that he has said to Latinos and Muslims.
Once again I say, that having knowledge of the history of America, I know that anything that begins with other minority communities, will ultimately wind up to Black folks.
So, better to cut that shyt off at the path.
Too many White people don’t believe that Ferret Head is serious. Hillary is talking to them:YES, HE IS.
I not black. I’m Jewish, grandson of immigrants who came to the US in the 1920s. My grandparents’ siblings who did not emigrate were all wiped out by the Nazis. I sure as hell do not take Trump’s act as phony, the way some other commenters here to.
I don’t know to whom you refer re: Trump’s act. Is there some comment to which you refer by this? it’s like you you’re blocking your ears and singing so as no to hear what others are saying. Those of us who are willing to discuss our candidate’s flaws are the ones who seriously alarmed about Trump’s potential for winning. you seem to be looking through rose colored glasses, throwing insults and hoping somehow it will all work out. I’ll link the NYTimes magazine article where DWS spoke patronizingly of/ to? young women – similar to the Albright quote.
Da phuq is “Alt-right?”
Call them for what they are:
WHITE SUPREMACISTS
This can’t be said enough. The made up term “Alt-Right” is a no good try at legitimizing white supremacy, it sucks and no decent person should ever use that term. Call them what they are. If they don’t like it, too bad.
Well, give them their due; they’re also homophobes and misogynists, which “white supremacist” doesn’t explicitly encompass, though in practice I’m sure it does.
There is an anecdotal saying, “When you strike the king, don’t miss.”
In this case, when you go on Trump’s tactic of dissing people, make sure that you do it so it hurts. Not that you have to apologize to the bothsidercrowd of pearl-clutchers.
The Clinton campaigns have never done negative campaigning well despite numerous attempts. It runs counter to their preferences.
They are going to have to get better than huffing and puffing if they want to take Trump down in the debates. This was huffing and puffing and pretending it was an attack on Trump. That made it easy for Trump’s spinsters to spin it as an attack on his class base. Whether that enlarges his support, as AG thinks, remains to be seen. But it certainly increases the motivation of bigoted, xenophobic, misogynist, and Islamophobic LGBT-haters to get out to the polls, doesn’t it?
Now where is that most likely to change voting results?
The 538 model has had an inflection point two days ago that has Clinton’s estimated lead diverging from Trump’s position. North Carolina and Iowa just swung back. But the variance is still wide in the model’s estimations. Nonetheless, Trump maxxes out completely at around 370 electoral votes in the 1 out of 10,000 case. The Clinton mode (the number of electoral votes with the most selections) is still around 350 electoral votes. It is still Clinton’s election to lose. But the downticket race performance improves with her margin.
I don’t think Clinton’s statement was aimed at waking up white working class people who are not already woke to what Trump is up to.
It is setting the stage to get people “voting with their feet” instead of their good intentions.
Unlike AG and Voice, I don’t think it loses her votes or favorability. I’m not sure the votes they think are gettable are in fact at play. Nor do I think those at play self-identify with the categories of people that Clinton attacked.
We will see in the coming days how the polling tracks it. But that is just sentiment — without actual action.
Democracy Now! – Arrest Warrant Issued For Amy Goodman in North Dakota After Covering Pipeline Protest. Warrant issued by the State of North Dakota and County of Morton.
And her report was re-broadcast on many outlets including CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and Huffington Post.
Awful. Attack dogs. Pepper spray. Weaponized drones.
Also, the Clintons are explicitly in bed with Negroponte, Kissinger, and the KSA. Either financial or straight-up in a ‘Kissinger is my friend’ sense.
Her campaign is explicitly trying to court Republican warhawks and economic centrists who are flexible on social issues. I.e. the scum of the earth that’s been driving our planet into a ditch.
If these people constituted anything approaching a majority or even (from a raw voting total perspective) a significant faction Hillary’s base would be even more despicable than Trump’s. There are worse things to be than racist, you know.
I keep forgetting that is it “the Clintons” running for president, not “Hillary Clinton”. Fortunately I am reminded of my error with great regularity here.
That little rhetorical escape hatch does not have the power you think that it has. While they’re both pretty awful about it, HRC is significantly worse about peddling influence with shitbirds than her husband. Bill Clinton, as far as I know, has never written a fawning book with an excerpt on how wise Kissinger is. He just vacationed with the bastard.
