Here is what I said about Tim Kaine when he was just one of several names being floated as a running mate for Hillary Clinton. Here is what I said about Virginia being a very important state for blocking Trump’s stated Electoral College strategy.
My immediate take is that Clinton just took the heat of this election down a notch. She didn’t look to polarize it further by picking a liberal firebrand or try to win some demographic arms war by responding to Trump’s anti-Latino legions with a Latino running mate. She didn’t pick someone who can throw bombs with Trump, like Al Franken.
She went with steady, likable, qualified, compatible, and uncontroversial. Kaine can tick off a lot of boxes, too. He has the unusual ability to disarm detractors with his faith. His religiosity invites people in without putting them off. He’s bilingual and fluent in Spanish, and he has experience living in Honduras as a missionary. He’s well-liked by both labor unions and business interests, making it just a little easier for Clinton to capture the monied interests from Donald Trump at minimal cost with her base or as the cost of winning their support. He has more executive experience (as a mayor, lieutenant governor, governor, and head of the DNC) than any of the names that made it onto Clinton’s short list. He’s extremely well-liked and respected by his Republican colleagues in the Senate.
Trying to count the ways I hate @timkaine. Drawing a blank. Congrats to a good man and a good friend.
— Jeff Flake (@JeffFlake) July 23, 2016
He’s popular in his home state, too. He has never lost an election.
Naturally, people will nitpick him. He isn’t from the left fringe of the party, and he’s probably temperamentally moderate by nature. He didn’t win all those elections in Republican-leaning Virginia by letting his liberal freak flag fly. He represents an extremely pro-business, pro-military state that until five minutes ago was culturally conservative to the core.
His record is full of minor (and a couple of major) sins against progressive orthodoxy. His record has also earned 100% ratings from one liberal interest group after another, including the pro-choice Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
He’s not going to excite people, but people will like him. And he can do the job if he’s called to do the job.
The idea here, beyond just personal comfort on Hillary’s part, is that Trump’s only chance to win is to polarize the electorate along racial lines while holding most of the conservative electoral coalition in place. This pick hurts Trump’s efforts in two ways. It doesn’t attempt to play some demographic game to counter a spike in white support for Trump. Rather, it turns the heat down a bit racially. It also makes it a lot easier for anti-Trump Republicans to find some comfort level with going over to Clinton. It’s a comfort level that would be lacking if she had picked Elizabeth Warren or Al Franken.
A lot of people on the left want to have a more racially polarized election because they want to demonstrate the power of the new progressive coalition. A lot of people on the left want this election to adopt the anti-business populism of Bernie Sanders, with many thinking this is an essential component of blunting Trump’s populism.
Clinton is gambling that she doesn’t need to maximally mobilize the progressive coalition or go toe-to-toe with Trump on economic populism. Simple competency and calmness and readiness will reassure the vast middle in this country and allow her to eat deeply into the soft moderate hide of the GOP. Suburban women, socially liberal, environmentally conscious professionals, and Catholic fans of Pope Francis will see in Kaine exactly what they’ve been looking for.
That’s the theory anyway. Take the pot off boil, let the people digest the progressive revolution in small bites rather than in the kind of sweeping changes that disorient and cause anxiety.
If a big part of this country is saying “Slower, please,” this is a nod to them.
For all these reasons, picking Kaine made sense. But that doesn’t mean that it was definitely the right call. There are other theories of the case, and they say that people are looking for fast change. That’s what Trump is betting on, and that’s why, in his acceptance speech, he kept emphasizing how quickly he could solve our problems.
Kaine doesn’t help mobilize the Democratic base, and he probably hurts the Democrats’ ability to counter Trump’s anti-free trade populism.
But, I’ll tell you one last thing. My biggest problem with the Clintons has been all the drama they bring with them. Trump’s antics have kind of obliterated that concern in the public mind, but I love No Drama Obama and if we have No Drama Kaine, that’s something I can celebrate.
Nail on the head there Boo. Frankly, Kaine is a boring pick and not my favorite. But, by being safe, Hillary’s giving people like my mom another reason to consider stability over reality tv star authoritarian change. It’s a gamble, but pretending picking Warren or Bacerra wouldn’t be a gamble either is to deny reality.
Nobody she picked was going to make the pony seekers happy. Nobody. The professional nit pickers are determined to be unhappy. So why gamble when it’s a losing bet?
.
We professional nitpickers are not unhappy with this one. Nor were we determined to be. We hope she wins. We’re just not going to vote for her.
Hi, I’m Chad, and I’ll be your server tonight. You say you’d like the ribeye steak? That’s great! I really hope you’re going to enjoy your steak. I’m just not going to serve it to you.
We all get the steak regardless of what we order or who serves it. What’s your point?
Joel, was that part of her Goldman Sachs speeches?
Enough with the “pony” crap. I’m a baby who wants a pony because I want a candidate at least as liberal as Richard Fucking Nixon? What’s your day job? Stock broker?
If you honestly believe Richard Nixon is more liberal than Hillary Clinton, then I’d like to spend 15-20 minutes in your reality, rather than say, smoking crystal meth, or drinking gasoline.
Just to see what it’s like.
I’m guessing defense contractor.
No, both parties were more liberal back then.
So you and the upvote gang believe Richard Nixon is more liberal than Hillary Clinton.
Noted.
He had LBJ’s Congress initiating legislation that he pretty much just signed as long as they did not get in his way on the War.
Have you read Nixonland by Perlstein? It is available as free dwnld online.
Yes, I’ve read Nixonland. Perlstein’s writing, in whole, does not support your inferred claim that Nixon was more liberal than Clinton or Obama. By concentrating on, in a somewhat inaccurate way, Nixon’s legislative interactions with Congress, you take us away from the ocean of blood, bad intentions and unconstitutional principles which were Nixon’s Administrative actions.
Seriously, you’re extremely upset about President Obama’s foreign and military policies, and you want to give Nixon a relative pass for Vietnam and its associated horrors? Nixon used secret back channels to intentionally destroy President Johnson’s peace talks in the summer and fall of ’68, and then went on to murder hundreds of thousands more during the subsequent years in the war theatre, which was made to secretly extend into neighboring countries for an extended time.
You’re incensed about the Obama Adminstrations’s Justice Department overreaches while failing to give yourself the perspective which comes from remembering that Nixon’s Attorney General of the United States was placed in charge of the President’s re-election campaign, and re-directed campaign funds to illegally pay off the “plumbers” who broke into the DNC headquarters to steal their campaign documents.
When asked about this by the Washington Post, Nixon’s AG told the reporter to pass along his direct threat to the publisher of the Post. When asked about all ofthis by a Congressional committee, the AG said, essentially, damn right I did it and I’d do it again. Re-electing President Nixon was required to save the United States, he told the Congressional committee.
And that wasn’t even what got the Attorney General convicted. It was a whole different set of crimes which finally got him imprisoned.
We could go on to talk about the two dozen others who invented and developed political ratfucking, many of whom committed crimes and did time, not before helping cause by far the greatest constitutional crisis of my lifetime.
Oh, and President Nixon himself personally organized the coverup of the Watergate break-in from the Oval Office and cobbled together a million additional dollars through shady methods to pay off co-conspirators.
Your moral compass and historical comprehension are far, far, far out of whack.
I think those things you are hectoring me about would qualify as the snakes in his head, which I did mention. But you have missed the point of comparison.
His criminality is NOT the issue under discussion. Neither is foreign policy. How would you call Vietnam liberal or conservative? It was bi-partisan cold war stupidity.
Under discussion is the question of whether present day DOMESTIC neoliberalism as DNC Dems (which include Obama and the Clintons) practice it is actually as liberal as policies enacted during Nixon’s tenure. Nixon believed in an activist government. Neoliberals believe the market can do govt’s job better.
It is ALL about the domestic policies. Did you go through the list in the Alternet article I linked?
He implemented the first significant federal affirmative action program.
He dramatically increased spending on federal employee salaries. (Which set pay scale for many private businesses, too.)
He oversaw the first large-scale integration of public schools in the South (something the crackers where I grew up were none too happy about).
He proposed a guaranteed annual wage (aka a “negative income tax”).
He advocated comprehensive national health insurance (single payer) for all Americans. (Not the public option football.)
He imposed wage and price controls in times of economic crisis. This wasn’t a terribly good idea, but it was the furthest thing from a conservative idea. Truth is, it was positively socialist.
He indexed Social Security for inflation and created Supplemental Security Income.
He created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Office of Minority Business Enterprise.
He appointed four Supreme Court Justices. Three of them voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade.
Well, these are the frames you’re attempting to place on the discussion. I didn’t agree to them and don’t accept them. Obama has been a vastly superior President to Nixon.
Nixon’s version of health care reform had significant intersects with private health providers. It wasn’t a fully public program at all, and his package in whole did not meet with the approval of Senator Kennedy and the rest of Congress. They would have loved to pass a true public sector single payer program, but it wasn’t offered by Nixon.
As to the rest…fuck it.
I could detail the accomplishments of the 111th Congress, and the many worthwhile executive and Agency actions of the current Administration, many of which have been entirely government-driven and not led thru private business funding and action, many of which have been sufficiently aggressive to have been blocked by the last gasps of the Federalist Society era of the Judiciary, but I’ve been down this road with you. The ACA and Dodd-Frank suck, blah blah blah.
