Why does Krugman hold Clinton and her campaign harmless for . . .
the public’s cluelessness about Trump’s policy agenda vs. her own?
PHILADELPHIA — On Wednesday night, the Harvard Institute of Politics pulled together a focus group of eight millennial voters from the Philadelphia area, and a small group of journalists watched. One of the millennials supported the Green Party presidential candidacy of Jill Stein. The rest professed to be totally undecided — despondent about the election, offended that they were being asked to choose between major party candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Most of the participants asked for anonymity. A few, including the Green-voting 27-year-old Amanda, offered up their first names and allowed a few follow-up questions. The small sample of voters, in one swing state, was illustrative just as the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs and Researchpoll had been — and with the same tantalizing power for Democrats. Unlike some of the white working-class men who are breaking for Trump, the millennials were onboard with the Democrats’ 2016 agenda. But they were struggling to cast a vote. Among the lessons:
1. They agree with the Democrats on the issues. For the better part of an hour, the members of the group listed their most pressing policy concerns, from climate change to taxes to education to agriculture. When all the terms were written on a whiteboard, they were ask to list their top three, and for each, say which candidate they agreed with. Seven of the eight millennials ended up preferring Clinton on the issues; the eighth, as mentioned above, preferred Stein.
…
4. They’re counting on something — an assassin, impeachment — to prevent Trump from doing too much damage. Alex paralyzed the room with laughter when he floated a strange and “dark” idea. “If Trump wins,” he said, “he’s probably going to be assassinated, and Mike Pence will become president.”
Alex, a Democrat who had voted for Barack Obama in 2008, had stayed home in 2012 and cooled on most politicians. He had come to like Pence for his demeanor, as seen at Tuesday night’s debate. But the more important point was that a Trump presidency did not seem like a four- or eight-year proposition.
“He’s going to be in court most of the time as president,” said one focus group member who preferred to be anonymous. “He’s going to get impeached.”
5. They’re not necessarily thinking about all the powers a president would have. One of the questions that halted the group’s discussion was simple: How was the Supreme Court affecting their vote? Several members of the group admitted that they had not considered this; when they did, as in the issue round, they preferred that Clinton appoint members of the court.
— Five lessons about millennial voters from a Philadelphia focus group, David Weigel, Washington Post, yesterday
Meanwhile, today, Paul Krugman, Clinton’s penultimate cheerleader pundit, continues to pin on the political news media the entire blame for this epidemic of cluelessness about Trump’s and the Republican Establishment’s actual policy agenda. And for such things as the unawareness that Trump will be appointing Supreme Court justices, lower-federal-court judges, and federal-agency heads, and will be signing Paul Ryan’s fiscal and regulatory bills.
And that if Trump resigns, is impeached, or is assassinated, Mike Pence (the rightwing talk-show host cum Tea Party pol) will.
Krugman often beats the drum with praise for Clinton by reminding the public of such things as how poised and how much stamina she showed last fall during that 11-hour Benghazi House Committee hearing. He can’t understand why that doesn’t suffice as reason to be fond of her, or at least to vote for her against Donald Trump.
He even more often rages in anger at the appalling, diametrically opposite manner in which the mainstream political media has covered both Clinton and Trump—and its god-awful-absurd, unremitting obsession with Clinton’s email for a full one-and-a-half years until finally it stopped late last month.
But never, ever, does he acknowledge that the profound lack of knowledge, particularly among millennials, about the differences between these two candidates’ agendas, and between their respective parties’ agendas, may be as much because Clinton herself has failed to apprise the public of this. Some of it at all, some of it with actual specifics, the rest of it with anything resembling consistency.
To wit, Krugman’s column today, titled “What About the Planet?” It begins:
Our two major political parties are at odds on many issues, but nowhere is the gap bigger or more consequential than on climate.
If Hillary Clinton wins, she will move forward with the Obama administration’s combination of domestic clean-energy policies and international negotiation — a one-two punch that offers some hope of reining in greenhouse gas emissions before climate change turns into climate catastrophe.
If Donald Trump wins, the paranoid style in climate politics — the belief that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast international conspiracy of scientists — will become official doctrine, and catastrophe will become all but inevitable.
So why does the media seem so determined to ignore this issue? Why, in particular, does it almost seem as if there’s a rule against bringing it up in debates?
He goes on to castigate Kaine/Pence debate moderator Elaine Quijano for her general awfulness and, specifically, for this:
[I]t’s really stunning that in the three nationally televised forums we’ve had so far — the “commander in chief” forum involving Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, the first presidential debate and the vice-presidential debate — the moderators have asked not a single question about climate.
