Democrats and Progressives need to accept the likelihood that their nominee will be facing Trump in November. And they need to seriously consider what that actually means. [Edited. Cringe-inducing cut-and-paste typo corrected**.]
— Clinton [at a CNN-sponsored town hall last night in South Carolina] promised to go hard after Wall Street. The former Secretary of State faced criticism in a different department: her failure to release transcripts of paid speeches given to Goldman Sachs. “Sure, I’ll do it if everybody else does,” the former Secretary demurred, circling back to a familiar refrain after being pressed by moderator Chris Cuomo. “But this is about whether I have the best plan to go after Wall Street,” she said. “Why is there one standard for me and not for everybody else?” [All boldface in original.]
— James Hohmann, the Washington Post’s PowerPost blog, today
Okay, you probably have figured out the answer to Clinton’s question all by yourselves: She, unlike, say, Marco Rubio, who wants Dodd-Frank repealed and replaced with no financial-industry regulation at all, and who wants also to eliminate the capital gains tax—completely eliminate it—is a Democrat who has proposed a detailed plan to regulate some aspects of the financial services industry but believes that nothing beyond the provisions in Dodd-Frank is necessary regarding actual banks.
The only two other presidential candidates who will propose or may propose further regulations on the actual banking industry, or at least the six largest ones, are, respectively, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Neither has ever been paid to give speeches to financial-industry players who invite top executives of corporate or organization clients to attend the speeches and then mingle with the speaker.
Which brings me to this: Last night I posted this initially short post titled “Paul Krugman Hits It Home”. The home run was the final paragraph of blog post by Krugman yesterday, which I quoted in full as the opening to the post. That paragraph says:
And let me say that the great thing about a progressive agenda is that it doesn’t require big growth promises to make it work, because the elements of that agenda are good things in their own right. Conservatives need to promise miracles to justify policies whose direct effect is to comfort the comfortable (cutting taxes on the rich) and afflict the afflicted (slashing social insurance); progressives only need to defend themselves against the charge that doing good will somehow kill economic growth. It won’t, and that should be enough.
I added only two lines, totaling nine words.
Several comments to the post indicated that some readers misinterpreted it as supporting Krugman in the ugly controversy that has pitted him and some other high-profile economists against University of Massachusetts economist Gerald Friedman, high-profile economist James Galbraith, and some other economists. In a comment of my own, I disabused them of this. Then I updated my post to add that comment of mine and elaborate on it, and wrote, “This is it for me on this topic. I’m done with it.”*
But I wasn’t quite. I updated my post again, with this:
Ooops. I do want to add one thing, while I have your attention (and—who knows?—maybe even Krugman’s): Krugman’s sometimes virulent anti-Sanders writings clearly are triggered by his palpable fear of electoral disaster in November if Sanders is the Dem nominee. But as I pointed out here and here—and as William D. Cohan made clear in an article on Politico Magazine late last week and as Luke Brinker of Mic illustrated on Monday (my two posts link respectively to these articles)—it is Clinton, not Sanders, who may very well be the weaker candidate against the likely Republican nominee: Donald Trump.**
I absolutely think that Democrats really need to start accepting that the Republican nominee likely will be Trump, not Rubio (who is an awful hybrid of Grover Norquist and Rick Santorum: “All the answers are in the Bible”, presumably including the answer to the question of whether we should end the capital gains tax and the estate tax).
Rubio, or for that matter Cruz, could be beaten by a monkey. Trump, not so much.
The Hohmann quote I opened with actually comes fairly far down in the blog.* The title of the post is “The Daily 202: Trump’s romp in Nevada shows why conventional wisdom about his ceiling may be wrong”. The part about Trump is very long, and begins:
THE BIG IDEA:
— The returns from last night’s Nevada caucuses cast doubt on three assumptions that are widely held and often repeated by Republican elites in Washington, who are perhaps too eager to assure one another that Donald Trump still cannot actually win the nomination. [Boldface his.]
I certainly share Krugman’s and so many other Dems’ and progressives’ abiding terror that the Republican nominee could actually win the general election. But I think Democrats who think Trump won’t be the nominee are as delusional as Republicans who think that. And I think Democrats and progressives who think Clinton would easily beat Trump need to start looking hard at what it is in addition to his xenophobia that is attracting so many people in so many different demographics. And what that means vis-à-vis Clinton. And what it would mean for a Sanders general election campaign.
