Another day, another indication that the Clinton campaign remains dangerously clueless about what will matter most in the general election. Ho-hum.
Clinton’s aides say they have settled on the big story they want to tell about Trump: He is a business fraud who has cheated working people for his own gain, and his ideas, temperament and moves to marginalize people by race, gender and creed make him simply unacceptable as commander in chief.
— Clinton thinks she knows how to take on Trump. Will it work?, Philip Rucker, Washington Post, today
I’m assuming that Clinton’s aides have considered also pointing out that, on policy proposal after policy proposal after policy proposal, Trump has now adopted an extreme version of the Paul Ryan supply-side fiscal-policy as stated in the Ryan budget plans, including the current one that passed the House. I’m assuming they’ve considered illustrating that Trump, rather than having coopted the Republican Party and its elite-dictated establishment policies, has been cooped by the elite, the establishment as their puppet.
Romney promised to reduce upper-income taxes only by 20% initially, with a promise to cut further later and then cut some more after that. (See, e.g., Romney’s speech to the Detroit Economic Club shortly before the 2012 Michigan primary.) Trump ups Romney’s ante.
But, I assume, since the above quote implies it, that Clinton’s aides have rejected mentioning any of this. And—just an educated guess here—that that is because they will be saying instead that Trump’s ideas, temperament and moves to marginalize people by race, gender and creed make him simply unacceptable as commander in chief.
This should suffice, because, I mean, don’t identity politics always suffice? And because these messages are mutually exclusive. You can’t argue identity politics and fiscal policy; you have to choose one or the other—and the power of identity politics trumps elite-establishment-dictated fiscal policy whose very purpose is to dramatically increase wealth and income inequality and of course consequently political power that will be used to further increase wealth and income inequality.
Always. Even when the driving themes of the election cycle are anti-elitism, anti-establishment, anti-wealth inequality and anti-donor-and lobbyist-dictated government policy.
Which I guess explains why the very first thing Clinton did after winning all those northeastern primaries earlier this month and virtually ensuring her the nomination—literally, the very first thing she did, beginning the very next day—was to phone some of Jeb Bush’s donors and ask them for donations.
Clinton continues to run a really awful campaign. And I’m betting that that’s not entirely her top campaign staff’s fault. They do play a role in this, obviously; not the sole role, though.
Not the sole role, though.
Clinton’s aides probably believe “voters—even those who are well informed and politically engaged—mostly choose parties and candidates on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not political issues.”
Democracy for Realists:
And that worked just so well for Dem Senate and House candidates in 2014.
Yeah, no doubt Clinton and her aides think that. They also think it’s still, oh, I don’t know–1992, maybe?
“And that worked just so well for Dem Senate and House candidates in 2014.”
Seriously Beverly? I thought it was a low turn out for Dems as compared to a higher turn out for Repubs. I thought the gerrymandering of states in place helped to skew results also. We failed ourselves miserably in 2014 and stayed home before Hillary ever made the decision to run.
Today, the Dems think it is 2008 and 2012 again when Dems do turn out for presidential elections. The only thing which could cause this not to happen in 2016 is a concerted effort to beat ourselves internally for which you appear to be fanning the flames of discontent with half-truths on various issues. Some of us do watch the effort and read too.
Well, YES, it was because turnout for Dems was much lower than turnout or Repubs. Dramatically lower. The question is, why was it so, so much lower in 2010 and 2014 than it was in 2006, when the Dems recaptured the Senate by flipping (if I recall correctly) six—he houisix!—seats?
Sure, 2006 was the sixth year of the Bush administration. But the housing bubble was at its peak that year, and the economy was considered good. In 2010 there was the Tea Party movement and all the BS about Obamacare destroying America as we know it, killing the economy, and killing Grandma. And thanks to that election, which flipped party control in so many statehouses and legislatures, there was dramatic gerrymandering.
But gerrymandering does not impact the makeup of the Senate. What mattered was that the Dem Senate (and House) candidates were instructed by the DNC, he DSCC and the DCCC to run “local” elections. No, sir, no ma’am, this was not to be a national campaign, in which, say, the Dem candidates would point out that the Repubs wanted to repeal Dodd-Frank and virtually eliminate all financial-industry regulations—including the Durbin Amendment, the statute that bars the $400 McDonald’s hamburger thanks to overdraft fees, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—the first and third of these which virtually no one even knew about, and which virtually no one stills knows about.
No, 2014 was to be an election about WOMEN. Specifically, about ABORTION. And that’s exacty what it was. Remember Mark “Uterus” Udall? I sure do—even though he’s, um, no longer in the Senate.
I know you regard Yves Smith very highly. She republished my entire post on NC, with this preface:
“Yves here. This post puts some meat on an observation made by political scientist Tom Ferguson months ago: that the strategy that Clinton was using to win the Democratic party nomination, that of heavy reliance on identity politics, would be a loser in the general election. Beverly Mann describes how Team Clinton seems unable to change course. And she makes an additional astute point: it isn’t just that Hillary is a terrible candidate. She is a terrible campaigner. In other words, her defects in how she comes off aren’t simply those of not having charisma or being able to fake enjoying pressing the flesh. It’s that she has lousy political instincts, likely reinforced by years of surrounding herself with sycophants.