This was especially striking in Tuesday’s debate.
Somehow Elaine Quijano, the moderator, found time for not one but two questions inspired by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — an organization concerned that despite relatively low budget deficits now and extremely low borrowing costs, the federal government may face fiscal problems a couple of decades down the line. There may be something to this, although not as much as deficit scolds claim (and Ms. Quijano managed to suggest that Mrs. Clinton’s proposals, which are fully paid for, are no better than Mr. Trump’s multitrillion-dollar debt blowout).
But if we’re worried about the longer-term implications of current policies, the buildup of greenhouse gases is a much bigger deal than the accumulation of low-interest debt. It’s bizarre to talk about the latter but not the former.
And this blind spot matters a lot. Polling suggests that millennial voters, in particular, care a lot about environmental protection and renewable energy. But it also suggests that more than 40 percent of young voters believe that there is no difference between the candidates on these issues.
I watched that debate from beginning to end (although I’m sure I broke a record for times checking the clock during a 90-minute period). And I couldn’t believe this moderator’s focus on the national debt. Or, to be accurate, I couldn’t believe her loaded, circa-2011 questions about it and deep urgency in the tone of her voice. Might a question specifically about what Trump’s massive tax cuts and massive military board-patrol buildup relative to the debt not have been, y’know, a good thing for her to ask?
But it also might have been a good thing for Kaine to ask. And it might have been helpful if he’d responded to Pence’s false statement that the debt has increased massively since Obama assumed office with a truthful statement that in fact it has been significantly reduced, but he didn’t. But Kaine had one, and only one, assignment in that debate, and it wasn’t to make either of those two points. It was instead to force Pence to accept, reject, or deny the fact of Trump’s racist, xenophobic, misogynist, vulgar, etc., etc., pronouncements.
Mission accomplished. Unless, of course, the mission was to educate the public about the Trump agenda that huge swaths of the public—including, apparently, most millennials—doesn’t know about.
Including all those court and agency-head appointments. And what that would mean.
I don’t expect that Clinton and her campaign strategists can be disabused of their foundational presumption that moderate suburbanites just love extreme tax cuts for the wealthy, further deregulation of the finance industry, global warming, and complete control of government at every level by a handful of billionaires and some mega-corporations. Which is why she doesn’t campaign on these, and campaigns almost entirely on the racist, xenophobic, misogynist, etc., etc. stuff, in the belief that only that will sway or hold moderate suburbanites.
So I suppose it would make no difference if someone other than me—someone like, say, Krugman—pointed out that Clinton’s been an extreme enabler of the political news media’s de facto blackout on these dramatic policy-and-appointments agenda differences. But it would be worth a try.
Although first the people I’m urging to do this would themselves have to be persuaded that Clinton’s poise and stamina during the Benghazi hearing did nothing to educate the public about those policy-and-appointments agenda differences.
I guess I won’t hold my breath. Even though time is now so short that I probably wouldn’t even turn blue.
Beverly
please remember that i am on your side.
but when it’s funny that someone says that Trump will be assasinated why was it beyond the pale when Trump hinted that Hillary might be assassinated?
second: “he had come to like Pence for his demeanor as seen at the debate..” I saw a person so intent on getting his “email scandal” before the audience that he asked for extra time and then talked over long and essentially shouted down the moderator and the reply from Kaine. I’m not sure I would respect the judgement of someone who “liked his demeanor”
third, i guess, on the one hand i suspect Hillary knows her audience and figures beating them over the head with Trumpl’s unsuitability will count more for them than any careful statements about policy. on the other hand, i don’t trust her… or any successful politician… on policy.
I trusteed Bill, and I trusted Obama (the first time) and I am not at all happy with half a loaf, given the rottenness of the other half.
Not sure why you say that “when it’s funny that someone says that Trump will be assassinated why was it beyond the pale when Trump hinted that Hillary might be assassinated?” I don’t think it’s funny, and I don’t think it was intended by Weigel or any of the millennials who said something like that as funny. Weigel clearly took it seriously that these voters think Trump wouldn’t serve out his term or even come close to it, and I think those comments were intended as serious.
Which was part of my point: How many of these people actually support PENCE’S agenda? Eliminate Trump, and Pence becomes president. Pence filibustered throughout, but he did it with a calm demeanor. Ergo, ….