These strike me as mirror opposites.
____
UPDATE: This from Greg Sargent this morning:
On ABC News this morning, Rubio was asked whether he will now go harder at Trump. Rubio’s answer:
“I know there’s this craving in the media for people to attack each other….I’ve pointed out the things that Donald is for that I don’t agree with. But we’ll have a debate tomorrow night, and if there are policy differences, we’re gonna talk about those. If he says something I don’t agree with — like he did in the last debate, about George Bush being responsible for 9/11 — I’m gonna correct him on it.”
Yep. As I said, a monkey could beat Rubio in the general election. So maybe the Republicans should urge a monkey to run as a third-party candidate. Someone who works for the Koch brothers’ super PAC, maybe?
Sargent follows that with his own comment:
Friendly reminder: After Rubio “corrected” Trump’s views about George W. Bush and 9/11 during the last debate, Trump went on to beat Rubio in Bush-friendly South Carolina by 10 points.
Another friendly reminder: Jeb! got—what was it?—seven percent of the vote in South Carolina?
You do that, Sen. Rubio. You just keep correcting Trump on that.
Sheeesh.
____
*Paragraph and sentence edited because they really needed it. 2/24 at 8:09 pm.
**Post edited further because it really needed it. (e.g., that sentence originally said “… it is Sanders, not Clinton, who may very well be the weaker candidate against the likely Republican nominee: Donald Trump.”) Ooops. The post was drafted in a hurry, cuz I didn’t have much time yesterday. 2/25 at 5:12 p.m.
Beverly, I agree that Democrats better start taking Trump seriously and you only need to remember their shock when Reagan swamped Jimmy Carter to understand why. That being said I think Hillary being the Democratic nominee is more of a sure thing than Trump being the GOP standard bearer so whatever you might think of Bernie’s populist appeal it is not relevant and unless there are some major surprises Tuesday I think it will be time for Bernie to scale it back so Hillary can start building a general election coalition. I just hope she does not count on motivating the left wing of the party to turn out by fear of Trump rather than support for her because that has not worked well for Democrats since 1964
The anti establishment mood is in both parties constituents, though taking different forms of reasoning.
I agree, if what Bev is suggesting that the dem’s are not being realistic about what I believe is a dominate mood. Clinton can not claim any anti establishment cred. If Trump truly is acting out the part to win the nomination and then come back from that Clinton and the dem are going to be in for a fight.
Trump has made it clear about war, trade, jobs (favoring a protectionism like policy) along with his bombastic ideas regarding peace in the world and how to get there. I can see some dems voting for him based on the trade/jobs/war stuff doing the trade off calculations.
If this happens, what is there in Clinton, what is there she can do to assure she really is for going after the financial side of our economy and restoring it to it’s proper roll of support for the production economy and not as an equal to or primary to an economy? All of which is ties together all the other problems with our economy.
Beverly,
I’m puzzled by your claim that “it is Sanders, not Clinton, who very well may be the weaker candidate against the likely Republican nominee: Donald Trump.” That is of course what all the VSP say, and at times the only argument that Clinton supporters offer is that she is “more electable,” despite pols showing the opposite (of course polls this early on are pretty meaningless.) But I doubt that anyone has the least idea of who would be “more electable” in 2016, particularly in the unprecedented situation we’d have with Trump as the GOP nominee.
Oooooh. Yeah, that was a cut-and-paste typo, Bob. Makes me cringe. I noticed it last night and corrected it, and added a correction notice at the bottom of the post. I’ve been saying the opposite here for months.
Bob ,
Get used to it. Although it’s contrary to almost everyone’s lived experience , we’ll be told over and over how there’s no way we’d elect Sanders , who we like , and will instead elect Clinton , who , the more we see of her , the less we like.
Iraq has WMD. Assad gassed his own people.Hillary is not a sociopath , she’s a sweetie. Repeat the establishment themes often enough , they figure , and eventually it will penetrate those thick American skulls. Most of the time , sadly , they’re right.