“The relentless focus on lowest common denominator issues also suggests that her campaign holds voters in deep contempt, as incapable of digesting anything other that the political equivalent of raw meat.”
Yeah, run. I’m no political scientist, but Tom Ferguson (whom I’d never heard of before) is.
A few days ago Dahlia Lithwick wrote a piece on Slate talking about how much this election has strained her relationship with some close liberal friends of hers. She’s Hillary-all-the-way. They’re Go-Bernie! I feel at this point that that’s what’s happening with you and me. I don’t like it, but that’s how I feel.
13 house seats were lost and the make up of those states were skewed by state elections. What was bad got worst. Gerrymandering plays a role in The House. You failed to take this into account as well as a low turn out and then you come back with a long barrage of??? Over all The Senate was fumbled by the Dems.
“State by state, the Democrats couldn’t get it together. There was the bitter feud between Democratic leaders over their candidate in South Dakota. A fumbled Democratic recruitment in Montana. A flawed Democratic candidate in Iowa who required multiple interventions. The surprising resiliency of Rep. Cory Gardner, who easily knocked off incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall in Colorado. An opponent to Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky who never became the distracting challenge Democrats needed. And a failure to capitalize on a weak Republican in Georgia whose campaign couldn’t keep him from proudly embracing outsourcing.” Quick and dirty from Politico.
2014 was the year of a vote for Republicans is a vote against Obama. And people bought into it when it counted the most a nonpresidential year.
You do this at times. Barkley catches you at it, EMichael catches you, and if I was not active in Michigan politics I would miss it. This is sloppy Bev and not up to your normal level of political and legal acumen. One liners do not become you and the barrage is not an answer.
I wouldn’t get too worried about the general campaign. A Democratic narrative is going to be told that covers everything mentioned here. Trump might win, but it won’t be because Democrats failed to point out that his proposals tilt strongly towards reinforcing wealth. That will be told over and over. Anyone with any interest in the election will have heard 50 times prior to voting all the reasons not to vote for Trump and all the reasons not to vote for Clinton.
“I’m assuming that Clinton’s aides have considered also pointing out that, on policy proposal after policy proposal after policy proposal, Trump has now adopted an extreme version of the Paul Ryan supply-side fiscal-policy as stated in the Ryan budget plans, including the current one that passed the House. ”
You could be right: that Trump will just be a regular Republican, as bad as that is, and not “populist” and that will convince voters to vote against him.
But I wouldn’t bet on it. I wouldn’t be so sure. There’s a reason Paul Ryan didn’t embrace him as Chris Christie did. Trump isn’t an ideological far right Republican as Ryan is. Trump is an America Firster and nativist when it comes to trade, immigration and foreign policy. The Republican Party isn’t even if their voters apparently are.
The analogy would be Hitler. The titans of business and the old guard of the conservative order backed him over the communists, but Hitler did what he wanted and revived the economy by building the autobahn and military Keynesianism and the voters embraced his race hatred and xenophobia. Trump is more of a businessman and “deal-maker” than Hitler, but his campaign has been built on national chauvinism an order higher than we usually get from Republicans as hard is that is to believe.
Trump is running against an establishment that sold us out, just as the Nazis promoted vengeance against the “stab in the back” by weak German leaders.
I just think and hope and expect that the American electorate is too diverse to allow a Trump victory. Woman and Latinos will save us.
Trump wrecking the country is no problem compared to the death of 1000 cut to the New Deal for big $$$$.
Hillary’s issue is with independents.
It will be a mix of 2010 and 2014. Voter participation well below presidential levels.
Whether Wasserman Schultz goes or not it is a 2014 mood.
I went from dem voting against the GOPsters in 2014 to independent staying home if HRC is top of the slate.
Tired of being betrayed for voting for the lesser evil.
Peter K said: “Trump is an America Firster and nativist when it comes to trade, immigration and foreign policy. The Republican Party isn’t even if their voters apparently are.”
Who is the Republican Party if not its voters? Do you mean some party elites? Which party elites would those be. Please be specific.
To put “Trump” and “policies” in the same sentence is to miss the point entirely.
Trump is anti-policy and anti-politics. Rather, he heads the mob storming the Bastille. He is 100% right when he says “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot people and I wouldn’t lose voters.”
So who is Trump, whom the mob follows blindly?
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy for others. People with the disorder often come across as arrogant, callous, and envious, and tend to be exploitative in their interpersonal relationships. They can be excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity.
These are the basic ingredients:
Positive: Narcissists think they are better than others.
Inflated: Narcissists’ views tend to be contrary to reality. In measures that compare self-report to objective measures, narcissists’ self-views tend to be greatly exaggerated.
Agentic: Narcissists’ views tend to be most exaggerated in the self-agency vs. community domains.
Special: Narcissists perceive themselves to be unique and special people.
Oriented toward success: Narcissists are oriented towards success by being approach oriented where rules don’t matter; where winning itself is both aim and justification.
That is Trump, who is basically a psychopath. But who is the mob, and what the Bastille?
Oh, man, the mob is royally pissed off: blind, angry, ignorant – and out for blood. And if you’ve ever been in a riot, you know well that reason, that “policy,” does not exist.