I’m not feeling patient with you right now- sorry.
I think of religion’s creep into govt tax subsidies. Of “Free Speech Zones”. Of Asset Forfeiture and Policing for Profit. Using eminent domain to turn private property over to cronies for development. The destruction of neighborhood public schools for unaccountable private charters. Stopping there cause too depressing.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/337447/nixon-100-was-he-americas-last-liberal-john-fund
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/641730/if_nixon_were_alive_today,_he_would_be_far_too_l
iberal_to_get_even_the_democratic_nomination
Progressive Republicans DID exist. Nixon had his snakes, of course. Sanders comes closest on economics, I would guess. Not on other things, perhaps.
Using eminent domain to turn private property over to cronies for development.
If this is your interpretation of the SCOTUS Kelo v. City of New London decision, then you didn’t understand it. Democrats/liberals can’t seem to wrap their mind around the fact that it was the liberal members of the court that wrote the decision and Scalia et al were in the minority opposition.
IMO is was a first rate decision. They attempted to wake people up to the fact that local land use decisions have always been within the purview of local government. Don’t want corrupt elected city officials that will use eminent domain to enrich their buddies, then maybe residents to pay attention and vote in local elections. (Early in US history, the highest voter turnout was registered for local elections because that’s what mattered most to the lives of the residents.) Eminent domain is in our Constitution, as it should be for so very many reasons of the public good, but in this country, when government using that power to take land, the owner is to be paid the fair market value of it. That’s not how it worked in feudal societies.
Yep. You got that right. The longtime customary use of eminent domain was for public usage. It became part of the Commons. It was NOT spoils to be distributed for private gain.
We shall simply disagree on this one.
Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion. Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer concurred with it. Are you saying that Stevens fucked up and Thomas was right?
Where IMO you may have gotten hung up is that eminent domain is for the public good and public good isn’t synonymous with either public usage or the Commons. Public good is necessarily broad and the definition of it in any particular instance has always been up to the controlling governmental entity.
Do you think this was the first time that a land usage decision was at the behest of a private entity for private gain? GMAFB. Using eminent domain to accomplish that may be infrequent but only because property owners accept the purchase offer from the private entity. (As the other owners did in New London, CT.) The more common method is for the local authority to use zoning. Say, Tesla wanted to expand it’s plant, but the land required was all zoned for residential and owned by a farmer or residential real estate developer. Would expanding the Tesla factory be within the concept of public good? Creating several hundred jobs and increasing the local property tax receipts? It wouldn’t work for Tesla if it wasn’t rezoned to industrial. As a stick for the local officials, Tesla would point out that if not rezoned, they would secure a facility elsewhere and move the existing factory to the new location as well. With that at least provisionally completed, Tesla than makes a purchase offer to the landowner. If she refuses to sell, does that mean Tesla moves and the local economy suffers job losses, reduction in property tax receipts, and quite possibly a loss of home values in the community. Would that be a public good?
These are complicated questions and applying a rigid rule that eminent domain should never be used for a private development can end up hurting people. This is not to excuse the local authorities in New London. CT. They obviously made a crappy deal, but they were sort of desperate for a development that would produce jobs because the local economy was hurting.
I’m proud to stand with Justice Stevens on this one.
Heh. I was raised in the land of private property–Texas. We barely even use zoning: see Houston. We kept the city in court for 11 yrs to re-route a freeway that shaved our biggest city park. It is more customary to force sales with raising property taxes and other methods of state power to harass, not outright land grabs. Too many perverse incentives. Remember the flexibility of the term “blight”?
“Eminent domain, as we know it today, can be traced to the Latin term Eminenes Dominium, which referred to a government’s power to appropriate private property for the public’s use, with or without the property owner’s consent.” Note the term “public’s use.”
The RECENT change to from public use to public purpose defined deviancy down, imo. (1954) In the single year after Kelo, 31 states had passed laws curbing the abuses sanctioned by that decision.
Update: 45 states….
Lessons From a Little Pink House, 10 Years Later
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lessons-from-a-little-pink-house-10-years-later-1434922686
There’s also nothing wrong with states and local governments restricting or limiting the use of eminent domain. The Kelo decision actually encouraged state/local government to define better what’s right for them and their residents. The SCOTUS majority in Kelo were highly supportive of strong democracy at the lowest possible level of government. (And not unaware that locals will sell out a NY minute if big bucks comes to town. Beware the foreigners offering shiny new beads should have been on take away from the decision.) Although without looking at each of those laws and knowing a lot about the communities, I can’t state that those laws were constructed and passed for what I would view as the right (public interest) reasons. Why would Scalia et. al and Republicans seek to curb the ability of private owners/corporations from getting their hands on land that they couldn’t acquire in the “free” market?
Kelo was a chump change situation. A real and big stinky deal went down in your neck of the woods. The Texas Rangers stadium. The owners not only got the city to fund/subsidize the facility (public interest? Unlike my example private major sports teams are a financial negative to the communities that give incentives to the owners), the owners sought much more land that was needed for the stadium. Can’t recall the specific details now, but eminent domain played a role either as a potential threat to those that didn’t want to sell or to force a sale. There might also have been some violation of eminent domain in that properties were acquired at below fair market value. Where was the public outrage in Dallas/Arlington/TX over this? The new laws to stop this from happening again. There was none and they later proceeded to reward one of the principals by twice electing him governor and twice choosing him for POTUS.
So why did the Kelo decision outrage Republicans?
Self-government isn’t easy or simple. But it doesn’t get better by unnecessarily imposing simplified and rigid rules. That only encourages citizens to be lazy and uninformed and having a false sense of security. Money/power can always finds loopholes, etc, including officials that can be bribed, to get what they want. And for them that works best when the public doesn’t pay attention and doesn’t hold them accountable for their crooked big and little deals.
I find it discouraging the so many on the left reject the SC majority and side with Thomas. A misguided understanding of government purpose and functioning and democracy. In Perfectly Legal David Cay Johnson detailed many real examples of how the private sector rips off the people through corrupt or stupid local government elected officials. Big deals with nary a peep from the public. But they get all outraged over a tiny instance of the use of eminent domain. Where’s the outrage and efforts to stop private toll roads for profit? You think eminent domain if necessary doesn’t figure into those deals?
That stadium was contemporaneous with Kelo. So the SC ruling made it impossible to fight.
The football stadium was contemporaneous with Kelo. The baseball stadium was highly questionable use under the established rules at that time.
Bush signed exec orders limiting the ability of the federal govt post Kelso. (Did he smirk?)
Eminent domain is too often used to destroy working neighborhoods for fun and profit. As inner city gentrification proceeds under present urbanization trends, the perverse incentives will multiply. But you would put the onus on poors who are not invested in the political process? Like they have much voice out there.
No. Here’s a good summary review of the TX Rangers’ stadium
The stadium opened April 1994.
Town of New London:
Whatever property rights disputes that exist over the Rangers stadium, should have been in court years before there was any taking in the Town of New London. That voter approval for a tax hike to fund the stadium did put it in the “public use” category and therefore, eminent domain would seem to be perfectly legal (and seriously doubt that it would differ under any of these new laws).
While I personally put no value in having a professional sports team and facility within the community, it’s important to some people. Just as museums are too me. So, I get why such facilities fall within the broad category of public venue. However, once a penny in public monies is accepted by a team’s owner, that should be the team in a public utility type category. Can’t be moved without the approval of the host community, a large bloc of ticket prices must be kept affordable for working class residents, and any sales profit above a normal rate of return taxed at 100%. Or on that last point, if the owner wants out, the city can purchase the team for current dollar value of the owner’s original investment and then either operate it or sell it to a new investor.
Nope. The Dallas Stadium condemnations were just beginning at the time of Kelso.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/eminent_domain_ruling_affects_dallas_cowboys_stadium/
But seriously, haven’t takings become much more and more naked as the “public” justification gets thinner and thinner. It has become essentially private to private takings. An element of courting corporate jobs. Walmart uses it extensively.
“The Kelo case thus became the focus of vigorous discussion and debate by supporters on both sides. Some 40 amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, including 25 on behalf of the petitioners by various nonprofit, public policy and public rights organizations, including the NAACP and AARP.” (Oddly enough, the groups most commonly dispossessed.) (http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl15/837/)
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissent is more to my thinking:
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” O’Connor wrote. “The
beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” She reasoned that the decision eliminates “any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively [deletes] the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”
Different stadium — I was only familiar with the Rangers. No knowledge or opinion on the Cowboys stadium and not going to put in the time to study it.
As if O’Connor had a record of concern about the powerless against the powerful. GMAFB. I suspect that the minority opinions were crafted for political purposes and do not conform with those justices views of the laws or society. An attempt to put some lipstick on the GWB pig that was politically reeling at the time of the Kelo decision and that they saddled us with by their novel interpretation of the equal protection clause — so novel they specifically stated that it couldn’t be used as a precedent.
You continue to try to simplify this decision and that takings clause should be narrow and inflexible. Public use has must contain a degree or openness and flexibility as specific instances vary by location and over time. I’m not saying that all or even most applications of eminent domain have been good or wise. Only that the voters in the communities impacted have a voice that they can use to effect what they view is best for them. (If it were up to me there would be no such thing as private land ownership, but that has its own and probably intractable problems/issues as well.)