Hillary obviously does not know her audience, or at least doesn’t want to campaign in a way that would reflect that she does, which is why she’s having so much trouble getting millennials to support her in the percentages that they did Obama. Millennials at least SHOULD BE her audience. But until about two minutes ago, she considered moderate white suburbanites her audience–and thinks they don’t care about climate change, finance-industry regulation, and a billionaire-controlled campaign-finance system and are just fine with yuge tax cuts for the wealthy.
Anyway, Trump is continuing his insanity demonstrations–last night and today. And I just read that in key early-voting states far more Dems than Repubs, including “low-propensity” Dems and Dem-leaners (read: blacks and Hispanics, and I think millennials) have requested mail-in ballots or already have voted, as have a lot of Asian-Americans. In FL, NC, OH–and in IA!
As I read that, about 20 min. ago, I felt myself relax.
There is an old saying that covers this issue of media treatment of Clinton. “You can force a horse to the trough, but you cannot force it to drink.”
Hillary has talked about issues and in this time of electronic means to find information. There is no excuse for anyone not to know what Hillary’s position is on numerous issues. It is this simple. A simple search for Hillary Clinton Issue brought up this https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/. I have watched the debate and other rallies. She has brought out numerous Issues and her stance on them.
The fact that there are people out there that do not know them is not her fault. The reasons for not knowing Hillary’s position for the most part is each individuals fault. They are all suppose to be old enough to cast a vote. This should mean that these voters should b e able to on their own educate themselves on the issues of both candidates and compare on their own.
“The information of the people at large can alone make them the safe as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810. ME 12:417
It is each citizens responsibility to self educate on the political issues. Hillary has on several occasions talked about the issues and her stance, but in each instance the MSM has been more interested in the shiny, noisy entertainer called Trump. Want to know Hillary’s position and others to know it as well post the link all over the social media outlets for it appears some do not know how to locate easily searchable information on the WEB!
“Kaine had one, and only one, assignment in that debate, and it wasn’t to make either of those two points. It was instead to force Pence to accept, reject, or deny the fact of Trump’s racist, xenophobic, misogynist, vulgar, etc., etc., pronouncements.”
Yeah this is what I was thinking. I get the logic of trying to put your opponent on the defensive, but at some point, you have to run on your own plans and not just against Trump (and almost all the attacks where against Trump; seems like Clinton wants to give every other Republican a pass).
What Krugman doesn’t mention in his column is that a study was recently published in Nature showing current policy plus all the proposals from the Obama administration still won’t be enough to meet our INDC for the Paris agreement, which itself is very weak (it doesn’t reduce emissions, only slows the increase). I’m old enough to remember 2008, when both Obama and McCain ran on cap and trade. Now, it’s too radical for Clinton. She also refuses to run on a carbon tax, even though it’s part of her party’s platform. IMO the most likely scenario for not going over two degrees of warming is probably losing this election, which may weaken the establishment wing of the Democratic Party and strengthen the Sanders wing.
Oh, I think Clinton should continue to run against Trump, but on his policy agenda—as well as her own. Instead she’s running against almost exclusively on the racism, xenophobia, misogyny, etc., stuff. The public already knows about that, but large swaths of the public don’t know about Trump’s fiscal and regulatory policy agenda, which is about as rightwing-establishment Republican as can be.
And, for the life of me, I can’t imagine why you think the most likely scenario for not going over two degrees of warming is probably losing this election, because it may weaken the establishment wing of the Democratic Party and strengthen the Sanders wing. That’s about as extreme example of closing the barn darn after the horses have escaped as I’ve ever heard.
The entire federal government would be controlled by politicians entirely beholden to the likes of oil-and-gas billionaire Harold Hamm, who was Trump’s very first billionaire donor. His Interior Secretary would be chosen by Hamm. The current Supreme Court vacancy would be filled with someone chosen by the founder of the organization Citizens United, who is Trump’s deputy campaign manager. So would Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat, and very possibly Anthony Kennedy’s. And so would all the vacancies in the lower federal courts. The federal budgets would be drafted by Paul Ryan, assisted by the Heritage Foundation economists who drafted Trump’s current extreme fiscal proposal.
What on earth would the strengthened Sanders wing get to do? Maybe a decade from now, after regaining control of Congress for the Democrats, enact cap-and-trade and watch it be stricken down by the six- or seven-member Conservative Legal Movement majority as unconstitutional, under some legal theory fabricated by, well, Citizens United? Or the Heritage Foundation?