The Bastille is the Royal House of Clinton’s “Neo-Liberal Agenda.” Americans have been sold out by supply-side economics, by globalization, and by the financialization of the economy. They lose good paying jobs, income to spend and hope of prosperity. They see no future. They see banks bailed out while losing their own jobs and their own homes. They see credit card debt and college debts their kids have run up getting an education that leads nowhere mounting, pressing. Anxiety rises, anger rises, and all they hear from the political class – all of whom are rightly held responsible for the decisions they have made, and all of whom are in the pockets of the elite “donor class” – is more and more happy horseshit about “policy.”
So they break out in rebellion; they want blood. The psychopath promises to destroy all of it. “Fuck Your Policy” they say, “and fuck you while we’re at it” — this is our policy! F**K the n*****s, f**k the s***s, f**k the “ragheads.”
I grew up in Florida. When a rattlesnake showed up in your backyard, you killed it. We all face two rattlesnakes in the yard – and not just Americans: Europeans, South Americans, Africans, Asians…all of us.
The first are the Trumps on the rise everywhere: the racists, the nationalists, the neo-fascists, the reactionaries, the rightists; they only thrive when “democracy” and democratic political institutions have failed: witness WWII.
The second is the neo-liberal agenda that serves the interests of the tiniest minority of the population at the direct, concrete, material expensive of the vast majority of the population. All social systems – politics, economics — that do not serve the interests of the majority must be abolished.
Trump understands nothing, stands for nothing but Trump. Her Royal Highness recognizes none of this, stands for nothing but the neo-liberal agenda, established by the House of Clinton, which is to be protected by the neo-con “assertion” of military power wherever and at whatever time they decide to do so – and all in the name of “the people” and “national defense.”
Trump or Clinton? American Exceptionalism at its finest.
The world is sick, friends. The cure is comprised entirely of the ideas expressed by the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, Joseph Stieglitz and Robert Reich and Noam Chomsky.
We all have a role to play in regaining our health.
It just never stops.
“Even when the driving themes of the election cycle are anti-elitism, anti-establishment, anti-wealth inequality and anti-donor-and lobbyist-dictated government policy. ”
Umm, no. As much as I wish this were true, the two nominees that have received the majority of votes have not had their campaigns driven by these themes.
No one can plausibly say that Trump’s campaign has not been driven by a deep antipathy towards elites, the establishment and government policies. I hope I won’t have to go digging for direct quotes where he expresses such views over and over and over again.
Just as no one can plausibly say that Sanders’ campaign has not been driven by “anti-elitism, anti-establishment, anti-wealth inequality and anti-donor-and lobbyist-dictated government policy.”
To slip in the caveat about receiving the majority of votes is a conscious effort at rhetorical evasion. I could point to several aspects of Hillary’s campaign where she addresses these issues as well.
You can find quotes from Trump on almost anything. His campaign is about one thing and one thing only, racism. That is it. Everything else is just window dressing. He tapped into the solid RW base that has existed since the Civil Rights Act.
The idea that Trump has endorsed attacks on elites is kind of silly, as he has run based on the fact that he is an elite.
Everybody has built in prejudices weather we know it or not. The Democrats make sure everybody’s vote counts legal or not. The Republicans do their best to make sure their vote doesn’t count. Hence the new parties are arising from the ashes of the past party failures that are still riding on the coat tails of the old party platforms. Trump could be called the New American Party while Sanders could be called the New Democratic-Socialist Party or the NDS Party. One thing for sure is that this time around real political change is in the wind and is coming to Washington. Only time will tell if major political change becomes a good or bad thing…
” The Democrats make sure everybody’s vote counts legal or not.”
No point in reading anything after this sentence…….
Trump is a psychopath, but if you can’t use his own words to demonstrate how he relentlessly attacks elites, the establishment and the government because he’ll say anything, what have you got?
You may choose to deny it, EMichael, but the populist rebels of the reactionary right whom he leads listen very carefully to his words, which affirm what they want to hear and define what they feel, and if you don’t see that they are driven by “anti-elitism, anti-establishment, anti-wealth inequality and anti-donor-and lobbyist-dictated government policy” then you’re just not paying attention.
Let’s take one area. The ACA is now the establishment. Sanders wants to expand the role of government in healthcare. Trump wants to eliminate the role of government in healthcare.
Yet somehow people add up those tow things and say that there is an agreement in their supporters because they are both “anti-establishment”.
No, no there isn’t.
In other news of Madame Secretary’s awfulness you have this: https://twitter.com/hashtag/BernieTrumpDebate?src=tren
(popping popcorn, lighting grill, chilling beverages, sending watch party invites).
I hope they put a life sized cardboard cutout of her in front of one of the podiums.
That’s like saying the one brown grain of sand found on the white beach means it’s not a white beach.
If the ACA is the establishment, and Trump says “let’s abolish it,” isn’t that necessarily anti-establishment?
The phrase is: “anti-elitism, anti-establishment, anti-wealth inequality and anti-donor-and lobbyist-dictated government policy.” It is a general statement. You raise up a brown grain of sand and say aha, the beach isn’t white. Feel free.
Almost everything in Sanders’ platform would sicken the average Trump supporter. Almost everything in Trump’s platform would sicken the average Sanders supporter.
You see an allegiance that does not exist, based on both groups of supporters wanting change.