This “Clinton is to the right of Nixon” garbage is, well, garbage. It’s intended for maximum effect, but this garbage claim destroys the credibility of anyone who uses it. These community members might as well announce “I do not want to participate in a good faith discussion.”
Cambodia. Vietnam. Watergate. Ellsworth. The list goes on and on, actions which are all worse than the worst thing done by the Clintons.
Henry Kissinger likes her foreign policy. So does Zbigniew. So does Albright.
And Gloria Steinem is apparently okay with her foreign policy and Steinem is a longtime CIA op.
So one can establish a continuity of purpose between Nixon and Clinton. Each political era allows and restricts certain things. But birds of a feather…
He seems like a solid pick. There is a lot to like in his background. He’s gone to bat against red lining, and did plenty of pro bono work for the poor.
Too much religiousity for my taste, but he seems to have put it in the context it deserves.
His wife seems good.
He’s like another Biden. If you can’t get the original, go with the facsimile?
.
Indeed. Biden eagerly sold us out to financial corporations as well.
I’ve never been happy with Biden’s voting record, but please find me the senator or representative of America’s Cayman Islands who voted against the banks collecting on their loans.
Not a very exciting pick. clinton is going to have to work to get people excited and turn out, I hope this choice doesn’t work against that.
left fringe, liberal freak flag.
Jiminy effing christmas. You don’t even know you’re doing it anymore. You’ve become or always have been befogged with what you consider political reason in the industrial doom-scape of mass extinction. You now speak in nearly pure Kool-Aid Tongue.
Just checking in for recent non-developments.
Thanks for the comment. You’ll be happier over at Balloon Juice, where Hillbots routinely kick hippies. You might even qualify to be a villager there.
I fail to see how bringing up other Internet communities helps us conduct rational and reasonable dialogues here. We’re not collectively responsible for, or even universally aware of, the dialogues in other communities. Seems to me our community has plenty of issues we need to work on; piling on opinions about other blog communities seems a counterproductive waste of time.
His point was, they do that there, we shouldn’t do it here. That’s all.
Actually — as at least one of the Three Stooges used to say — “I resemble that remark.” After many years on BJ, a few months ago, when Cole (unnecessarily and, at the very least, prematurely), endorsed Clinton, I took it as my cue to bid him good-night. But I’m still here.
Well, it appears from my visits to Balloon Juice that John Cole is often less patient with readers than Martin is here. Did John become even less patient after endorsing Clinton?
I’m unfamiliar with the concept of an online community leader endorsing a candidate unnecessarily and/or prematurely. I find the concept odd.
Well, of course he can do anything he wants — but this is my point of view. It was obvious that some of his commenters supported Clinton and plenty of them supported Sanders. Right after the first Super Tuesday, the one with all the southern states, Cole endorsed Clinton. IIRC, he actually used that tern, “endorse”.
I don’t remember Cole being particularly impatient with Sanders supporters, but then again, I didn’t wait around to find out. I imagine they must have been pretty annoyed with him to have come down for one candidate so early on, and that could well have led to his losing patience with them.
I agree that this pick is intended to comfort Republicans, and I suspect it’s a wise move … in terms of game theory. I also think, as I’ve been saying for months here, that the most interesting consequence of Trump is the reaction of the Democratic Party to the gibbering breakdown of the Republican Party.
Given that the GOP is now Trump, why won’t the Democratic Party become maximally center-right? As long as the Republicans remain farther to the right, the establishment Dems have very little to lose
It’s like the joke about the two guys being chased by a hungry bear: “I don’t need to outrun the bear, I only need to be faster than you.”
Democrats don’t need to be left enough to make any real progress, we only need to be lefter than the Republicans.
There are plenty of Democrats to the right of Clinton. The strong majority of them, actually, as shown by her Senate voting record:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/8-years-senate-votes-reveal-clinton
Kaine was one of Senator Obama’s earliest endorsers when he opposed Hillary in the Democratic POTUS primary, so he’s far from a Clinton sycophant.
And I didn’t have this info about his views re. trade:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/tim-kaine-vice-president-hillary-clinton-virginia-senate
“When the Senate voted to grant Obama fast-track authority for the deal last summer, Kaine signed on but said he wouldn’t back the full TPP proposal if it didn’t come paired with a worker retraining measure. “If those assurances are not met, then I will vote against the treaty when it eventually hits the table,” he said.”
I’m looking pretty hard at the summary and text of the TPP here…
https:/ustr.gov/tpp
…and I’m not seeing a worker retraining measure. Given that the current TPP language cannot be amended, it appears that Senator Kaine has committed to vote against the TPP if it is brought to the floor.
Kaine (and Clinton, for that matter) need to continue to get pushed on their TPP records, and Kaine’s recent actions on loosening financial institution regulations need to be explained and, frankly, dropped, now that he is running with Clinton, who has not proposed these regulation reductions.
I’m also displeased about his decision not to provide meaningful disapproval for Virginia’s Right-To-Work law. The law has been in place since 1947, so it might have been an election-losing decision to campaign against the law or spend political capital on trying to force a repeal through a Republican-dominated Legislature.
An opportunity to push Kaine on this issue comes with the ballot measure Virginia voters will be considering in November, which would place Right-To-Work in the State Constitution. That’s a radical bridge too far, and Kaine should come out against it. If Reason Magazine can oppose it…
http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/10/dont-put-right-to-work-in-the-virginia-c
…so can Senator Kaine.
I’m aware that Clinton is by many measures on the left side of the Party; I’m not talking about her personally, but about the party as a whole. Can you imagine a time when the left-most Democratic senator, whose record progressives in the US trumpet for being truly leftist, is indistinguishable from a center-right representative in any other Western democracy?
My concern isn’t Clinton. It’s … game theory, I guess. We’ve got a system in which the Republicans are increasingly demographically locked out of the White House. Yet as long as they continue to nominate ravening candidates, the Democrats are assured of (almost) every left and center vote and some of the ravening-averse right-wing vote. However, the center and r-a right is a tougher sell, so we’ll move right to capture them, knowing that the left is locked in. That makes electoral sense.
What is the future of a ‘liberal’ party with a pragmatic, realistic road to electoral victory that begins (because the other party is so extreme) deep in conservative territory?
(And I don’t think Kaine’s views matter much. He’s VP. He’ll do what he’s told, and by the time he runs, in 8 years, his views will have evolved on much of this anyway.)
Destroy the Republican party.
The sane Republicans join the right wing of the Democratic party and take it over, becoming the new conservative party that is at least sane.
The left wing of the Democratic party then becomes a separate true left wing party with a minority of elected offices and has to pull the Democratic party to the left.
As you yourself make clear, as long as there is a Republican party putting up candidates, the Democratic party is stuck straddling the center.
People can hem and haw and hand wave away reality if they like, but there it is.
First, destroy the Republican party. A true left wing party will not exist before that point. Well, one that can win elections and junk, anyway.
What Kaine said about the TPP is what all free traders say. The talk about bullshit protections that never amount to anything.
How conservative is Kaine as a Dem? Very. Senate DW-Nominate 113th:
1 SANDERS -0.717
2 WARREN -0.702
41 KAINE -0.307
https://twitter.com/PaulHRosenberg/status/756668220195508224
Neocons will be coming back too. At this point my main hope is that the GOP basically cracks up, the Dems become the sane center right and the GOP reforms around a populist bent that can be hijacked by the left to create an actual center left party while extreme right begins trying to take over the dems for 50 years.
That is the only way that the left wing will be free from the Democratic party.
The crackup comes either in the future, or possibly 2016, depending on how Strongman Trump fares.
Currently my opinion is that even if HRC wins its going to be one term. I cant see her foreign policy being successful. All sides of the GOP will see it as a chance to show theirs is the True Path.
Kanye 2020?
Teebow 2020.
Kanye/Tebow 2020.
>>Democrats don’t need to be left enough to make any real progress
and too many Democrats don’t want to make any real progress anyway.
I think Trump’s theory of the case is terms of desire for real substantive change is correct, and therefore this was the wrong choice. The strength of Sanders shows this is true on the left as well as the right. Anti-free trade is actually something both sides agree on. There is no more vast middle. There are two polarized sides. There are contradictions in each, especially the Republican, but there is no appetite for the status quo. The status quo is the bankers get bailed out and the economy never has recovered to previous trend, which was not that great anyway.
There are three basic reasons Hillary won the primary:
None of those reasons amount to support for her policies. Bernie’s support was almost all about policies with a dash of credibility on personal integrity. Clinton is acting as though people voted for her politics, when they voted for her genitalia, her connections, her name recognition and, to some degree, because she seemed a safer choice. The last factor didn’t loom that large, though, because, if it had, Sanders would have gotten nowhere, as stopping Republicans is the one thing that unites Democrats. A safety factor would have helped Clinton with all Democratic constituencies, but her victory relied on doing well with a few specific ones.
This is apparently a very difficult concept to grasp, but let me try yet again– a good number of people, as in many millions of us, voted for Clinton because we like her. We preferred her policies to Sanders’. We think she will make a good president. And we’re sick to death of being told that our reasons are not good, that we were ignorant or only concerned with color or gender. It’s insulting. And it’s damn wrong.