Do I really have to remind myself of the number of “solid progressives” who assured me over and over and over again how “completely impossible” it was to elect a black one term senator as president?
Mercy sakes alive.
The Democratic Party which I have supported my entire life needs to accept that I prefer to lose with the right candidate than win with the wrong one (again).
And maybe they need to seriously consider what that actually means.
I’m now an independent, and Amateur Socialist’s sentiment fits my move.
I will do nothing to support the wrong candidate’s party.
Ooooosh. All I can say to you, Amateur Socialist and Ilsm, is that I hope you don’t live in a swing state.
Nothing–nothing–will keep me from voting for the Dem nominee in November. Well, actually, for voting against the Republican nominee.
Just focus a teensy bit on Samuel Alito, guys. Just a teensy bit is all it should take.
I’m not afraid of Alito. I survived Rahm as Obama’s Chief of Staff. And Dick Morris as Clinton’s adviser etc.
Try to consider the glass half full. Maybe President Trump will (at least) make the Daily Show funny again. It’s something.
Maybe I could focus a teensy bit on Alito if I wasn’t consumed by thoughts of what awaits this country when it’s run by another PNAC-type neocon. By someone who , when introduced to Victoria Nuland, instead of saying ” Get that nutjob away from me ! ” , instead says ” Oh , yes , Vicky , you’re just the person I need in my State Dept. You’re in charge of “Russian Relations”. Job One for you is pulling Putin’s chain. K ? ”
I already know Clinton will be a disaster as Potus. With Trump , there’s at least a chance that he’ll turn out to be the same obnoxious but relatively harmless buffoon that he’s been as a candidate.
Alito is the least of my concerns. He can’t launch nukes.
The fail safe is getting about 4 to 6 more people like Sanders, Warren, Brown in the senate.
I personally don’t have any real doubt about Trump winning the GOP nomination, or at least about him being a 3rd party candidate should the GOP suddenly discover the backbone to take back their party and thwart his nomination. But the fault line of fear and loathing between Trump and both movement conservatives and neocons is seismic.
Krugman’s concerns, and those of many to or of the left, are all about electability. Since the late ’60s, I have watched all kinds of “left” movements crash and burn due mainly to a loss of nerve, as if “leftists” secretly doubt the validity of their own ideas — afraid to say the wrong word at Thanksgiving dinner.
As Galbraith pointed out, neither Krugman nor any of the other Gang of Four — centrist politico/economists (excepting Krugman, perhaps) — challenged Friedman’s findings based on a critique of his work. Theirs was, as much as anything, a knee-jerk reaction based on those old “leftist” fears of losing elections. You can sense Krugman’s anxiety: if we just tippy-toe through the minefield, we will win simply because we won’t sound as crazy as the GOP candidates.
To me that’s like frequenting the one Chinese restaurant in town with only two dishes: Chop Suey or Lo Mein. Jesus, we can do so much better.
If the argument is about Friedman’s work, critique it. Until then I will stand with him and Galbraith and a host of others who say, yes, big things will happen when you think big. What if Sanders, Friedman and Galbraith are right? I” be left with a cold plate of Lo Mein singing what might have been.
If the argument is simply about electability, look at the polls. I haven’t seen a single one yet that shows Hillary does better than Bernie against any of the opposition, including Trump.
And one more poll is worth bearing in mind if for no other reason than to steady one’s nerves as we all overdose on the Trump phenomenon: a Gallup poll in December said 50% of Americans would be embarrassed by a Trump presidency.
If you’re still hanging on to the “Not my favorite but more electable” rationalization, you probably ought to consider the potential wild card of deposing top Clinton aides on the email server between now and November. It’s not impossible that there are some real surprises there. In May and June etc all the way through to October.