If Sanders debates Trump it will be the second worst thing he could possibly do to the progressive movement in this country. Only thing worse would be running as a 3rd party candidate. He really needs to think about this.
It is called paying to your audience.
LOL. “Your mileage may vary…” He’s making me want to send him another $500.
And your default condescension is duly noted. Pitiful.
Your pitiful comment made me wonder what would be the first worst thing he could do. Guessing: Beat her to the nomination? Again, pitiful dude.
I’m with you, brother. Loan me $500 and I’ll pay you back. Absent that I’ll continue to make my own meager but constant contributions to Bernie’s campaign.
Nothing in the world could be more advantageous to a truly Progressive agenda than a debate with Trump, who would get his head handed to him. It’s the agenda that matters most of all. If Bernie loses, HRC looks even stronger against Bernie. If Bernie wins, HRC will learn best how to handle Trump — by being more Progressive than the weak tea she serves up.
The only real danger to her — and luckily neither she nor Schultz have a damn thing to say about it — is if and/or when Bernie gives Trump a thumping. Let’s have it out in the name of American democracy — the hell with politics!
Quite so. And veering back into Bev’s main topic, it’s yet another unforced error by Madame Secretary. Who could have kept the narrative of her legitimacy well in hand by just agreeing to show up and debate Bernie.
But no. She had to do the HRC thing and presume her ascension unbothered by questions about her policies and conduct. Ok then.
Game on Bernie indeed.
Here are a couple of polls on Reuters today showing that Hillary loses white women to Trump: http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_13/filters/LIKELY:1,SC_RACE:1,SEX:2/dates/20160401-20160524/type/smallest
While Bernie beats Trump easily among the same voters here: http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM651Y15_14/filters/SEX:2,SC_RACE:1,LIKELY:1/dates/20160508-20160524/type/day
It’s a pretty cool page you can see how the candidates do by applying filters below. Not if you’re an HRC supporter though, this kind of undermines a key conceit of the HRC campaign, that she would “easily” win moderate GOP leaning women. Not so fast there Madame Secretary.
So you guys are telling me that another Sanders?Clinton debate would change something? Are you telling me that every single interested voter in the Dem primaries has not seen their positions a couple of hundred times? I see no purpose to another debate, if you fell that way just lobby to get the first debates rebroadcast.
Meanwhile, Sanders debating Trump would be an unwinnable debate for Sanders. Granted, his programs are vastly different than Trump’s(whatever they end up being). But all Trump would have to do is sit there and say “Bernie, take your ideas to a third party since you can’t win the Dem nomination, and the Dems have said no to your plans. Let the public decide”.
Meanwhile, not one person in the entire fen world is going to change their vote based on a Sanders/Trump debate.
And then what does Sanders say or do?
I understand the passion of some Sanders supporters, but this is approaching insanity. Plenty of time to debate Trump if he is the nominee(despite odds that are overwhelming.
this is just amateurish flailing around.
Hilarious! Whose permission do you think the Sanders or Trump campaign needs to indulge this amateurish flailing? Yours and Hilarity’s apparently.
Meanwhile for the rest of us HyOOGE ratings!
What you call insanity I call hope, and what you call reality I call cynicism. Sanders v. Trump is called democracy in action of the kind we rarely if ever see.
Dangerously clueless Clinton loses New England in a landslide.
We can only hope and pray that the people of California wake up and realize that crooked Killery is not their friend. We can no longer allow the tail to wag the dog in our government. Massive political changes are needed everywhere and the old establishment politics aint workin for ya anymore. Please send either Trump or Sanders to the white house so I can get my country and life back.
So a debate between two people who are not running against other is democracy in action? That is an unbelievable stretch.
Time to understand one overriding fact on this entire process. The only way that any progressive change can occur in this country is to have a Democratic Party that is united with strong majorities in Congress and holds the Presidency. That is simple history and math.
Anything that hurts the Dem Party hurts the progressive movement. Another reality show from Trump in the form of a Sanders/Trump debate would hurt the Dem Party and would hurt Bernie Sanders.
“Time to understand one overriding fact on this entire process. The only way that any progressive change can occur in this country is to have a Democratic Party that is united with strong majorities in Congress and holds the Presidency.”
Well, exactly, EMichael. And Sanders could explain this during the debate.
Roughly 115,000,000 votes were cast in 2012. By the time all is said and done, Bernie and Trump will have received altogether about 25,000,000 votes. Their points of view are polar opposites. A debate between them is, indeed, democracy in action.
Your concern for Bernie is touching, but what if he thumps Trump about the head and shoulders? That’s bad for Bernie? That’s bad for the Democrats?
If you flip your comment around and say that “anything that helps the Dem Party helps the progressive movement,” it quickly becomes obvious it’s not true. Two of he primary issues of the progressive movement — to get big money out of politics, to eliminate this disabling economic inequality — have not only not been addressed by the Dems but the Dems have actively participated in creating those problems in the first place. And the Clinton dynasty is the prime example.
Of course Sanders would annihilate Trump in a debate. That is not the issue. The issue is that the debate will not affect the vote of a single person in the entire country. The only thing that it might affect is the continued dissolution of the DP.