A recent Reuters poll found 11% of people who plan to vote for Clinton like her, and 40% support her policies. So, no, there are not that many of you. The biggest reason people give for voting for Clinton is to stop Trump. Which is the valid reason, actually.
Are you referring to a Reuters poll like this one?
http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM914Y16
If so, you are attempting to mislead us. The poll doesn’t ask the questions in the way you appear to claim.
Declaring valid or invalid people’s chief reasons for voting for a candidate seems off base; a vote is a vote.
Looks like the July 18 result probably comes closest to what bento described. If so (or for any other polling date) your point that bento’s description seriously misrepresents what was actually asked is spot-on. And an important corrective for mis-information. Thanks for pointing to it.
One of the reasons that I like Hillary Clinton as a candidate is that she isn’t personally liked, such as Strongman Trump.
People fail to realize that Donald Trump is dangerous not because he has the best words or the biggest hands. He’s dangerous because he has millions of right wing authoritarians who “like” Trump and will do whatever he says.
I don’t personally like Hillary Clinton, first, because I don’t know her, and second, because she seems like a classic politician/technocrat.
But her policies are galaxies better than Trump, and she doesn’t wield right wing authoritarians. Both of those reasons are legitimate reasons to vote for her over a self-identifying Strongman.
Didnt stop the Hill-shills from employing that exact same tactic against Bernie supporters. That our reasons were naive and we were concerned with color or gender.
There are two theories of this election that are possible:
This pick helps with the first. Kaine will be viewed, as Pence was, as a sober and solid pick. It will help reinforce the perception that Clinton’s judgement is more trustworthy than Trump’s.
I don’t think people get that Clinton’s problems are pretty significant. Against any other GOP candidate she would probably be behind at this point. I don’t think she has as much margin for error as others do.
The problem is that Trump sharpened his message pretty well in Cleveland. I question whether he can execute the strategy: but so long as terrorist attacks continue he is going to have Clinton at a disadvantage. The reaction in the liberal blogsphere to Trump was pretty telling as well. When Trump talks about China he does so in a way that Clinton cannot, and in a way that appeals to a portion of the Clinton base.
The vote that is out is under 40. Trump’s problems are enormous with this group. If I were in Brooklyn I would be tempted to think that the 30% who are not supporting either Clinton or Trump will likely come home to Clinton in the end. The way to accomplish this might be to solve the favorability issue.
I think this theory is right. In the your gov poll 30% of the vote under 44 is either for third party (16%) or undecided. This represents about 12% of the total vote. Within that group Trump’s favorables are 17-69 (18-29) and 34-55 (30-44). It should be possible for Clinton to win this vote by 3 to 1, and that would translate into an additional net of 6% and we would put her lead in double digits.
I have long thought, and continue to believe, that this is the most likely outcome.
But if Kaine doesn’t help her favorability issue, I believe she remains at a disadvantage thematically. That is the risk about this pick. In an unsettling way this election reminds me of 1980 and 1992: campaigns where the party in power was stuck defending an unpopular status quo. Kaine does nothing to help here: he is a status quo politician. Indeed, incredibly Kaine actually makes Clinton more vulnerable on the charge that she is close to Wall Street.
And like in 1980, almost all of the focus of Democrats is on how awful Trump is. But there are limits to the effectiveness of this strategy. It will work for a while: it did in 1980. But in the end if the electorate believes the choice is between the status quo and change: don’t be surprised at the risks the country is willing to run to get that change.
So I think Booman is right: this is a pick with risks. But those risks are unavoidable in this terrain – a treacherous one at best.
As for what it says about a likely Clinton Presidency: well I have never believed that Clinton will govern as a progressive on the economy or on foreign policy (she will on social issues). In this sense I can’t be disappointed – because I had no expectations to disappoint.
I should add one other risk here that I just noticed in the polling.
And it shows the very real risk the Clinton people are running.
Among Sanders voters Clinton has a 31-68 favorable rating. Incredibly Jill Stein has a higher favorable rating (41-14) than Hillary Clinton does.
Among Sanders voters Clinton leads Trump 44-11, but Stein has NEARLY A QUARTER of the vote (23%) and another 14% are supporting someone else.
Kaine does nothing to help with these voters.
Really the numbers are kind of stunning.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/6v3si1v679/econTabReport.pdf
I’m a big skeptic of favorability ratings, and I’m particularly skeptical of favorability ratings for unknown, third party, or primary runner-ups. I think these are informative examples (John Edwards and Sarah Palin headline this story, but there are other political and entertainment examples re: the volatility of favorables).
I think it’s worth mentioning, as Clinton herself ably demonstrates, that declining favorability isn’t necessarily caused by scandal (as was the case for Edwards, McGwire, and Sosa).
It probably helps HRC that so far Stein is coming off as a protest candidate.
I registered as a Green when I got fed up with Obama pussyfooting around with Republicans threatening to blow up the US government. But WTF is the Green Party, anyway? A post office box, I think, from which emerges a presidential candidate every four years. Not like the Greens in, say, Germany. When Jill Stein started offering the Green presidential nomination to Sanders, it became very clear to me that the Greens are an empty shell that some on the left fill every four years with their fantasies. If Sanders had wanted the Green nomination, he would have sought it from the get-go.
Obviously Sanders wasn’t going to be interested. But if they could have gotten him, it would immediately have put them over the 15% threshold to qualify for the debates.
It’s almost as if they were serious about affecting the political process.
The Greens are too squishy for me on defence, but I’d have swallowed that if they ever got their act together to build out. But nope.
I’m sorry. I’m retired and I can’t remember when we didn’t have a war somewhere. Maybe a few weeks after Vietnam closed shop.
Not sure what squishy would be. Not wanting to control all the petroleum on the planet?
Example: I think unilatetal nuclear disarmament would make the world a substantially more chaotic and dangerous place. Reductions? Yes. We dont need to be able to fry the world dozens of times over. But the US nuclear umbrela has kept Japan and RoK from developing their own nukes for instance.
I don’t recall anyone running for office calling for complete unilateral nuclear disarmament. It would never happen anyway.
And that’s the rub.
If given a choice between voting for Sanders (who champions an agenda less progressive than Stein’s) and Stein (who doesn’t have Sanders two plus decades experience as a federal legislature and a good high record of accomplishments for one not even within the majority of the party he affiliates with, has no time served in public office, and hasn’t won a single election) how many vote for Stein? How many for Stein if the only possible outcome of the election were Sanders or Stein? How many for Stein if she could be nothing other than a spoiler in a general election between Sanders and some GOP nominee far less appalling than Trump?
As we’re being told on practically an hourly basis that HRC will win in a landslide, there’s no harm in voting for one’s preferred agenda. A vote that is both a no to Trump and HRC, but with the full knowledge that we will have to live with the consequences of a second President Clinton (and the first one was bad). But in elections, is doing no harm constructive in any way?
In 1992 Perot secured 18.9% of the vote (extraordinary for all third party candidates since TR, Jr. in 1912) on the almost exclusive basis of his opposition to NAFTA and offshoring US jobs. Irrelevant to both parties. But voters in 1992 that prioritized this issue recognized that the winner would be would be either tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum and therefore, registering their no on NAFTA might stop it. Didn’t work. Their votes were irrelevant to both parties. (Technically, DC Democrats had been more responsive to their position before Clinton came to town and GHWB was failing to get it through.)
While appreciating and generally agreeing with Nader’s critique in 2000, I wasn’t tempted for a moment to vote for him. Two reasons. Gore is fundamentally a decent person and in his own right as President there was a chance that he’d rediscover and appreciate his roots and turn away from the DLC/Clinton. That was a generous interpretation after he named his VP, but even that decision could be seen as an attempt to compensate (overcompensate IMO) for the Clinton personal baggage that he was being saddled with. Second, regardless of how bad Gore would have been as president, it would still have been less bad than GWB/Cheney in office.
I’m not liking the argument from Hillfans that the equation is the same this time and therefore, I must vote for Hillary. They assume that it escapes me that Trump is an unpredictable, racist/misogynist, dangerous nincumpoop. It doesn’t. They also appear to assume that the predictable (predictably bad decision maker inn the largest issues of the day), corporate lackey that has grown fond of displaying US military might in a grossly misguided application of DTP won’t be dangerous. (And with boring Kaine as her VP we won’t be subjected to more years of Clinton drama, a prospect of which makes many cringe.)
I await further developments that may crystallize what is the least bad choice I’ll opt for in November.
I don’t get the whole “If Trump wins we’ll have WWIII!” narrative.
The Democratic Party is the war party now. Clinton has already announced how she intends to expand the Middle East mess. A no-fly zone over Syria. She’s essentially announced military action against Russia. You know, the OTHER nuclear power.
Trump, on the other hand, actually questions the point of NATO. This will be interesting if Trump goes after Clinton on foreign policy during the debates.
Not that I hold out any hope for Trump doing what’s correct. If he manages to get into the White House his ego will be satisfied. The Repubs will do what they always do.
It sells well among those that think once elected a POTUS gets that “nuclear football” and he/she can push the button on a whim. (HRC’s reset button stunt with Medvedev doesn’t inspire confidence she could manage to hit it if were in fact needed.)
Republicans and Democrats respond best to fear; mostly imaginary fears based on propaganda which does differ somewhat by political party.