Or maybe somebody will pop up with transcripts or videos of those speeches she gave.
drip drip drip
Hey Guys, I believe Hillary is more electable than Bernie but I was certainly prepared to change my mind by the time I got a chance to vote in a primary but unless something very unexpected happens next month Hillary is going to be the nominee and if the progressives stay home out of picque in November we will have a facist in the White House with right wing control of both houses of Congress and a SCOTUS that will step aside as they turn this country into something like Russia
Two ostriches.
geez
Concerning a range of issues — TPP, income inequality, Medicare for all, strengthening Social Security, $15/hour minimum wage, breaking up the banks, infrastructure spending, amnesty for undocumented workers, free college education, FTT, anti-military adventurism, etc. — I think far too many liberal-left Democrats and Progressives have given up the fight purely on the grounds of electability. It is a timidity born of the wave of attention Trump gets and an assumption that his support will only increase over time and a fear that he will win.
Without question Trump generates fanatical support from the Yahoos of the Tea Party and the reactionary right. But what does the electorate as a whole think?
Gallup, Jan. 27 – 60% view Trump unfavorably. Hillary is at 52% unfavorable. Bernie is at 31% unfavorable.
“Trump’s 60% is clearly well above all of these. Putting his favorable and unfavorable ratings together yields a net favorable of -27 for Trump, far above the -10 for Clinton.”
“I [Frank Newport] wanted to see how Trump’s unfavorable played out in the context of previous elections, so I went back to look at the unfavorable ratings of the major-party candidates from 1992 through the current election. The bottom line is that Trump now has a higher unfavorable rating than any candidate at any time during all of these previous election cycles…”
Trump is unelectable. The fear that comes from watching him on TV 22 hours a day is unfounded. But Hillary is not on much firmer ground. If the Dems nominate her, the race will be far closer than if they nominate Bernie.
The Hill, Feb. 28 – “Bernie Sanders has passed Hillary Clinton at the top of a national poll for the first time in the 2016 race.”
“A Fox News poll of the Democratic presidential race released Thursday shows Sanders with 47 percent support to Clinton’s 44 percent. That’s a gain of 10 percentage points for Sanders from a January version of the poll. Clinton’s support declined 5 points.”
“Clinton posted leads as high as 30 points over the summer, but Sanders has been steadily closing the gap. While no other poll of the race going back to 2014 has ever showed Clinton trailing a rival, she led Sanders by just 2 points in the last two Quinnipiac University tracking polls.”
“It’s unclear whether the numbers are outliers or indicative of a dramatic change in the race. Outside of the Quinnipiac poll, Clinton posted double-digit leads in all three national polls conducted in February, with the largest lead coming in at 21 percentage points.”
“One thing that is clear from our poll — and others — is that Clinton has been losing support and Sanders has been gaining,” said Democratic pollster Chris Anderson, who assisted Fox News on the poll.”
If the only question is one of electability, ok then, who is more electable?
Quinnipiac, Feb. 18 – “American voters back Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont over Republican candidates by margins of 4 to 10 percentage points in head to head presidential matchups, according to a Quinnipiac University National poll released today. The closest Republican contender is Ohio Gov. John Kasich who trails Sanders 45 – 41 percent. “
“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trails or ties leading Republicans in the November face-off, the independent Quinnipiac University Poll finds.”
Shall we fear Trump? No, I believe he is unelectable. Shall we abandon the issues that are most pressing — and for which I bet a whole lot of people on these pages would have been pushing strenuously a year ago – simply for expediency now that the knees quiver a bit. Why? We haven’t even had the fight yet, but the white flags are being raised.
There has never been a more propitious moment to advance a meaningful progressive agenda in the last 50 years. Bernie calls himself a Democratic Socialist, as did Martin Luther King by the way – but he’s simply a New Deal Democrat. The last time anyone was making the arguments he makes was in the ‘60s when MLK and RFK were leading the way. These are not radical arguments. If you believe in them, then fight for them, damn it.
” … TPP, income inequality, Medicare for all, strengthening Social Security, $15/hour minimum wage, breaking up the banks, infrastructure spending, amnesty for undocumented workers, free college education, FTT, anti-military adventurism, etc. ”
Etc.? Does rebuilding high union density belong anywhere under “etc.”? These days this is usually number one or two critical way back to health listed by top progressive economists — now that they have finally caught on, woken up, etc. Do you think we would have to worry about everything (anything) else on that list if we had a 1950s level union density (think Germany)?
Shall we abandon the issues that are most pressing (to borrow from somewhere)? The last time anyone was making this argument about the all or nothing need for effective labor unions (for fair politics as well as collective bargaining) the “anyone” was MLK.