I love this thing about money. Anyone remember that actual law says that the influence of big money in politics is legal? Does anyone think that the GOP is going to stop taking in these contributions? Has anyone noticed that in recent elections Dem candidates have gather many more votes for House seats yet somehow lost the house?
Nothing more stupid than bringing a knife to a gun fight.
The loss of state elections due to the lack of big contributions to Dem state candidates is the reason our current Congress exists(see North Carolina, Wisconsin, etc.).
One day people who are concerned about getting big money out of politics will figure out the process by which you can get big money out of politics(Hint: It is not by saying we need to get big money out of politics).
But not today.
“Of course Sanders would annihilate Trump in a debate. That is not the issue. ”
Oh, but it is, EMichael. I’m obsessed with the fact that the public knows so little about so much. Sanders could educate the public about some very important things in a debate against Trump.
It would be helpful, not harmful, to Clinton and the Dems.
Math and reality.
Under the Constitution the only way to change the system is from within the system.
Or you can bring a lot of guns.
Those are the only two ways..
I don’t honestly know if four years of Trump with a Democratic or split congress followed four years of an actual progressive liberal with a Democratic congress is better or worse than eight years of Clinton with at least six years of a Republican controlled congress. I suspect that Clinton would “get a lot done” under those conditions, and I don’t like the thought of what she would do any more than I would like Trump to have a Republican congress with him.
LORDY, J.Goodwin. You must know nothing at all, really, about how the federal courts really operate, so you have no idea how much damage a renewed Federalist Society federal bench, from top to bottom, would. We’re only now, finally, finally, reaching the point where the Reagan/Bush/Bush judges and justices are losing their chokehold over the courts and the law.
This is by no means to say that most of the Bill Clinton appointees an most of the Obama appointees are great; most are former career prosecutors and some are just god-awful ignoramuses. But there’s now, finally, a chance to really change the institutional grip that the Conservative Legal Movement has had in so, so, so many ways that the public has no idea about. Eventually, the Bill Clinton and Obama judges will stop being yes men and women for the other side, once they finally wake up and realize that the Federalist Society no longer actually controls the bench.
You’re blissfully naive to even ask that question.
And, yes, Hillary Clinton will have to appoint actual liberals to the bench. In light both of the Black Lives Matter movement and the Sanders movement, she flatly will have to.
There’s no way–no way–that this isn’t absolutely critical.
In addition to guns, there is a constitutional convention called for by two thirds of state legislatures, which does not require congress to do anything.
Are the states part of the system? Maybe.
Anyone who sees no difference between Trump and Clinton needs to check their meds.
Meanwhile, figure out which states doing what.
It is like talking to the D students in a fifth grade civics class.
You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I asked whether at the end of 4 years of Trump plus 4 years of an actual progressive, are we better or worse off than after 8 years of Clinton.
After 4 or 8 years of Trump we will be in the shit, but probably not as much as people attribute to him because there is the possibility that presidential actions can be reigned in by other branches of government, if they decide to be functional. After 8 years of Clinton, we won’t even have made as much progress as we have in 8 years of Obama, and we will probably go backwards.
You are awfully fond of the sweeping statement. You cannot possibly know how many votes might be swung in either direction.
In case you haven’t noticed, Trump has been involved in at least a dozen “debates,” during which time he has annihilated 17 professional politicians. HRC is next. The only reason she has a chance to win is because he is slightly more hated by most than he is. Hillary will need every hand on deck to soften him up, including Warren, and including Bernie, who “would annihilate Trump in a debate.”
You are most concerned about the “continued dissolution of the DP” without admitting what is more and more obvious: Hillary is accomplishing that all by herself. Because you are afraid that Bernie would thump Trump, but more and more worried – with good reason – that HRC will not, you don’t want to see such a debate take place. If Bernie thumped Trump, wouldn’t that strengthen the Democrats, strengthen the Progressive cause and strengthen American democracy? If not, prove it.
Yes, get big money out of politics. In case you haven’t noticed, Bernie has raised more than $200 million from unbelievably small donations. That’s one way to get it done, but it requires someone with the integrity to do it, not a hypocritical cynic, like HRC, like the Dems, who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.
Your brand of realism is nothing less than cynicism papered over. It reminds me of Joe Manchin, who said today that “Bernie is not a Democrat.” That would come as a surprise to the 20 million or so Democrats who have or will have cast their vote for Bernie before the convention. Why not just spit in the eye of all those voters and tell them they’re not Democrats? “Thank you, Sir, may I have another?” Obama win in ’12 with 57 million votes. Manchin just told one-third of them they aren’t Democrats. You can be sure HRC is going to need every one of them – who will probably show up after wiping the spit out of their eye. That’s the Democratic Party you represent.
If that’s not throwing away your gun for a knife, what is?
Wow. The CDS is strong on this thread. “Killary?” Seriously? AB should require that commenters at least complete middle school.
Look, the Bernie-Trump debate ain’t gonna happen. Clinton has the nomination. Whatever her failings, Clinton is head and shoulders above Trump in any meaningful comparison of aptitude, experience, emotional maturity and what passes today for rectitude becoming a POTUS. It is a testament to the effect of reality TV on political discourse that Trump is a candidate.
“And, yes, Hillary Clinton will have to appoint actual liberals to the bench. In light both of the Black Lives Matter movement and the Sanders movement, she flatly will have to.”