It’s not possible to identify what Trump actually knows and thinks from his Tourette Syndrome type public displays. OTOH, I’m not familiar with the teabag lexicon. Do teabaggers question the relevance of NATO? Outside of the left, does anyone, including other Democrats, even know that WJC failed to honor the agreement with Russia over NATO? (I have little use for those that don’t honor their agreements. And the USG has been one of the world’s primo swindlers.)
While Trump will remain almost completely unqualified, it might be worth someone investigating the issues on which he deviates from teabaggers and Dem/GOP political orthodoxy. Eclectic in almost anything, including politics, is generally a mish-mash without glue and the whole is less than the sum of the parts. OTOH, if he’s authentically opening an space on the right to dump irrational orthodoxies (a more difficult hypothesis given his VP choice), then maybe his quixotic campaign won’t have been totally without merit.
Trump’s ego will never be satisfied. Seriously.
Well, the limits of his ego demands would probably be limited by the Zapruder film presentation shown to him upon his ascension.
I don’t see that Kaine helps with her unpopularity. Her unpopularity is largely people’s perceptions of her as a person, and I don’t see how a bland VP pick fixes that. A lot of the distrust of her among people who might vote for her (i.e., not hardcore Republicans) is focused on things like TPP and banking regulation where Kaine actively hurts. And if the key to her success in bringing up the youth vote that currently is considering going third party, as you suggest, this was the worst possible move.
Clinton is only going to be as progressive as Congress allows. Republicans will most likely control the house for a good while so it doesn’t take much to guess there won’t be much in the way of progressive economic legislation passed. Pretty soon getting the debt ceiling raised will be seen as a progressive victory.
Socially progressive… sure.
I don’t think there are any real foreign policy progressives. There is no coherent progressive foreign policy vision. It’s all reactionary.
What exactly about Hillary Clinton’s words and deeds can be described as “progressive?”
Sure, support for the ERA in 1972 and Roe in 1973 was progressive before and when they came into being, but nobody still alive in kicking in 1963 retained progressive creds merely for having supported the 19th Amendment back in 1920.
That Sanders endorsement is less than 2 weeks old and she’s already rolling hard with ‘What are you gonna do vote Trump?’
Hmm.. I was responding to a comment by fladem wherein he addressed HRC’s potential with regards to economic, social, and foreign policy progressivism. The thread perhaps made it hard to track back to his comment or maybe I clicked on the wrong reply box.
If we’re going to get into wordplay… I’m using it in reference to policy and not what certain individuals would consider progressive. I don’t really make a distinction between liberals and progressives.
I’m actually surprised at how ok I am with it. Voting for this ticket and against Trump will be the easiest vote I’ve ever cast, easier even than 2008 and 2012 which were super-easy.
I have a lot of friends who aren’t ok with it, but they’re far more frustrated because of this Wikileaks thing showing DWS’ thumb on the scales–which I just can’t bring myself to get outraged over.
All that matters to me right now is beating Trump, and beating him decisively. I don’t care how short-sighted that is in terms of other real issues that various folks have brought up. If that doesn’t happen, everything else is out the window.
I’m not outraged either, its no secret they were cheating for HRC. Just more proof their heads need to roll.
I just figured it out: I think I relate to Kaine because deep down I know I’m the competent, relatively boring white guy that a smarter woman would pick for her VP
Keep him away from any kind of critical party building role as VP and well, I’ll be happy Warren gets to stay in the senate. I dislike him a lot.
2 more things: We’ll be in a Syrian quagmire within a uear of a HRC/Kaine election and it is simply not possible to go any slower without stopping.
Never a good idea to make such a specific projection this far out. Too much in flux at this point with Turkey, Iran, Russia, and Kerry/Obama to say where Syria will be by next January. It’s possible that she won’t have an opportunity make Syria a larger quagmire than it already is.
Safer projection — within two years HRC/Kaine will have the US in another intractable (and costly) military engagement.
If Syria has been settled by Obama/Putin, will Lebanon be Hillary’s opening? Many Israeli neocons are hopeful.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.730767
That would be a tough one if Syria, Turkey, and Iran have settled their differences for now.
The ME targets for destabilization have mostly been exhausted at this time. HRC may have an itch to take on Iran, but Bill doesn’t care for the odds in the ME. What they do share is a Putin loathing. As do many of their neocon buddies.
Putin’s all in on a Trump victory. If that doesn’t work out though I’d still say he’s safe. The US will keep messing around in the Russian sphere because we’re too stupid not too but we won’t ever directly try anything because Putin has nukes at his disposal. The Russian psyche is not one we’d want to test in that way.
It’s the same reason we treat North Korea with kids gloves.
Putin knows how easy it is for him to wrap men like GWB and Trump around his finger. Bullies deeply admire those they think are in their league. Trump and GWB have a highly inflated opinion of themselves and what they know about Putin is based on highly distorted media reports. Putin is one smart cookie and it serves his interests not to object to the western mischaracterization of him.
Putin rejected the Yeltsin/Clinton privatization of Russia because is was a disaster. He also genuinely loves his country. Therefore and for good reason, Putin mistrusts Clinton. Clinton dislikes anyone that beats him and/or proves that he is wrong. He’s probably smart enough not to directly challenge Putin, but using proxies creates a lot of destruction and have been known to spin out of control with unintended consequences.
We leave N. Korea to be contained by those at risk. A more worrying state actor with nukes is Pakistan and apparently we rely on the assessment that those in control of their nukes are sane. Has worked so far, but can’t say that I find that comforting.
He loves his country so much that he decided to turn it into his personal fiefdom.
Define fiefdom.
Among those that achieve the highest level of power in their country, particularly when that power is vast and the perqs are substantial, the exception are those that are happy to move after serving some reasonable and limited time in office. (A ten year maximum should be sufficient everywhere leaders are elected. And no more than sixteen years combined for an individual at #1 and #2 or another office as powerful as #2.)
Many not only want to hold onto all of that for their lifetimes but also extend it through the lifetimes of a child, grandchild, etc. Hell, the Clintons have spent the past sixteen years planning and finagling a Clinton restoration. (That maximum reasonable time in office should apply not just to an individual but also his/her family through birth and/or marriage. IOW, the actual combined total for the Bush family of twenty years shouldn’t be allowed to be repeated. Once such a limit has been exhausted members of the family would be ineligible to seek it again for at least sixty years (might have to increase that to eighty or a hundred years if the lifespan of humans continues to increase.)
Putin was the hand picked successor of that drunk Boris Yeltsin. He won a single fair election, and then dismantled the stirrings of Russian democracy and free press by a range of heavy handed tactics, all the while buying the support of the Russian people by pumping up the economy with oil and gas sales. (Sort of analogous to Chavez in Venezuela.)
Russia sells oil and gas. Are they not supposed to sell them?
Also, your view of the transfer of power in Russia wasn’t so simple as Boris, bottle of vodka in one hand, handing over the reins of power to Putin.
“Putin mistrusts Clinton. Clinton dislikes anyone that beats him and/or proves that he is wrong. He’s probably smart enough not to directly challenge Putin….” [emphasis added]
He? Him?
If you lived in Russia would you be pro-Putin or part of the opposition? I see no difference between him and the likes of GWB or Trump. He’s an autocrat and you don’t need to watch mainstream US media to understand that.
I think that Russia is engaging in an IO campaign aimed at the fringes in the US and the West to further their aims and create conditions favorable to Russian interests. Putin has a vested interest in seeing someone like Trump elected that operates on a similar wavelength.
All that being said.. I oppose any efforts at antagonizing Russia or engaging in economic warfare.
See my reply to pricianus jr below.
Putin rejected the Yeltsin/Clinton privatization because he wanted to distribute all state property among his own buddies. And that’s just what he’s done.
There’s a good reason why people like Donald Trump and David Duke admire Putin. I’ve never been able to understand why you do, though.
As I said in some thread in the past day, I’m not favorable towards heads of state/government that cling to power through any means beyond a reasonable period of time to do one’s best in the job and then move out and on. So, Putin does fail that one. Along with innumerable others leaders around the world.
One reason to have some respect for him is illustrated in a couple of charts. Some fundamentals the impact the actual lives of people.
Life expectency:
GINI:
For comparison, here’s US GINI
If I were Russian and lived in that country, I have no idea what my opinion of Putin would be. The best I can do from here is pay attention to states and recognize that most US media and the USG is so invested in being anti-Russia and anti-Putin and frequently promulgates that position through propaganda. So, it’s not really possible to be accurately informed. (I also grew up during the perior of rabid anti-Ho and anti-N. Vietnam (and pro-S. Vietnam) propaganda. It was all BS.
That’s an interesting way to answer that question. I think there’s something to it from the Russian perspective although I think you’re significantly downplaying his illiberal-ism.
Which is why I wondered what camp you’d be in if you could imagine life as a Russian.. having a rough idea of your general values. It’s something of a paradox.
There was a time a few years ago when we had that pseudo reset with Russia. There was some real progress though and, unfortunately, it was wasted.
Putin’s no fool. He’s officially not speaking about the race, but if you’ve got a candidate who promises a shooting war with you you’d be foolish not to look at the alternative.