To be pedantic about the economic health brought on by unions — to sell unions to a political culture that has forgotten about them — multiple angles for the many:
To approach perfect competition the monopsony condition of the labor market (one buyer) must be balanced off by the monopoly of a labor union (one seller) — only way for half the means of production (the labor half) to test the willingness of the (ultimate) consumer to pay.
When we raise the minimum wage we think how it will impact the (ultimate) consumer. Ditto for setting labor’s price via contract. Without collective bargaining labor falls into what I call a subsistence-plus ghetto where labor is paid according to how many steps above subsistence (lowest skilled) labor it is instead of what the consumer market will pay.
Doubling top 1% income decreases overall demand because they cannot spend it all (so called “secular stagnation” — the word secular is from the Latin for generational as opposed to cyclical, just for clarity). Draining lower incomes leads to lower education, health, etc.: draining their productivity.
(PS. 5 1/2% growth is just short of the Chinese — maybe if we all work 10 more hours a week and invest more of it than now, or if we capture and reverse engineer a flying saucer to jump start productivity. Improved distribution could temporarily jump GDP, trough-to-peak — that’s the only way 5 1/2% could even temporarily happen.)
Any form of major market manipulation or coercion leads to serious jail sentences (try to take a movie in the movies and tell them you were just kidding — a couple of years) — except in the labor market. Union busting eats away at every other democratic institution not just at economic fairness for the great majority of Americans — it is illegal everywhere and significantly penalized nowhere.
For pol or econ better or worse joining a union should just be a matter of personal freedom. Which brings up a no-fail issue to beat Trump — one his billionaire self cannot possibly co-opt with the blue collar (should be Democrats). We are now working on our 26th right-to-work-state (WV). We cannot reasonably think of making union busting a federal crime anytime soon. What we need is to start establishing right-to-collectively-bargain states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD, etc.).
In the presidential election the Republicans can no way claim that the right to bargain in the free market can add to the federal budget — it only empowers people; especially the blue collar people who love Trump. Love to see him try to squirm out of this one.
Unions are too far out of the national cultural eye these days for even ABers to keep them foremost in mind (or in mind at all?). ” There has never been a more propitious moment to advance a meaningful progressive agenda in the last 50 years. “
My bad, Denis Drew. No question. I think even WV went right-to-work the other day. I also forgot Citizens United. And, if pressed, I bet I could find a comment made a few months back by Larry Summers of all people arguing that we need stronger unions.
And yet Madame secretary remained silent while Walmart engaged in anti-union activities while she was on the board of directors.
I don’t even want to think about Trump vs Clinton with no alternatives.
Crazy versus evil isn’t a choice I like to make.
I will never vote for more war, and that is what Clinton wants.
More fun I am in a swing state!
Mx 57,
George McGovern ran on a very progressive platform in 1972. If Bernie is the candidate, let us hope that he does better than McGovern did (and I am saying that as a former adviser of McGovern’s).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-white-supremacist-sec-primary_us_56cf4437e4b0bf0dab31222f
Barkley Rosser, amen to that. Remembering those days, though, it is not really possible to argue they were propitious for a progressive agenda. God Bless George McGovern. Few remember he was a decorated bomber pilot in WWII, which made his hatred of the Vietnam War all the more…authentic, and honorable. There’s no way to know whether he would have supported Hillary or Bernie, of course, but I’d wager on it.
George Mc Govern flew USAAF B-24’s a big hard to fly bomber on long missions from Italians bases.