You may be old enough to remember the 2008 campaign, but you obviously aren’t old enough to remember the 2000 one. What wing of the Democratic Party did that strengthen? The wing that watched helplessly as John Roberts and Samuel Alito were confirmed for the Supreme Court by the Republican Senate majority?
I don’t get it.
Beverly
you have more faith in the voting public than i have.
i don’t think anyone who like Pence’s “demeanor” given what he was saying and how he said it, should be trusted with the vote.
as far as the good guys voting in greater numbers, great. now if only their votes get counted.
i guess i find the distinction between joking about assassination and fantasizing about it a little hard to discern.
but i share your exasperation with the Clinton campaign. unfortunately i’m not particulary optimistic about what she’ll do if she actually gets elected. and i will vote for her, because Trump is beyond the pale. with Hillary there’s always next year. with Trump, not so sure.
The revelations today of Trump’s bragging about sexual assaults and the reactions of various Republican honchos may make Kaine’s approach particularly politically effective even if not satisfactory on substantive issues. It’s possible, but certainly not guaranteed, that this may have iced the Donald.
Jack, while I do think that that tape finally kills Trump’s candidacy, I think it makes Kaine’s strategy—the strategy that Clinton’s strategy gurus, with Clinton’s full approval, of course, dictated to him, actually—even less significant than it seemed to me before the release of that tape.
Check out this report by Stan Greenberg’s/Carville’s firm released yesterday, titled “The millennial strategy: Report from web-survey of millennials in the battleground,” and read the last two or three boldfaced-headinged sections. It reads like I wrote it, right down to the reference to Clinton’s economic-policy agenda as “basically the Toledo speech”, or some such phrase placed as a parenthetical in a sentence:
http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/1048/Dcor_WV_Millennial%20Webtest_Memo_10.7.2016_FOR%20EALERT.pdf
Meanwhile, were it not for The Tape, the big political story today would be the hacked transcripts of Clinton’s highly-paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and email exchanges with Lloyd Blankfein. These are not good, Jack.
The trick for her now is to emphasize her current policy proposals, which are reflected in the Party platform. Those emails won’t push millennials into Trump’s arms, but it could tamp down on turnout—and therefore determine control of the Senate.
But about The Tape, I think some news analyses are understating what it shows, by focusing on the language as extremely lewd and objectifying of women. This spade should be called a spade–the spade being Trump’s admitting to criminal sexual assault, which is surely what grabbing the crotch and also grabbing and forcibly kissing someone IS.
My big, big fear now is that Trump actually will be forced to announce his effective withdrawal from the ticket, saying that he will renounce (or whatever it would be called) his position s president-elect in favor of Pence. And, y’know, Pence did such a bang-up job as True Republican during the debate–Trump primary voters’ buyers’ remorse, and all–that … oh, I don’t know. If that does happen, though, I would think Ohio would VERY QUICKLY fall into the safe-Dem category. As well as WI and probably IA.
I mean … Lordy. This is like riding on a Tilt-a-Whirl.
Reply to Beverly’s reply (IDK how to reply in a comment thread) 538 gives Democrats a 57% chance of winning the Senate, but in a scenario where Trump wins, Republicans would probably do better than predicted and retain control, and Scalia would be replaced by another conservative. It’s possible the Supreme Court would strike down climate legislation, but I doubt it. In NFIB v Sebelius, Roberts said the ACA was constitutional because congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. It’s hard to see how this logic wouldn’t apply to a carbon tax.
It’s certainly possible that a Clinton loss would have no effect, and the Democratic Party would continue moving to the right. I never claimed a political revolution was likely, only that I believe it’s the most likely scenario for achieving adequate climate policy.
Absolutely, GreenVoter! Forrest Lucas as Interior Secretary is definitely the most likely scenario for achieving adequate climate policy!
Ever heard of him? I have, although I hadn’t until about three weeks ago. Here are the opening two paragraphs of a Sept. 16 Politico article titled “Sources: Oil executive on Trump’s short list for Interior Secretary”:
“An oil industry executive who has spoken out against animal rights is a leading contender for Interior secretary should Donald Trump win the White House, two sources familiar with the campaign’s deliberations told POLITICO on Monday — a prospect that drew immediate condemnation from environmental activists.
“Forrest Lucas, the 74-year-old co-founder of oil products company Lucas Oil, is well-known in his native Indiana, where in 2006 he won the naming rights to Lucas Oil Stadium, the home of the Indianapolis Colts football team, for a reported $121.5 million over 20 years. He and his wife have given a combined $50,000 to the gubernatorial campaigns of Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, according to Indiana state records.”