I disagree with this strongly. Once she is president she will go on her merry way doing deals including trading supreme court appointments to the Republicans to get the framework for some policy she supports or supported previously (like TPP) agreed-to. Then four years will be up, and some other equally horrible Republican will be up and the Democrats will line up behind Hillary again, while she continues to erode America.
I agree completely. HRH HRC is in essence a center-right career politician for whom, like her husband, nothing matters but self-serving ambition. Recall how Bill rushed home during the ’92 campaign to make sure the death penalty on a black inmate with a sub 100 IQ was not interrupted – the same black inmate who asked the warden to save him the second piece of pie he couldn’t finish with his last meal so he could have it for breakfast. And Billary history reveals how truly vindictive – retributive – they are in dealing out punishment to those who stood in their way. Wasserman Schultz is the epitome of a Clinton backer, as is David Brock, as is Rahm Emanuel, who famously told the left wing of the Dems to stuff it.
There is only one way for HRC to clinch her election, and only one way for her to win Bernie’s supporters, and only one way to advance the Progressive cause, and only one way to have her feet held to the fire to advance what is going to be a very progressive democratic platform: Elizabeth Warren for Veep.
I like everything you typed except Warren. I agree with Harry Reid in not letting Charlie Baker appoint her successor sorry. This is one of the major tactical blunders of the Obama administration – too damn many Democratic senators ended up in his administration and the pitiful DNC couldn’t manage to hold the much needed seats (See SCOTUS appointments among other headaches).
And we basically agree on this – Hillary is not going to win against Trump. He is going to beat her like a drum and probably because nobody can blow a lead and massive advantages like HRC. Nobody.
If you’re curious why I’m not totally depressed about this, see my longer comment on the adjacent open thread.
Are you seriously trying to say that there is one interested person in the entire country who has not heard Sanders campaign speeches? Does not know his platform?
You, I and a bunch of people in here could sit in a debate against Trump and present Sanders’ platform.
Huh? Who the hell is saying that it’s SANDERS’ platform that the public needs to be educated about?
Most of the public indeed knows SANDERS’ platform. But yuge swaths of them don’t know critical parts of TRUMP’s. A widely viewed debate between Sanders and Trump could go a long way to change that.
I really had to laugh a day or two ago when the big news out of the Trump campaign was that Trump had fired some top guy from his campaign staff whom he’d hired six weeks ago–a guy named Rick Wiley, who had been SCOTT WALKER’s campaign manager. I remember when the news was announced that Trump had HIRED SCOTT WALKER’S campaign manager as top person in his campaign; I thought, “Oooooh, THAT should attract Rust Belt current and former union members!”
Hard to imagine a clearer way for Trump to lose Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Yet no one who doesn’t follow political news really closely knew of this. Sanders could tell the public. Yes, this guy’s now been fired. But he was fired because of a personality conflict with Corey Lewandowski and campaign people loyal to Lewandowski, not because it suddenly occurred to Trump that maybe hiring the former presidential-campaign manager of the most virulently anti-union governor in the country might indicate that Trump want to signal to the donors that he’s really THEIR guy.
THAT is the kind of thing the a Sanders-Trump debate could have done. And now Trump has backed out. Probably because someone told him that the debate would not be about Sanders but about who Trump really is and what his “platform” really is.
How Sanders blends-in with the Democrats , he doesn’t. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19910712&id=vqJJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Xg0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=4293,3641940&hl=en “Democratic Lawmaker Criticizes Bernie Sanders” This is an old article (look at the cost of air conditioning advertisement). As you might know, Sanders is attempting to kick Frank off of a Dem committee.
Here is Frank in July 2015 on Sanders: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484 “Why Progressives Shouldn’t Support Bernie”
Politico on How HIllary Loses: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-hillary-clinton-campaign-loses-defeated-donald-trump-213924
Here’s the other side of that coin – an in depth conversation with a 22 year old relatively affluent Trump Supporter who lives in San Francisco. Sobering.
Amateur Socialist, this article is really interesting, and I want to note that Conor Friedersdorf began his career (not all that long ago) as a right-leaning libertarian, although he’s now, as this article indicates, no longer right-leaning.
What interests me most is that this Trump voter and his fiancé are right-leaning, rather than centrist or left-leaning, highly educated upscale voters. Their big complaint is that their right-leaning views are scorned. Their big financial concern is that if they slip up and say something that offends their business peers they’ll suffer scorn and blacklisting in their professions.
Suffice it to say that this type of concern is not what motivates most Trump supporters, even ones whose big issue is “political correctness.” And white-collar workers who are concerned about scorn or blacklisting at work or in their profession are—like this couple—almost certainly Republicans, who voted for Romney in 2012 and, if they were old enough, for McCain in 2008 and Bush in 2004 and 2000.
I’ve noted before here at AB that the Political Correctness thing has taken a back seat to factory worker job losses in the Republican primaries since the primaries and caucuses moved from the South to the Rust Belt and to other union strongholds, like WV and Nevada.
Trump’s only hope to win the general election is to defeat Clinton in the Rust Belt, where far and away the central issue will be the loss of blue-collar jobs—among people who don’t really fear that any politically incorrect views they hold and express will cause them scorn or the loss of their livelihood.