Barkley, George McGovern was the first presidential candidate I was old enough to vote for although I canvassed for Eugene McCarthy in 1968. Query if RFK had not been shot would all of the “progressives” have supported him? Nixon was an evil crook but arguably is about where Hillary is these days. I would love to support Bernie and maybe it is different this time but I think it is over on the Democratic side and Hillary is do vastly superior to any GOP candidate that I find this whole string horribly depressing. If the left had turned out in 1972 things would be very different today. Hell if the left had turned out ever since 1964 it would be a very different country but the left does not turn out preferring to bitch about the results instead of influencing them and at my age I am a total realist and regardless of her flaws will support Hillary in a state that only went blue in 2008 in the last 100 years
I don’t think people realize the extent to which the tectonic plates have slipped in the GOP. It’s Trump vs. movement conservatives — National Review and George Will have openly declared war on him. It’s Trump vs. Wall Street — that hatred is mutual and intense. It’s Trump vs. the neocons — he totally repudiated their adventure in Iraq in ’03. It’s even Trump vs. the grandees of foreign policy — Robert Gates said of all the GOP candidates that their grasp of national security issues “would embarrass a middle schooler”; just yesterday there was an article in Foreign Policy entitled “Trump’s National Security Policy Would Look Like a High-School Model UN.”
That is not how you win elections.
The candidates:
http://election.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/trump-clinton-wedding-cropped2.jpg
“On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses. In a state like Nevada, where Democrats are more diverse than in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders needed to win by a reasonable margin. Superdelegates constitute about 8% of all Democratic delegates, and Hillary gets nearly all of those. The remaining 92% are given out proportionally to the popular vote. To get enough of the election-based delegates, Sanders needs about 54% of the vote across all primaries.
He’s just not headed there. Tonight Sanders got 47% of delegates. Next week in South Carolina, polls suggest he will get 33% of delegates. This is not a winning trajectory.” http://election.princeton.edu/2016/02/20/south-carolina-nevada-open-thread/#more-14220 Princeton Election Consortium
A 4-candidate race on the Republican side allows Trump to win with 40% of the vote in the primaries. With Jeb dropping out, Ribio pulled even with Cruz. To beat Trump, two more have to drop out.
J.Goodwin, I don’t think Hillary Clinton is evil. She’s just not what I’m looking for in a presidential nominee, or in a president. And she’s incessantly saying obviously ridiculous things about Sanders’ proposals and Sanders’ campaign, and about her own candidacy and about herself. But even with that, I don’t think she’s evil.
PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan endorses you know who :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html
If American voters had a lick of common sense , this single endorsement would crater Hillary’s chances for the Dem nomination , much less the presidency.
Unfortunately…..
Apparently Hillary has been endorsed by Robert Kagan (co-founder with Bill Kristol of the Project for a New American Century), who once wrote an article (self-)describing the main components of American neo-conservatism as a belief in the rectitude of applying US moralism to the world stage, support for the US to act alone, the promotion of American-style liberty and democracy in other countries, the belief in American hegemony, the confidence in US military power, and a distrust of international institutions. Kagan describes his foreign-policy views as “deeply rooted in American history and widely shared by Americans”.
President Hillary Clinton says hello!
Kagan’s wife started out as a career foreign service officer, rose to some sort of aide to Strobe Talbot in Bill’s State dept, today assisted the coup in Ukraine.
Obama in it as well Kagan is on 2 year term at advisory level to Secretary of State.
PNAC is an alternate reality that has one of two foci which are not compatible with “We the People”.
This is my one issue!
NPR just mentioned this “scathing” editorial in todays NYT admonishing Madame Secretary to release the transcripts of her speeches… http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/mrs-clinton-show-voters-those-transcripts.html?_r=0
drip
drip
drip
The wheels appear to be coming off. Just like in 2008.
You’re not a realist at all, Terry. You think it’s still the Vietnam War era and the Cold War is still raging and the Iraq War and the financial industry collapse and the Great Recession haven’t yet happened and income inequality is relatively small and most of the people who voted in 1972 aren’t dead.
What happened in 1972 was very, very predictable, and was very, very predicted. This time, not so much. But people are starting to do an analysis based on anecdotes and such.
Here’s a link to a really good article this morning by two MSNBC writers that I think gets to the heart of the equation:http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-democrats-fear-donald-trump
He is not old enough for Vietnam
Establishment dems fear Trump because his message applies to them more than establishment GOPsters.
I will vote Trump against Clinton!
It has been rather shocking to me the way Jeb! and now Madame Secretary in turn have seemingly operated under similar principles. Essentially both campaigns have been largely tone deaf to the policy rejections by their respective bases, apparently believing that all will be resolved by yet another “introduction” (read: Sales pitch) campaign.