That article’s at http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/forrest-lucas-trump-interior-secretary-228364.
Didn’t think about who Trump would appoint to head Interior and to head the EPA?
And how about all those cases that regularly come before the Supreme Court on environmental issues? Such as the one a couple of years ago in which Anthony Kennedy switched sides, becoming the fifth vote to uphold a yuugely important interpretation of a provision in the Clean Water Act by the EPA dating back to, I believe, Nixon’s administration, but that was challenged by some rightwing landowner represented pro bono by some rightwing Conservative Legal Movement lawyers’ group funded by folks like the Koch brothers.
Didn’t know about that one? It was 5-4, and nip-and-tuck, with Kennedy being the wildcard but with predictions that he would vote with the Republican justices.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is physically very frail. Kennedy himself likely would retire during a Trump administration, and even more likely during a Pence one.
Here’s what really, really offends me about millennials like you who claim to be, e.g., Green voters: What you actually care about is feeling and sounding cool. You can’t seriously be so ignorant that you think that the Supreme Court plays no significant role in interpreting environmental law, or that two more decades of Conservative Legal Movement court appointees, or four years of an oil-magnate-controlled Interior Dept. and EPA—including four years of federal divesting of federally owned land to private owners or to state governments CONTROLLED BY folks like the Kochs and Lucas, and Harold Hamm (the Texas oil magnate who was Trump’s first billionaire donor and remains one of his biggest)—would be the most likely scenario for achieving adequate climate policy.
Not even to mention what would happen to that Paris Accords thing.
You’re definitely a green voter, just not in the sense that you claim. See: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Green%20Behind%20the%20Ears.
Or maybe your just a Yellow voter, given your ACTUAL priorities
So sorry to see so much talent go to waste where the Trumpster could end up in the dumpster. But in retrospect what I think Trump is wrong on are women, the ACA and climate change may become his Achilles heal. What I think he is right on though is the economy, illegal immigrants, the border and national security. Morality matters and that means both sides of the coin. HRC and here transgressions may be even more evil and criminal than Trumps. Time will tell. But for not now I still think that HRC’s sins far outweigh Trumps because even as immoral as they may be he did not sell or use a government position for self enrichment. Besides when Trump made those comments he no doubt thought he was in private setting and only said what most guys have boastingly talked before. So locker room talk to me is no true indicator of ones true personal integrity or character. Therefore I will still vote for Trump because most normal people who are not wrapped so tight and are so politically correct have heard and dismissed this stupid talk stuff before…
Ray,
Obviously you do not understand that Bev is living in her own little Sanders cocoon.
The fact that all the information you need about Clinton’s platform is easily available to anyone interested in such does not matter to her. The only thing that does matter is that Clinton must campaign exactly like Bernie. Any deviation from that shows how inept the Clinton campaign is.
It is why she constantly talks about the lack of policy plans in the Clinton campaign while ignoring the simple fact that there is a huge amount of policy plans in the Clinton campaign.
this is easily seen in almost every single post Bev has put up here since the primary ended. And it has reached the point where Bev ignores what is happening. A clear example is downblog(is that a word?) where Bev goes after Kaine for not contrasting the policies of Clinton/Trump.
Meanwhile,
“First thing we do is we invest in manufacturing, infrastructure, and research into clean energy jobs of tomorrow. Second thing is we invest in our workforce. From pre-k education to great teachers to debt-free college and tuition-free colleges for families that make less than $125,000 a year. Third, we promote fairness by raising the minimum wage, so you can’t work full-time and be under the poverty level, and by paying women equal pay for equal work. Fourth, we promote small business growth, just as we’ve done in Virginia, to make it easier to start and grow small businesses. Hillary and I each grew up in small business families. My dad who ran an iron working and welding shop is here tonight. And fifth, we have a tax plan that targets tax relief to middle class individuals and small businesses. And ask those at the very top who have benefited as we’ve come out of recession to pay more. The Trump plan is a different plan. It’s a “You’re fired” plan. And there’s two key elements to it. First, Donald Trump said, wages are too high. And both Donald Trump and Mike Pence think that we ought to eliminate the federal minimum wage. Mike pence, when he was in congress, voted against raising the minimum wage above $5.15. And he has been a one-man bulwark against minimum wage increases in Indiana. The second component of the plan is massive tax breaks for those at the very top. Trillions of dollars in tax breaks for people just like Donald Trump. The problem with this, Elaine is that’s exactly what we did ten years ago and it put the economy into the deepest recession since the 1930s. Independent analysts say the Clinton plan would grow the economy by 10.5 million jobs. The Trump plan would cost 3.5 million jobs. And Donald Trump, why would he do this? Because his tax plan basically helps him, and if he ever met his promise and he gave his tax returns to the American public like he said he would, we would see just how much his economic plan is really a Trump-first plan.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-2016-vice-presidential-debate-229185#ixzz4MV5wSrNG
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
That’s sorta funny, EMichael. Please click the link I put into my reply to Jack, and read the entire report.