But Clinton ISN’T promising a shooting war with Russia. Please consider sparing us this relentless horse hockey. I don’t like Clinton’s instincts re. military policy, but this wayyyy over-determined stuff is ridiculous.
What do you know about Clinton’s STATED foreign policy?
Liberation of Crimea, where the Russians have their most military installations on the Black Sea.
Support of the fascist Ukrainian regime to disrupt Russia’s gas pipelines to Europe.
A no-fly zone over Syria, where the US’s stated goals are to overthrow the Assad regime and where Russia is flying missions against the ISIS and al Qaeda enemies of the state.
Those are Clinton’s statements on foreign policy.
Maybe she’s just bullshitting about them all. Do you think she’s just talking tough? She wasn’t bullshitting about Libya. That worked out well.
Israel is after Hezbollah. Period.
“If Syria has been settled by Obama/Putin” WTF? Have I missed an important bit of news?
If I had some ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had some eggs.
Before you leave your little pieces of snark on my posts, please GOOGLE the topic. You might then add to the debate. Notice WHO has gotten new attention…Jabhat al Nusra.
Just this last time, I will do the work for you…
“On Wednesday, the Washington Post published a leaked draft of the new Syrian plan Kerry is said to be offering to Putin, which includes “integrated operations” between the two countries, with a command center to be stationed in Amman, Jordan.
According to the text, the two countries will form a Joint Implementation Group (JIG) whose “purpose is to enable expanded coordination between the United States and the Russian Federation beyond the established safety of flight procedures.”
“The participants, through the JIG, are to work together to defeat Jabhat al Nusra and Daesh,” reads the text, referring to Al-Qaeda offshoot that has occupied large swaths of Syria, and Islamic State terror group.””
https:/www.rt.com/news/351081-kerry-putin-russia-meeting
It’s probably not going to work but it has so much upside at success that Kerry needs to try it and I’m glad he did. Better SoS than his predecessor no doubt.
One, that was no snark, that was trying to figure out what in the world you were alluding to. Can’t exactly say you were too specific there. Now you’ve provided more specifics. Thank you. And we know this will work why exactly? There has been plenty of talk before between Kerry and the Russian foreign minister. AS far as I know, it has led to nothing at all.
Another thing. Unless I’ve missed something very big, the US government’s position is still that Bashar al-Assad has to go, while the Russian government’s position is that he’s their client and he’s going nowhere. If that is wrong, I would like to know. Thank you.
No. For over a yr, Washington has admitted little option to keeping Assad as head of any interim govt. Who would they replace him with, an Al-Qaeda-in-Syria moderate leader, lol? Even Turkey had come around, but who knows now. This was after the Turks and Russians made up.
Notice my entire scenario was prefaced with a big “IF”.
I agree, that is our official policy now, but Joel’s confusion may be due to the fact that there are many within the US government who don’t agree with that policy. I guess you could call them neocons.
Or neoliberals.
your comments are pretty much the definition of a troll; – threadjacking, attacking other commenters, contributing nothing to discussion. just sayin
There was no background to the statement about an alleged settlement by the US and Russia. How pointing that out “threadjacked” anything is a mystery to me.
if you think you’ve missed something, and you did, just ask, without the nasty snide remarks.
Certainly Hillary’s sponsors in AIPAC will be pleased. Kaine vies with his new boss in slavish fealty to Israel.
Good chance we’ll be primary challenging her in four years. And don’t say it can’t work. If Trump can be nominated, we are in territory where past results really do not predict future performance.
A few minutes ago in another thread, I was thinking through the 1980 primary challenge to Carter. (With the benefit of what I know now and was only dimly aware of back then.) Surprising to me, for the first time I could see why Carter had to go. However, such a decision shouldn’t be taken lightly, too late, and with the wrong candidate because that just plays into the hand of the GOP and makes it much easier for them to win. All of that was missing from the attempt in 1980.
Agreed. That’s why I’m bringing it up now. That’s all. First we have to defeat Trump and see how the Clinton Presidency goes. But if she goes all in in Libya and favoring Wall Street, she could be dead electorally, and the choice will be a different Democrat or a Republican – Ted Cruz maybe?
I had no idea who Kaine really was, so I went to YouTube and picked an interview at random. What I saw is a man who is incredibly intelligent, knowledgeable, experienced, rational, and quietly likable. Very much like Clinton. I don’t agree with all of his policies, but I have never yet met a politician where I did. But he does have perfect scores on many of the topics that I value. I’ve spent the rest of the day saying the same thing about No Drama Obama. I’ve quite enjoyed a peaceful and competent president. I have no problem with having more of that in the White House. Clinton and Kaine, with the support of Bill, Obama, and Warren, will be a staggering amount of brain power in the White House. Anyone who can’t see that they are light years better than Trump is out of their mind.
He’s well-liked by both labor unions and business interests, …
What has he ever done for unions? Nothing! Why is he liked by unions? The veal pen, that’s why.
I mean, make a vague attempt to hang with the facts here:
Peter Sullivan
@CitizenSullivan
Tim Kaine’s voting record:
Planned Parenthood: 100%
Brady Campaign: 100%
NARAL: 100%
Human Rights Campaign: 100%
AFL/CIO: 94%
RETWEETS
2,083
LIKES
2,206
8:43 AM – 22 Jul 2016
There are real things in Kaine’s record to dislike from a progressive POV, but it’s irritating to read such distorted histories paired with offensive rhetoric.
Her decision has the right form but lacks the necessary substance. Particularly in an election cycle when there was a strong challenge from the left. It’s like the 1992 recipe. It was also the recipe that HHH used in ’68 when the left was also very angry. (For those that weren’t around then, going into that election cycle, Nixon wasn’t viewed as a strong candidate by either a large faction of the GOP party elites or the Dem party elites. He may only have lost the 1960 election by 0.17% of the popular vote, but he only got 41.8% of the EC votes. Then he lost his ’62 race 52% to 47%. Voter opinions on Nixon were fairly well established before ’68).
The best VP nominations always contain an element that seems surprising when the choice is announced but quickly feels right or a bit inspired. Reagan/Bush (from fierce competitors to allies on the ticket — no common in US presidential elections), Clinton/Gore (two young and southern politicians), Obama/Biden (young AA and one of the longest serving Senators). Bush/Cheney was more than a little surprising, but in his VP debates he wiped the floor with his opponents.
If HRC is concerned about carrying VA, she’s not in a good position. Obama won it with 52.6% of the vote (against one of the Pentagon’s best friends), it has done well economically since then, and one of her BFF is doing well as governor.
She make like dull, but that critical percentage of the population doesn’t. (And while it’s difficult to recall, Clinton/Gore was exciting in ’92.)
This is a very amusing attempt to divide voters on the left:
https:/www.gop.com/meet-tim-kaine
After watching Trump’s Bund rally at the RNC Convention, and having a chance to see it reiterated in dozens of statements between now and November, I doubt that those not on the Trump Train will be inclined to become divided by a VP choice.
Even more hilariously, they follow that post with this one:
https:/www.gop.com/in-another-lie-clinton-claims-dems-havent-moved-left
I mean, pick a side. Either the Clinton campaign is selling out the Left, or it’s caved to the Left. Just because the GOP tries to maintain cognitive dissonance with their base at all times doesn’t mean we will be susceptible.
In fact, seems very safe prediction that at least some of “us” will.
Now if you’d said “we don’t have to be susceptible . . . “
…for Obama, then good enough. And I’m already on record here saying I was hoping for a more boring “old white guy” candidacy this time around, so can’t complain on that score. And I am still looking forward to not voting for Clinton (the Democratic candidate) this time around, so I hope this boosts her poll numbers a little bit. (That is, I don’t want her to lose, but I don’t want her to win by a landslide, though it seems like anyone ought to beat Trump by a lot.)
My first thought here is ‘too bad she’s not as uninteresting as he is.’ I still have hopes she may stumble onto being a great President. Maybe this takes her a step or two further in that direction. Best wishes to them both.
I don’t want Hillary Clinton to win in a landslide, either. No, what I’m really hoping for is a nail-biter race between Clinton and Trump, with recounts in a bunch of states and lawsuits brought before the Supreme Court challenging the outcome. That would be super cool! I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want that.
Plus, a Clinton landslide might mean a Democratic Senate and House! Can’t have THAT.
Don’t write stuff like that. I have now been inculcated with the idea that to do so constitutes “threadjacking” and “trolling”.
Because LBJ’s landslide ended all opposition to the Vietnam War.
Should be pretty good VP debate(s) later this fall.
This may be a good choice to attract moderate conservatives and independents, but it does slap a good chunk of the party in the face, eh?
Guess she figures when they get in the voting booth, they like myself will hold their noses and pull down her lever. Pardon me if I’m not to excited or energized by this ticket.
First, think about competent governance, regardless of checking off all your personal policy positions. Kaine is a good choice should he be called to duty as President at a moment’s notice. Do you think that of Pence? This was a serious, well-considered choice.
Second, the choice had to protect the chance for a Senate majority. Brown, Warren, Booker, others, risked that.
Third, the left is not being taken for granted. The Clinton campaign knows they have work to do there. The campaign will make special appeals, if those folks will open up their ears and listen for it.