We can agree that Kissinger is a poor excuse for a human being.
Why are you stopping there? Are you also denying that Hillary Clinton brags about John Negroponte’s endorsement? Are you also denying that Hillary Clinton sought out and bragged about Kissinger’s counsel?
If you’re not, the fact that Kissinger is a horrible human being and the fact that Hillary Clinton peddles influence with both him and similar scum of his calibur might, oh, point to some related problem, don’t you think?
While I added more references about to Joel’s challenge to my statement regarding BernieBros, I generally don’t respond to his demands for proof. Don’t know if he’s woefully under-informed, too lazy to do his own research, or its his debate strategy to get others to post info responsive to his demand that he can then pick apart to find something in it to challenge (often off-topic to the original claim he challenged). Gets old real fast because he’s not engaging in an authentic debate or argument. He’s in the HRC booster club.
SUnday afternoon. I don’t hover over my keyboard with a window open to this blog.
Uh, your sources didn’t say what you claim they said. What you evidently did, what deathtongue evidently did, was work backwards: my interpretation is that you started with the insults that you wish Hillary Clinton had flung at Sanders supporters–because that would then give you justification for loathing Ms. Clinton–then found stuff that third parties had written that kinda sorta maybe sounded like what you wish Hillary Clinton had said.
It’s noteworthy that you used your comment here, addressed to a third party, to attack me. Not the first time you have done that. Jeezus, if someone targeted you that way you would have a fit. But here you have for about the nth time called me uninformed and lazy…never directly, of course, rather by remarking to 3rd parties.
You know, Marie3, I have tried pretty damn hard to engage you in authentic debate, and for a brief while I thought you had finally figured that out. I was wrong.
You choose to construe questions as insults. You choose to construe disagreement as insults. Not just with me, with others, too.
So, I’m done. You can now turn your attention to someone else, because I promise you that this is the last time I address you. A relief for both of us, no doubt.
Quite glaringly, in fact:
Well done, but don’t hold your breath waiting for her to ever, ever admit she’s in the wrong.
SUnday afternoon.
You are using the exact same rhetorical trick that some others here use, namely, you attack for what I have not written. You know, the world is full of outrages and people doing awful stuff, and neither you nor I can write about all of them, can we?
Geez, we have a real problem with gentrification here in Portland, Oregon, but you haven’t written to condemn it, so that obviously means you approve of it.
That’s an example of the silly rhetorical trick you’re playing.
Bill promised we were getting “2 for 1”. And Hillary has already promised to put Bill in charge of the economy. So I think it fair to assume the terms of their… contract haven’t changed.
I just read the article that Booman linked at thke top of this thread. Others might want to do the same.
Interesting comment section, too. What did you think of the one discussing Dehumanization?
Booman, why are all these leftist wackos totally taking over your comments section. I can’t read them anymore.
Why>
Because:
1-We’re not wackos.
2-We’re more interesting than you kneejerks.
and
3-In his heart of hearts, Booman kinda sorta agrees with us.
That’s why.
Go back to dKos if you do not want to hear true leftists thinking out loud.
AG
No, don’t try to include others with yourself. You can’t hide behind the other posters. You are 100% grade A whacko. Completely delusional. Most of the other hard lefties have a pretty decent connection to reality. You’re a nutbar and a troll.
Martin Longman hosts this blog and has accepted contrarian views to be posted. That’s why many bloggers here have transfered from dKos where there is .. ehmm .. less hospitality.
@BooMan there is no blog policing.
As a matter of fact, your analysis of AG is dead wrong, and you can’t paint him in a box. You are just making a fool of yourself and don’t be a prick … see BooMan’s guidelines I linked elsewhere.
This has nothing to do with contrarian opinions which should be appreciated by all. It has to do with a trolling clown who lowers the collective IQ of the internet with every post.
Bet on it.
More like why are you nominally liberal hacks so quick to drop your ideology for hackery? Many of us have been here for a decade. We haven’t invaded or taken over shit.
My main problem was the actual choice of words was horrendously clunky. HRC said what everyone even in the media has been saying and thinking and now suddenly its pearl clutching time? Bullshit. Trump camp has a ton of those people and they like it that way. I’m with Marshall on this, dont back down or Trump shows he just dominated HRC.
Trump supporters look to the right or left. Is the person next to you racist/homophobic/sexist? Does Trump wantvto stand next to them? You got it. Do you?