For whatever reason, you don’t get, or at least won’t acknowledge, the difference between a candidate HAVING policy proposals and making them available on her website, and CAMPAIGNING ON those policy proposals as well as CONTRASTING THEM TO HER OPPONENT’S POLICY AGENDA that is on HIS website.
If this highly experienced politician and her cadre of highly-paid, highly experienced strategists are so unaware that huge swaths of voters, and especially huge swaths of millennials, have no clue to what Trump’s PUBLISHED fiscal and regulatory agenda is, and who he has announced will be his Interior head, his EPA head, etc., and who is on the list–and who COMPRISED the list, of his potential Supreme Court appointees, they’re dumber than rocks.
And if they, like you, think it’s fine to leave it up to the voters to check out both candidates’ websites and read and compare their plans, cuz it’s just too much to ask of the candidate to actually CAMPAIGN ON these things, then they’re unspeakably incompetent. I mean, WHAT THE HELL IS THE PURPOSE OF CAMPAIGNING SUPPOSED TO BE?
Seriously: What do you think the purpose of campaign IS?
EMichael
“who begs in silence, starves in silence.”
It is NOT the responsibility of the people to educate themselves…. that is, it would be their responsibility if it were reasonably possible. as it is, the only thing the people have to go on is what the politicians and the press tell them. and that is mostly lies.
so i agree with Beverly that Hillary should be telling the people about substance, because otherwise at least some of those people will have no reason to vote for her…. they will not industriously research Hillary’s policy positions… if for no other reason that they have been fooled before by policy positions.
it is up to the candidates to shout it from the rooftops and hope they catch the public’s imagination and the public’s hope they will maybe not be fooled again this time.
on the other hand, i suspect that the people are more interested in “personality” than policy, and Hillary knows this, or her advisors know it, so she may be doing the smart thing to get and keep the votes she needs. while keeping her “policy” enough off the radar so no one will really mind when after she is elected she ignores it or rationalizes it away.
i really don’t know. but i am actually quite grateful to Beverly for pointing out the policy issues… otherwise i wouldn’t know about them, or the issues that hang on them. just too irresponsible, i guess, to go searching the web.
Ryan
i actually agree with quite a bit of what you say here, but as far as i know Trump has never been in a position (held office) to commit the crimes you accuse Hillary of. If he does get elected I would expect him to be far worse.
and while i may be the last person in America to be genuinely offended by Trumps “locker room talk” I am fairly sure that if his politics was more left than right, we’d be hearing from the left that it was not important, and hearing from the right that it was a major crime.
but as for trump being right on the economy etc, i think you have not been listening. Trump would give us Paul Ryan “plan” and that would be essentially what gave you the bank fraud that brought down the economy in 2008 and generally keeps the working class poor, you need to find a way not to be fooled by the propaganda the right carefully shapes for you while picking your pocket.
similarly for national security and border control… the first means of fooling the people to their own harm has been creating “dangerous enemies” to keep the people afraid and rely on their “patriotism” to make them put up with the loss of their own freedom.
i know i can’t change your mind, but maybe i can suggest to you that there are people who don’t agree with you who are not complete idiots and maybe you should try to learn a little more about how things actually work.
Bev,
I am thinking that contrast in policy that Kaine brought up in the debate was fairly an indication that the Clinton campaign is campaigning on the issues, and the contrasts on the issues.
Why you ignore that is baffling to me. Ehh, maybe not. It is why you somehow think this latest email thing is anything.
Perhaps if there is more, than it is something. But out of context quotes that mean almost nothing are a waste of time and effort, unless your goal is to smear Clinton by using the old CDS method.
Well, if she’s been campaigning on any issues other than Trump’s outrageous conduct, she’s sure doing it remarkably incompetently.
To wit: GreenVoter. (See above. Or is it below?)
I’m not the one whose head is buried deeply in the sand, EMichael.