But it does highlight my main point in this post: That the more Clinton continues to focus largely on identity politics, the more likely he is to lose to Trump, precisely because she gives the impression of caring mostly about that and—key here—because she is not educating the public about Trump’s actual fiscal/economic policy statements and proposals.
Remove political correctness and blue-collar workers, including those in the Rust Belt, will still be precariously close to financial hardship, if they are not already there. Racial slurs don’t pay very many bills.
The longer this campaign goes on the more I see the reason for the movement of the Dem Party towards the center.
It is because the vast majority of the “leftist” part of the country are stone cold out of their minds. Fortunately for the country there are not that many of them.
There are a minority of leftists (radicals) who will stop at nothing to get what they want. From the beginning, Bernie was also one of them.
I happened to read both those pieces yesterday. I thought the one in Politico was particularly weak. The one in Atlantic was more interesting. The guy was bright enough, but his support of Trump was based mostly on his sense of pique at the PC way he was met by San Franciscans when he mentioned support for various Republican ideas. The intolerance of the left in SF is notable and intense, and it takes some real courage to openly support Republicans. But it left me sad. The guy called himself a feminist but supports the ultimate misogynist. But even more sadly he lacked any insight whatsoever into what an absolute con artist Trump is, as well as any insight into the fact that Trump has no idea at all how the government works or how the world works, which are the most alarming. Trump has no idea in mind other than Trump, and I cannot think of one single argument I have heard in his favor that is remotely convincing or even worthy of any contemplation. The fact that he has hornswoggled this young guy is just sad.
You fundamentally misread what is happening in the Democratic Party and in the country. Not only has Sanders raised an unbelievable $200 million in small contributions, and won close to 15 million votes — a full 25% of what HRC will need to win — but he has managed to energize a huge percentage of millennials whose future participation in politics and the progressive ideas they will surely pursue is assured.
If you need any further proof of the way in which Bernie has pushed the entire party to the left, you need only look to the platform committee — not just Bernie’s appointees but HRC’s as well.
The future of both the party and the country is away from the centrist status quo towards a more active pursuit of a truly progressive agenda. It is another historical swing in American politics of the kind that happens every generation or so. You’re missing it, brother.
Yes. And if Clinton wins the general election, as I think she will, it will be largely because of Sanders’ campaign, not in spite of it.
Make no mistake, Sanders was never a Democrat and today he is a Democrat out of convenience. His history has always been to alienate those who might support him in the Democrat legislature and party. While he is no Trump, Sanders also displays narcissistic tendencies. That he has caused a mini-revaluation of the political goals in the Democrat policy s good as it is an adjustment of populist values much needed in society today.
Bernie’s platform does not push the Democrats in any direction. It is a direction he hopes the Democrats will go and which will be decided at the Convention. Certainly Sanders has enough delegates to weigh in at the convention. Hopefully some of his planks make it. Many Democrats including EMichael were always to the left-of-center and supported the Democrats going forward. Unfortunately, the candidates on a state and national level (in that order) have not been up to the task of winning their districts especially during times of the census. States have been able to adjust their districts to match the parties in power at those times. Michigan is certainly an example of such. We lost a good challenger to Mike Bishop who had similar funding, name-recognition, etc. to physical ailment.
The future of the Democrats has not been determined yet. The convention will determine such and whether Sanders is just a blimp in election history.
For elections in the modern (Television) era, consider how readily the winner in every election since Kennedy Vs. Nixon could be predicted simply by the questions: Which candidate is the biggest *celebrity*? Which one had the most television friendly persona?
Seriously just go through the list one by one. Find me an election where the less media savvy lesser celebrity prevailed. Then think about the 2016 GE within that particular lens. It’s POTUS Donald J. Trump.
I acknowledge as a longtime activist in Democratic politics I find the analysis bothersome and even depressing. I’d love to see that principle undermined this year, for one thing maybe it will indicate a reversion back to questions of policy and governing philosophy. But I don’t think the new social media constructs do much to help, if anything Twitter and Facebook are probably accelerating this troubling tendency.
“The Internet has actually turned out to be worse than television” – Donald Fagen
Ms 57 I think the thing that bothered me the most about that Atlantic interview was the way his example refuted most of the Conventional Wisdom cliches about Trump’s popularity. He’s not an angry white blue collar worker in a rust belt state. He can hardly be called a “low information” voter even if most of what he believes is basically inconsistent or wrong.
Yeah yeah I know the plural of anecdote is not data. But it wouldn’t surprise me if his attitudes and beliefs are simultaneously shared and *generally downplayed in public* among other voters his age largely for the reasons he says he doesn’t post on social media or talk politics with his peers. So it could represent a difference in swing states that will be difficult for pollsters (and thus campaigns) to identify.
May 27, 2016 4:10 pm
“Time to understand one overriding fact on this entire process. The only way that any progressive change can occur in this country is to have a Democratic Party that is united with strong majorities in Congress and holds the Presidency.”
Well, exactly, EMichael. And Sanders could explain this during the debate.”
So the way to unite the Democratic Party is for a nominee to accept the role of leading the Dem Party?
Do you think Clinton should debate Trump now? Of course not. Neither should Sanders.