Fourth, what Sanders says is incredibly important and his position in the Senate depends on what he says. Expect him to be a politician today on Chuck Todd’s show and tomorrow in his speech at the convention. He must know (and like) Tim Kaine. He’s like to tell his supporters something like: “This is the ticket to support and keep working for change, keep the pressure on, but DO NOT abandon the Democratic Party.” Will that be enough to quiet the Jill Stein fantasy or not? Or will Bernie be seen as a sell out? Depends on how he frames it, on whether he is really a leader of these people.
Fifth, the TPP can indeed still pass in the lame duck and can be “fixed” with passage of retraining bills and other support for displaced workers. Job loss insurance or some such thing.
Sixth, the community banks do need relief from the cudgel of Dodd-Frank which needed to support community banks more (while reining in big banks).
Seventh, this is a ticket of caring for others, working together. It’s in Kaine’s DNA and most likely Clinton’s too. It’s a strong contrast between Democrats and Republicans. Are we a caring, community oriented country at heart, or a hateful one? Kaine supports the Jesuit ideals of strong education and openness, etc.
This is a well-prepared, experienced ticket as opposed to the incredibly unprepared and bigoted ticket the Republicans put forth. Where I live and work for the Democratic party the far left is furious and abandoning the Democrats for Greens. But those folks are in a bubble. The center of the party and of the country is much more moderate, much more eager for step by step progressivism. Kaine and Clinton will represent that to them.
So save these decisions for after the convention. See how the ticket is framed by Sanders, Warren, Obama, or whoever else you trust who actually know these people.
Job loss insurance. Do you people hear yourselves talk?
Also good luck in 2017 AND 2018 defending a VA senate seat, as opposed to just 2018 with a strong incumbent. Your senate majority risk assessment seems “off” for a Democratic party apparatchik.
I’m sure I would be very entertained by VP Franken… but this is not a fucking game. I didn’t have much of any opinion about Kaine, not being from Virginia, but being an atheist I’m always pleasantly surprised when a religious person is not a christian-right god-botherer. A religious person, who was even a missionary in Honduras, with a %100 approval from NARAL, that I can get behind. And I’m pretty convinced that this is exactly the right kind of VP to highlight the what-would-jesus-do differences between T/P and Clinton/Kaine.
And I bet he’ll be Spanish-language media rockstar.
And I will add, my definition of political progress is centrist, main-stream politicians adopting progressive positions and policies. Progress is not making sure we always feel comfy about whom our leaders are. Example #1, LBJ. If Clinton/Kaine are about to present the most progressive Democratic party platform ever. Lets help them into office with a landslide, then hold them to their words.
The main objections to TPP and preceding “free” [hahahaha] trade agreements, e.g., NAFTA:
Only #3 could be addressed post-hoc by legislation here in your scenario.
The rest would all have to be addressed by robust mechanisms written explicitly into the agreement itself. I’m no expert on it, but nothing I’ve heard or read tells me such robust protections are in the current, unamendable text. My understanding is that the only options now are pass it as is or kill it and start any subsequent negotiations over from scratch.
Click the link here to get summaries of the TPP text, followed by the full text itself:
https:/ustr.gov/tpp
The summary claims to have negotiated language which improves worker, consumer and environmental protections from previous trade deals, including better language to protect people and the planet in the international arbitration dispute resolution piece.
I’d have an easier time trusting these representations if Labor, environmental and consumer organizations had been allowed at the table, but I do not believe they were, so I don’t trust these representations sufficiently to want to see the deal passed.
One thing is for sure from reading the summaries: they know that substantial portions of the American public deeply mistrust these deals, and they know they have something to answer for. All the same, no TPP sale for me.
I agree. I think it is a shrewd pick. I also understand why others have their favorites. It is encouraging that the Democratic Party has such a deep bench that can offer so many good choices.
I’ve lived in VA for 30 years, and as someone who’s followed Kaine from City Council to the Senate, I do not find him boring in the least. He has won every local election even at a time when VA was solidly conservative. He’s not fire-breathing, but he knows how to battle for progressive values in this state. I give Clinton credit too for choosing him when he did not endorse her in 2008. Obama would have picked him had he not then needed someone with foreign policy creds. Frankly, I was hoping she did choose Kaine.
What a difference a day makes!
The unemployed Ohioan is to be convinced of this by her picking someone who describes himself as “passionate” about NAFTA/TPP/FU?
http://belowthebeltway.com/2007/05/30/tim-kaine-gets-it-right-on-international-trade/
The Floridian who lost their house in the 2008 collapse is to be convinced of this by her picking someone who this very week pleaded for more bank deregulation?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tim-kaine-clinton-vp_us_578fc8e3e4b0bdddc4d2c86c
Also, drama takes several forma. I’ll let this Markos guy explain:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/22/1551210/-Hillary-Clinton-picks-Tim-Kaine-as-her-running-ma
te-Thread-2
Gee, I guess Bernie didn’t pull her to the left after all.
Eric – Who would you have picked? Most of the folks I know who oppose Clinton really were sold on Bernie’s complaint of the system being rigged, of the DNC being the establishment, and they are anti-establishment. You’ve been bitching about Clinton since day one. If you’re going to vote Green, just say so. Tell us you’re going to throw away your vote.
I’ve made no secret of my intention to vote for Jill Stein. In fact, I wrote my first diary about it yesterday.
Needless to say, I don’t believe that voting for a candidate who doesn’t win is throwing away my vote. Let’s just agree to disagree about that.
As for who Clinton should have picked, there’s no question that she can afford to tell the progressives to go fuck themselves – especially after the Night Rally in Cleveland. And only the most foolish among them would have expected any other outcome.
But her two biggest vulnerabilities against Trump were always free trade and financial institution corruption. And this pick paints a bright red bullseye on both of them.
I didn’t read your post yesterday, however I can’t agree to disagree that voting for Jill Stein is a thrown away vote. It may make you feel righteous for a few moments, but in both the near term it is a vote for Trump (unless, perhaps, you live in Massachusetts) and in the long term it accomplishes nothing. What is Jill Stein’s experience? She’s a doctor. Has never won a serious election. She is from the most liberal state and never had to balance really representing different segments of the population.
I once asked my congressman who has a large geographic district with many varied interests and political philosophies how he does it. How does he balance the interests? It’s a tough job. Tim Kaine had to be a moderately progressive in a mainly blue state and yet represent all the people.
You don’t seem interested in that part of governing. You seem to just want to stop your feet and say “I want what I want when I want it and Jill Stein, who has no experience, says what I want to hear all the time.” She can’t win. If she won she couldn’t deliver. And for that you’re willing to spend your vote. As I say, it’ll make you feel better for a minute, but if Trump is elected, you’ll be feeling the pain for a long time.
No, no, no. You see, it’s very practical. First, a lot of the Sanders voters choose Stein, so Trump wins. Trump gets a majority Senate and House. His first move is to appoint a far right justice to the supreme court. Then he removes all Democrats from government positions per Christie. This is challenged in court but the SCOTUS upholds it 5-4.
The removal of Democrats means immediate rollback of regulations from the EPA to OSHA to EOC to Labor. ACA is repealed.
At that point voting rights for minorities and younger people are severely curtailed. The GOP wins 2018 in a landslide. Two Democrats on the supreme court die and the majority is now 7-2 Republican. But don’t worry – it’s all going according to Jill Stein’s super genius plan.
Sure, 2020s a problem because the surge in terrorism caused by Trump’s random bombings of the rest of the world and his encouraging of warfare between police and citizens in black neighborhoods. So the electorate is focused more on personal safety from violence than the fact that greenhouse gas output has doubled in the US and the 8-year temperature rise has blown the doors off of all of the climate models. But this is where Stein’s clever plan kicks in – surely the people will come to their senses and vote for the Green candidate to fix all of those problems, right? It’s obvious!!!!
And if they don’t, hey, Stein voters can congratulate themselves for being PURE. Who gives a flying fuck how many millions have their lives made worse or ended by the election of Trump – what matters most is how we feel about ourselves!
Those treacherous Sanders supporters… voting for the candidate whose policies they favor! Ought to be rounded up and shot, the lot of them.
I know that if Hillary outdoes herself and manages to lose against the far-and-away most loathed Presidential candidate in history, the party loyalists will need a hippie to punch. That’s OK. Their tireless whining about Nader has given us 16 years of practice in enduring it.
But no one without a tribal identity to defend is going to believe that the number of Stein voters was even a fraction of the number of swing voters who rejected Hillary as the mendacious corporate bagman they saw her to be.
Federal official vote for the state of Florida (25 electoral votes)
Bush-Cheney 2,912,790 48.847% Republican
Gore-Lieberman 2,912,253 48.838% Democratic
Nader-LaDuke 97,488 1.635% Green
Looks like the Green party can in fact decide an election.
Things that happened because Bush was president that either would not have happened with Gore, or would have been significantly curtailed.
On the other hand, here’s the good things that happened because of Bush that wouldn’t have happened under Gore:
1) Green Day’s American Idiot
But, not to worry. All that agony, all that suffering, all that pain. Someone else’s trouble. The Nader voters “voted for the candidate whose policies they favored”. Even though he had zero chance of winning, they voted their conscience and besides, who gives a fuck about the environment anyway? We’re Green Party – like, what makes you think results are important to us? We just want to be on the right side of the issue.
In Florida, CNN’s exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote. At the same time, 13 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush.