Bev,
We disagree. Explain to me how Kaine’s statement in the debates has anything to do with Trump’s behavior.
Explain to me how you have managed to avoid any policy speeches by Clinton.
Explain to me how Bernie’s “awesome” speech is not part of the Clinton campaign.
Explain to me how the Toledo speech you posted about is now irrelevant.
You just do not stop.
EMichael, you must have watched a different debate then everyone else. All I remember was constant talk about tax returns. We get it, Trump hasn’t given us his tax returns.
If anyone won’t stop, it’s you. Do you not understand what political campaigns are supposed to do? It seems like you don’t because your constant refrain of “it’s on the website!” is really dumb. NO ONE CARES ABOUT WHAT”S ON HER WEBSITE.
When people don’t hear a message it doesn’t matter what it is or if it actually exists, it effectively doesn’t get reach anyone because no one knows about it.
Do you think Clinton will die if you stop clapping your hands for her? She isn’t tinkerbell, she can take a little constructive criticism. It’s like you are Clinton’s media liaison and have decided the best way to help Clinton get her message out is hector her critics rather than, you know, actually get her message out.
Unless her message is “Trump sucks” then she has been very successful.
Your litany of excuses and list of people to blame (stupid voters!) is really tiring.
“Explain to me how you have managed to avoid any policy speeches by Clinton.’
Beverley knows about it because she’s a highly informed consumer of political news. But no one else knows about it apparently.
“Explain to me how Bernie’s “awesome” speech is not part of the Clinton campaign.”
Beverley knows about it because she’s a highly informed consumer of political news. But no one else knows about it apparently.
“Explain to me how the Toledo speech you posted about is now irrelevant.”
Beverley knows about it because she’s a highly informed consumer of political news. But no one else knows about it apparently.
But I see you are in the Clinton is perfect and can do no wrong camp. It’s all CDS, right? Why do her policy positions matter? Clinton’s public positions are right and her opposite positions when expressed in speeches to banking associations are also correct. Why even have campaign policy positions.
Everything’s a smear, isn’t it.
Bev, so far as has been reported there was nothing damaging in the speech material released unless one regards Hillary’s apparent assumption that our financial system is going to continue to operate as damaging. She does make it clear, from what I read, that regulating needs strengthening.
It’s interesting that the polling makes it clear that millennials overwhelmingly prefer Clinton to Trump but are apathetic about voting. Failure to recognize the seriousness of the court’s personnel and other straightforward and well publicized dangers of a Trump administration suggests remarkable ignorance and/or dull witedness that I simply do not believe characterizes that generation. I really do think it is more a matter of stamping of feet and holding of breath til faces turn blue because they didn’t get everything they wanted. In other words, immaturity just as they manifested in 2010.
Also, as E. Michael points out, the things you want emphasized are not missing from the campaigning. They are, however, being drowned out by the repulsive personality of Donald Trump and the typical American inclination to stare at fires and disasters.
well, i’ll say it again:
i personally am grateful to Bevely for talking about serious issues. I wish Hillary would talk about them (more) because that is the ONLY way the voters will get educated. Sorry about that. We just do not do our homework. Silly us.
As for those who think criticizing the candidate is the same as being mean to the candidate or not voting for the candidate…. well, that shows up a lot in blogs: “dont agree with me? you must be an irresponsible idiot!”
now I am guilty of that kind of response myself, but I like to think it only comes out after serious provocation.
again, Beverly, thanks for the education. Sorry I don’t agree with you about everything.
Coberly thanks for your comment directed to me. I have always been very fair, objective and a good listener. That is why God gave us two ears and one mouth so that we should listen twice as much as we speak…As for being for more bank fraud I has signed several petitions to reinstate the Glass-Steigle laws that would take FDIC money out of the speculating big bank shadow bank hedge funds. I have also signed to end the carried interest provisions. I’m not totally in agreement with everything Trump and Ryan are proposing to do… As for the boarder it has been gamed for a long time and for several reasons non of which benefitted the American people…As for national security I do believe that our govt. has been involved in a few black flag operations that they want to keep totally under wraps forever…The one thing I think that has become most apparent though is the fact that the presidential election is no longer being decided by just the American people or voters. It is now being decided by many super wealthy outsiders special interests…If you want to talk about taxes go see http://www.idealtaxes.com not Ryan’s or Clintons plan…
“You can’t seriously be so ignorant that you think that the Supreme Court plays no significant role in interpreting environmental law”
I’m aware of judicial review, but I don’t think it precludes dealing with climate change, because taxation is a power explicitly given to Congress.