Neither yet has been able to figure out that maybe it’s not the pitch, it’s the product. Excellent analysis here: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-decline-and-fall-of-hillary-clinton.html
Money quote:
“…the entire rhetoric of presidential politics in the United States for decades now has fixated on the claim that one party’s pet stooge won’t do anything quite as appalling as the other side’s will, even though they all support the same policies and are bought and sold by the same corrupt interests. Over and over again, we’ve been told that we have to vote for whatever candidate this or that party has retched up, because otherwise the other side will get to nominate a Supreme Court justice or two, or get us into another war, or do something else bad. Any suggestion that a candidate might be expected to do something positive—that he or she might, for example, reject the bipartisan policies that have crashed the standard of living for most Americans, consigned the nation’s infrastructure to malign neglect, and pursued gargantuan corporate welfare programs, such as the worthless F-35 fighter, at the expense of anything more useful or necessary—is dismissed out of hand as “unrealistic.”
End quote.
Another critical component I think needs to be considered about Trump: He is not just operating outside the conventional boundaries of rhetoric, but also outside the existing conventional expectations of consultants and media.
Mark Halperin observed yesterday that The Donald has yet to buy A SINGLE AD IN ANY SUPER TUESDAY STATE. If he continues to win primaries without subscribing to the default fundraising/media buy/consultant machine he is taking away a very big rice bowl. For a lot of (formerly) important people.
Ilsm ,
” I will vote Trump against Clinton! ”
Me too. In fact , since that scenario looks increasingly probable , I’m working on organizing a nationwide network of Trump progressives , particularly those who can’t stomach the thought of another proud , card-carrying , neoliberal Dem in the White House. If we’re going to have Republican economics , we may as well have a Republican in charge.
I’m calling my network : ” Krugmanites ! for Trump “. ( I borrowed Jeb’s exclamation point – he won’t be needing it any more. )
I’ll have T-shirts , caps , pins – the whole nine yards. As our next President might say : ” It’ll be terrific !! “
HYOOOOGE!
Put me down for a yard sign it will look great next to our Bernie 2016 one.
Beverly Mann, thanks for the article. Very interesting. The 30% to 40% chance of Trump winning an election seems about right to me. A larger share of the popular vote seems impossible to me. Much of the article, of course, is based on the ifs and unknowns of an unorthodox campaign/candidate, which make people nervous. But commenters forget the extent to which he is so firmly disliked — personally, viscerally disliked, as in I’d never have such a foul-mouthed narcissistic braggart to my house. The only poll I’ve seen that clarifies that was one in December where 50% said they would be embarrassed to have him as their president. That number doesn’t shrink over time; I’d bet it’s higher today. I have seen this over and over when talking to people myself.
What does and ought to cause real agita for Dems is the same thing that does and ought to cause real hope for Reps: the nomination of Hillary. That point is simply beyond dispute.
In my life I often find myself torn between either the smart thing to do (the intellectual argument), and/or the right thing to do (the ethical or moral argument) and/or the expedient thing to do (the question of conscience or personal honor). Rarely do the three align so easily as they do when I think of Hillary. To have watched the Clintons all these years, beginning as an ardent supporter, is to realize that there are only marginal differences, at best, between Hillary and Trump in how they see the world. Forget policy disputes under TV lights, think board meetings and charity events.
Marko,
Put me down for a dumper sticker and a tee shirt.
My Bernie tee is in the mail.
Post a link when you are ready!
Here we go!
https://www.facebook.com/Democratsfortrump/
We’ll return the favor: Republicans for Bernie!
Most Trump progressives used to be called Yellow Dog Democrats.
The racist wing of the American party system.
Some of the news scrolls yesterday were saying that Bloomberg was positioning himself as Clinton’s running mate.
And I thought the Bush election years had bad matchups.
Yup. Definitely what a Clinton ticket would need.
Then again, he could promise to fund the entire remainder of the campaign. Take that, Donald Trump!
I think what matters more than the number of Bernie supporters who will actually vote for trump is whether or not the DNC is AFRAID they will.
I think Madame Secretary is too far gone to pander to his voters honestly. She just doesn’t have the husband’s chops for it.
Trump’s racism is as real as Bernie’s socialism.