But please, keep punching that hippie. Maybe after another 16 years he’ll learn his lesson.
Wikipedia:
(Granting, it’s only implied, not specifically stated there, that Nader’s statement is limited to Florida. But given the specific numbers, that implication looks very strong indeed — just do the math; I did.)
Then there’s
(Note: I haven’t combed this study thoroughly, but I did peruse a fair amount of it, especially the Methods section, to assess its credibility — something I am qualified to assess by training and experience. It passed. Basically it relies on examination of nearly all votes across all races in 10 Florida counties in 2000 on actual ballots that were voted (i.e., not just “exit polls”) to “assign” Nader voters to either Bush or Gore (using statistical methods and inference beyond delving into here) based on their votes in other races. Not “proof”, but highly credible and reasonable.)
Fuck you. It’s not hippie punching to point out that you voting for a candidate who has zero chance of winning because you don’t like the lesser of two evils is itself evil.
“Hippie punching” is a term that gained popularity around the time of the run up to the Iraq War. It refers to people who sought to maintain their centrist credibility by putting down people from the left in a dismissive manner. A key element is that the person doing the punching – usually metaphorically – does so in order to improve his/her standing.
Under that definition I – any many others here – have been that hippie that was punched.
In this case we’re not arguing this to improve our standing. We’re arguing this to keep Donald Fucking Trump from becoming president.
Try it another way. Suppose you are vegetarian and that it really upsets you to know how meat animals are treated. (That describes me, by the way). Suppose you by surprise inherit a profitable restaurant that as most restaurants do, feature mostly meat dishes. To complete the set-up so that it is analogous, the will stipulates you cannot inherit and sell the restaurant – you must either turn down the inheritance or manage the restaurant for some number of years.
You could (1) Have the restaurant stop selling meet, (2) not accept the inheritance, or (3) continue the restaurant with the popular meat dishes, but introduce more vegetarian options and work to make them more appealing. (1) Is the option that is most true to your beliefs. But the restaurant as a business would fail, the meat eating customers would simply go elsewhere, so no animals would be saved, and all of the employees would lose their jobs. In other words, it makes the situation worse. In (2) you make no difference plus or minus. But only with (3), although you personally participate in a practice you loathe, you actually can make a net positive difference in the lives of people and animals.
(3) is like voting for Clinton. Personally loathing some of the policies she supports and you are thus implicitly supporting, but overall a net positive. (1) is like voting for Stein. Personally agreeing with her positions far more than the options, but the end result is far worse. (2) would be if you didn’t vote and somehow got a Trump voter not to vote either neutral.
Sometimes principles must be compromised when the lives of so many others at stake. Many pacifists made similar decisions in World War 2 when they took war time jobs in military factories.
But in the two examples above you’re being asked to put in a huge amount of effort to doing something which you personally aren’t happy about to yield a net positive result. In this case, however, you’re just be asked to vote to stop Trump.
Well, I’ve been doing #3 since 1974. To say that over those four decades (using your analogy) the restaurant has succeeded in reducing the amount of meat by 60% and increased the amount of vegetables served by 100% and is as profitable and viable as it was way back when, I’d consider such a corollary to the Democratic Party and public policy achievements to be a smashing success.
Unfortunately, the analogy and option #3 hasn’t produced anything anywhere near what you imply it would. The restaurant customers moved on to the chain joint down the street even when the portion size of the meat was increased. and on and on. The bank seized the restaurant along with the house owned prior to the inheritance in the 2010 and now the best available job offer pays fifty cents above minimum wage.
At what point are principled people allowed to acknowledge that doing the same thing for forty years has only enabled more and more Democrats to become worse than liberal Republicans back then?
To you, free trade and financial institution corruption are Hillary’s biggest vulnerabilities. But Trump is barely running a campaign against financial institution regulation, and the majority of the Republican Party wants to repeal Dodd-Frank.
And you and I and Bernie know that Trump’s run against Hillary on trade is a big damn fraud, and that her opposition to the unamendable final language of the TPP, and Senator Kaine’s plan to vote against the treaty because it doesn’t include a worker re-training committment, and Senator Sanders’ vouching for Clinton on the campaign trail, will mitigate the potential that portions of the persuadable electorate who might be tempted to go for Trump on the trade issue alone.
No, Trump has clearly announced what issues he’ll be running against Hillary most fiercely: a domestic police state, ultraviolent and punitive “tough on crime” enforcements, and eliminationist immigration/foreign/military policies.
It’s hilarious to see liberals who believe that Trump will be able to run against Clinton from the left on foreign policy. By observing his language and his temperament, we can see Trump will have our military conduct genocidal bombing runs and troop actions in the Middle East in order to display his “ELIMINATE RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM FAST!” bona fides. Predictably, terrorist acts would continue, and predictably Trump would up the ante. I don’t come to these conclusions easily, but I think the odds are good that we would use nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and perhaps elsewhere as well, if Trump is elected.
Funny, since the mid-80s I’ve felt that I’ve been throwing away my vote with Democratic presidential candidates.
I’m waiting for the wingnut explosion of outrage when Kaine addresses a Latino group in Spanish.
A Missionary? That’s even worse than Pence!
He’s in the wrong party. But people have said that before. He was roundly hated here before, but suddenly he’s Bonnie Prince Charlie.
Wrong. He wasn’t a missionary going to convert but to serve. He taught welding (like his dad taught him) in a vocational school. There is a difference between service and ideology. Who would you have picked, eh? Let’s get a chance to dis who you would have picked.
He’s not just worse than Pence. He’s worse than Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and the preacher who wants to execute gays. Anyone can see that!
Uh, just because you’re a hater doesn’t mean that other people are, too.
That was long before YOU showed up.
A few years ago, a very right wing cousin of my wife’s posted on Facebook a bunch of stuff about massive vote fraud by illegal immigrants facilitated by the Democratic Party. My wife responded and the cousin doubled down, with a tone not entirely different from Trump in the remarks about Mexicans that kicked off his campaign. After I was shown the exchange, I wrote the cousin, asking her for citable evidence. She replied to me, “I hope you don’t think I’m a hater.” Actually, I did. And now I will do my best not to comment on anything you write.
About time.
.
More of our new no-drama Hillary.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/index.html
[Any plans for a post about this, Steve?]
Your man (and Putin’s) agrees:
Donald J. TrumpVerified account
@realDonaldTrump
Leaked e-mails of DNC show plans to destroy Bernie Sanders. Mock his heritage and much more. On-line from Wikileakes, really vicious. RIGGED
I’m not sure I see your point.
This isn’t the first time Trump has tried to entice embittered Sanders supporters. Now that there’s a paper trail proving how much they have to be embittered about, it’s only natural that he would try to exploit the Clinton/DNC’s machinations having come back to bite them in the ass.
The Party’s wishes notwithstanding, 2 plus 2 still equals 4 – even when it benefits Donald Trump.
The interesting question is: Did Russia, who we know hacked the DNC up, down, and sideways, help engineer this leak to advantage their preferred candidate?
“Now that there’s a paper trail proving how much they have to be embittered about”
What, that DNC people supported Hillary and didn’t support Bernie? That they kicked around some unpleasant tactics (that were never used)? THIS is the big reveal? I mean, any port in a storm, but this seems (so far) to be a long way away from any unfairness, much less “rigging.”
I agree that the potential role of Putin is troubling.
The DNC, by its own rules, is not supposed to favor any candidate over any others.
http://ktla.com/2016/07/23/dnc-emails-released-by-wikileaks-raise-questions-about-committees-imparti
ality-during-primary/
Of course this is not a “reveal”in the sense of something we didn’t already know, but only in the sense that it provides undeniable documentation of partiality by the chair.
according to NPR a short while ago (in the context that he’s never lost an election . . . in reddish VA). I’m not all that knowledgeable about VA politics, but I’d expect that rating to be more a hindrance than an advantage there.
RE:
Also too: Can change that “the people [can] digest . . . in small bites rather than in the kind of sweeping changes that disorient and cause anxiety” be reasonably called “the progressive revolution“? I dunno, seems sorta oxymoronic to me.
As I’ve suggested here before, “slower, please” (ACA is example that comes to mind) may (or may not?!) be the best that can be achieved within the present political Reality. But if that’s so, I think we’re fucked (along with the species and ecosystems we’re taking down with us). Because the ecological crisis (including, but not limited to, the climate crisis) is here and getting rapidly worse.
There just isn’t time for “slower, please”.
But I see little/no basis in Reality to hope for any better than that.
So my reluctant, regretful conclusion remains “we’re fucked”.
DO not quote NPR here. I used to listen to it, too, while commuting to and from work, before I learned that NPR is actually “National Pentagon Radio”. Ever since then, I have adopted the sage advice of Simon and Garfunkel: I get all the news I need from the weather report.
become you.
I’ve seen worthwhile, substantive stuff from you.
Why not stick to that?
(I regularly, and critically, listen to NPR. No illusions about what I’m getting there.)
Paul Kagame — in office since April 2000. Honored by the Clinton Foundation.
If I may summarize. Clinton supporters love Kaine and are willing to overlook his voting record and the money tentacles, like they are willing to overlook H. Clinton’s voting record (and public record).
Bernie supporters, not so much.
On cue: More stories about Trump’s fascination with cannibalism and the utter destruction of life on earth.