“four years of federal divesting of federally owned land”
This is already happening. From desmogblog: “the Obama administration meanwhile quietly auctioned off thousands of acres of land for oil and gas drilling in national forests, opened up 119 million acres for offshore drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico, and delivered a blow to the Endangered Species Act.” If the Democratic Party doesn’t move left, we are going to continue running a possibly civilization threatening experiment on the earth. Contra your stupid armchair analysis, this doesn’t make me feel good.
Greenvoter
yes. it is worthwhile pointing out that Obama has not been a paragon of virtue as seen by those of us who liked the planet we were born on.
i am sorry to see you and Beverly insulting each other. but that seems to be the way of blogs.
you both have contributed important information.
i think Beverly might reply that a Trump… or any Republican… victory would be far worse than even Obama. but we shouldn’t just forget what Obama forgot. And we shouldn’t let Hillary get away with it if she goes the same route.
though i haven’t an idea how to stop her.
but let Trump win… no. can’t do it.
“All I remember was constant talk about tax returns. We get it, Trump hasn’t given us his tax returns.”-Efc-
then you should work on your memory.
“First thing we do is we invest in manufacturing, infrastructure, and research into clean energy jobs of tomorrow. Second thing is we invest in our workforce. From pre-k education to great teachers to debt-free college and tuition-free colleges for families that make less than $125,000 a year. Third, we promote fairness by raising the minimum wage, so you can’t work full-time and be under the poverty level, and by paying women equal pay for equal work. Fourth, we promote small business growth, just as we’ve done in Virginia, to make it easier to start and grow small businesses. Hillary and I each grew up in small business families. My dad who ran an iron working and welding shop is here tonight. And fifth, we have a tax plan that targets tax relief to middle class individuals and small businesses. And ask those at the very top who have benefited as we’ve come out of recession to pay more. The Trump plan is a different plan. It’s a “You’re fired” plan. And there’s two key elements to it. First, Donald Trump said, wages are too high. And both Donald Trump and Mike Pence think that we ought to eliminate the federal minimum wage. Mike pence, when he was in congress, voted against raising the minimum wage above $5.15. And he has been a one-man bulwark against minimum wage increases in Indiana. The second component of the plan is massive tax breaks for those at the very top. Trillions of dollars in tax breaks for people just like Donald Trump. The problem with this, Elaine is that’s exactly what we did ten years ago and it put the economy into the deepest recession since the 1930s. Independent analysts say the Clinton plan would grow the economy by 10.5 million jobs. The Trump plan would cost 3.5 million jobs. And Donald Trump, why would he do this? Because his tax plan basically helps him, and if he ever met his promise and he gave his tax returns to the American public like he said he would, we would see just how much his economic plan is really a Trump-first plan.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-2016-vice-presidential-debate-229185#ixzz4MV5wSrNG
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
I cannot imagine why people keep ignoring the actual campaigns. I can only guess that they are seeing things(or not seeing things) that are being presented in AZ.
In this topic alone there are several instances shown where the Clinton campaign is comparing her policies to Trump’s. Yet somehow the Clinton campaign is not comparing Clinton’s policies to Trump’s.
Looks like a comparison to me…….
Kaine: First, we’re going to protect social security, which is one of the greatest programs that the American government has ever done. It happened at a time when you would work your whole life, your whole life, raising your kids, working, being a little league coach or a Sunday school teacher and then you would retire into poverty. And social security has enabled people to retire with dignity and overwhelmingly not be in poverty. We have to keep it solvent. And we will keep it solvent. And we’ll look for strategies like adjusting the payroll tax cap upward in order to do that. Here’s what Hillary and I will not do. And I want to make this very plain. We will never, ever engage in a risky scheme to privatize social security. Donald Trump wrote a book and he said social security is a Ponzi scheme and privatization would be good for all of us. And when congressman Pence was in Congress, he was the chief cheerleader for the privatization of social security, even after president Bush stopped pushing for it, congressman Pence kept pushing for it. We’re going to stand up against efforts to privatize social security, and we’ll look for ways to keep it solvent going forward, focusing primarily on the payroll tax cap.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-2016-vice-presidential-debate-229185#ixzz4MbFujh6s
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
EMichael
thanks for the information. it is helpful.
but it would have been better if you deleted your remark about “you should work on your memory.”
first, it irritates people. worse, it sets you up in your own mind as a paragon of virtue and intellectual sufficiency.
your comments would be better without it.