What Clinton should do is, yes, debate Trump. Not in a formal televised debate, but in her comments that address Trump’s outlandish economic and fiscal-policy proposals. Which she’s been doing a really awful job of.
The NYT has a good article today on exactly that point. I’ll b busy most of the rest of the day today, but I plan to post on that article late today or tomorrow (although I’ll be busy most of tomorrow, too).
Here’s the link to the NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
My post will focus largely on the Clinton campaign’s borderline-comical response to Trump’s statement that he wants to partially default on the national debt as “risky.” In other words, that, yeah, this would be a big risk, but there’s also the possibility that could work!
I mean …. seriously. I know that both parties’ political consultants have a list of words to use to describe the opponent’s policy proposals, and that “risky” is one of them. But, seriously. Destroying the full faith and credit of U.S. Treasury securities is merely risky? It’s not nutty and guaranteed to cause a global economic collapse?
I mean … wow.
I decided to draft the post quickly and post it. I posted it about 20 min. ago.
Carter was less well known in ’76 than Ford, the sitting President. Bill Clinton was not well known in ’92 when he beat the sitting President. Gore was more well-known than W in ’00. Obama was virtually unknown in ’08, certainly compared to HRC.
Trump may be a celebrity, but you aren’t taking into account how much people hate him, are offended by him, and cannot imagine him running things – or having to listen to him every day. He has enjoyed a boost lately simply because the attention has largely been on the Democrats. His profound weaknesses and shortcomings will become more apparent once HRC is nominated, and he will come back to life in totally obnoxious form.
Once HRC is nominated, Bernie will rally his base to defeat Trump and see other progressives elected. Elizabeth Warren, who is widely respected by independents and moderate Republicans, will wade into the fight. The entire foreign policy and defense establishments will be warning everyone about the catastrophe his election would be. The media will turn on him. And Americans will demand specifics about what he intends to do. This “Just trust me” shit that he got away with during the GOP campaign is coming soon to a screeching halt. He has no idea how to run a general election, and, in general, people are offended by him.
Your point about “hidden support” of Trump is well taken. But remember – he won around 12 million votes in the GOP campaign. He’s going to need to find about 48 million more than that to win. And he’s about to emerge once again into the spotlight. I don’t see how he does it.
I forgot to mention Obama, too. He is hated by many on the right, but I’ve been reading comments from Liberals about how much they love him and are sad to see his term coming to an end. It surprised me.
Ms. 57 I acknowledge Carter Vs. Ford may be a potential exception. Ford was probably irreperably harmed by first his appointment by Nixon, then his problematic decision to pardon him. But Ford was also not particularly telegenic – my memories of that primary had him really struggling to beat back a serious challenge from the eventual Ronald Reagan. So in some sense you could realistically make the case that the GOP failed to nominate their most celebrated candidate in 1976. All depends on that rather nebulous definition of “celebrity” doesn’t it?
Clinton vs. GHWB is a much easier call for me. Slick Willie had a natural ability in front of the cameras that Bush 41 couldn’t even fake. YMMV as they say but I’m willing to agree to disagree on that one.
You don’t see how Trump stands the spotlight and assert that “…the attention has been largely focused on the democrats…” But that’s not the media priority I’ve seen. If anything one of the problems of the Democratic primary has been trying to compete with Trump’s ability to dominate most coverage, even after he had the nomination well in hand. Consider how often the cable networks have decided to aim their cameras at his empty podium waiting for his latest nothing burger bombastic claims while ignoring actual policy debates in the other still ongoing primary.
For all your faith in the eventual great kum-bah-yah once HRC secures the nomination and Bernie’s endorsement I think her path to victory is far from certain. What element of HRC’s stated policies will address genuine economic uncertainty among Bernie’s celebrated millennial supporters? What do you imagine she is likely to promise to win these engaged voters between now and November? Yes many of them will see her as “the lesser evil” and obligingly turn out for her.
But I think you may be ignoring how much a lot of people like being on the side of “the winner”, especially if they appear to have overcome a challenging path to the top. Another one of the thing that bothered me about the Atlantic’s 22 year old was he didn’t fit the profile of struggling economically. At $50-60K a year in San Francisco he’s probably not living well but likely getting by in some fashion. And he didn’t appear to be particularly pessimistic about his own economic future in fact quite the opposite. I think HRC’s message of defending the status quo for him and voters like him is likely to be quite problematic against Trump’s triumphalism (as inane as it is, he is selling it).
I don’t usually watch Maher but wanted to catch it this week because he had Sanders on along with Scott Adams who predicted last July that not only will Trump with the GOP nomination handily he will also win the general. This isn’t based on his appreciation of Trump’s policy at all but simply on his media savvy skills of persuasion.
Sanders was quite articulate regarding the role of the superdelegates. He basically said that if you accept their responsibility as trying to ensure the Democratic Party nominates *the most electable* person they really need to consider how the primary has shifted since most of them pledged their support to Madame Secretary.
I would add that the superdelegates should really be thinking about what Donald Trump accomplished in wiping out the (at one time also considered nominal favorite) Jeb Bush. He had a ton of money and massive support from party insiders and basically accomplished nothing worth paying attention to. We all watched him do it. If they think that can’t happen to HRC they’re only fooling themselves.