What does this remind me of…?
This is an excellent post, with information I have not seen elsewhere and some discussion of same, inviting further discourse.
The TPM articles themselves more and more serve as ‘stubs’ to initiate discussion, but lack depth of information or breadth of topic.
This transcribed press release being a good example. 59 - 34 = 25. That is the extent of the analysis.
3 Likes
Fortunately, he is going to lose badly by being a hypocrite. Best of both worlds.
4 Likes
While I’m generally closer to Sanders on policy positions, one of my biggest concerns is that he would be aMcGovern-like candidate in the general, in being not only portrayed as too left-wing but unable to respond effectively to negative attacks and dirty tricks (though Clinton’s hapless criticisms of him the last week or so are making me question her as well). The especially weird thing is that if he were to get the nomination we could effectively have a Goldwater vs. McGovern matchup.
People who believe in conspiracies in this election to get one person elected and keep another out have PER SE DISQUALIFIED themselves from voting. Republican, Democrat or Independent. Reason? You don’t get to vote because you’re a gullible jackass.
Republicans, the historical masters of ganging together to defeat (usually Democratic) candidates can’t do anything to get rid of Trump or Cruz. Not a thing.
Plus, everything they ever did was almost immediately reavealed to the public, as far back as 1972.
If Bernie doesn’t make the grade - or if Hillary doesn’t - it only reflects on how much the Democratic voters wanted one or the other.
Giant Political Puppet Manipulators are delusions of people who don’t understand anything about the American political system and/or who can’t face that their candidate just wasn’t wanted by enough voters.
Please, Democrats, let’s not become the whiny paranoids that Republicans have been for 40 years. It’s not becoming.
1 Like
I cannot imagine which Democratic President was the last who would’ve met your standards. So yes, I’d say you’re not a “true Democrat”. Maybe a true Socialist, Communist, Naderite, or perhaps something way to the far right end of the spectrum. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being any of those things–providing you’re honest about it, and so far, your words betray you.
2 Likes
Living in the South as I do, I see the Republican frustration as simply stated.
They want
-
more control over women (roll back abortion, no equal pay or opportunity laws, no domestic violence laws, limit healthcare, get more guns) and
-
more control over minorities (roll back voting rights, and civil rights laws, and affirmative action, and immigration laws, limit healthcare, get more guns).
Underlying all of this is a disturbing demand for pushing fundamentalist Christianity farther into public and private venues. That helps them in each of the objectives.
“Concern about the economy” is bullshit, however much NY and Beltway pundits repeat it, whether they know it’s bullshit or not. It’s the whitewash (pun intended) that hides the ugliness of the actual Republican voter agenda. Try to find a Trump or Cruz (or Jeb or Christie or Rubio) yahoo who could tell you the first thing about the state of the economy or economic principles, including what a President or Congress could change about it. …crickets
Anyone in the Republican party who could actually discuss the economy is someone 100% behind ANY Republican who could be elected, because he (yes, HE) is someone vastly invested in keeping himself on top and the yahoos down below, ignorantly voting their fears and prejudices.
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the Republican party of our Southern states. God help us.
1 Like
Such polls are pretty nonsensical–we vote state by state, not nationally.
However, I beg to differ with those who claim Clinton has lied about Sanders on health care. She simply stated the facts, that 9 times he proposed single payer not at the federal level, but state by state. And he never once voted for a single Democratic bill to implement single payer at the federal level. His supposed support for “single payer” is smarmy at best.
The reason I’m not anxious to see Sanders is two-fold: I doubt he has the mental and political agility to create good foreign policy (one has to wonder just what his positions on that really are) and we do live in a world where foreign policy is really one of our biggest issues.
Secondly, Sanders’ remaining pure and true to his ideological leanings also means going stale. I for one would not like to
see two passé ideologies (18th century free market capitalism and 19th century socialism) marking the limits of the battle this year. After all, we need to take “men as they are and the laws as they might be” as a great French philosopher once said–not think up how we believe they ought to be and try to mold them into our pre-formed shapes.
We have to face the 21st century as it actually exists and not through ideological dreams about it. That means facing neither socialism nor capitalism can be called winners when it comes to modernity. They unfortunately all too often depend on the “evils” of the one to win converts to the “other.” Remove one and the other turns potentially totalitarian…
Give me a pragmatic with liberal ideals --like Obama (and Hillary is trying hard to emulate him) any day.
5 Likes
Very true. One of the things we all tend to forget about Romney is that he was uniquely suited, because of his past flip flops and zigzagging positions, to make the pivot to the middle. He could point to his previous support of PP or Romneycare and make the claim that (wink, wink) he’ll be the guy you want him to be. He was the embodiment of “generic Republican”. I still believe a significant number of voters chose him over Obama because they believed he didn’t REALLY care about social issues, but would be uniquely adept at “fixing” the economy because of his business background. I don’t doubt that some folks will delude themselves into believing the same about Trump, I doubt very many will be able to convince themselves that Trump won’t be the asshole he’s promising to be.
2 Likes
Agree, and I would go a step further.
It seems that conservative and libertarian calls for “limited government” actually mean limited representation or redress for all but a handful of powerful interests.
Limit regulation of the finance system and of health care.
Limit oversight of business interests and polluting industries.
Limit the ability of government to ensure fair business practices and the safety of the public.
Limit the ability to sue for damages (tort reform) or to place items on a ballot for a referendum vote.
Limit the access of employee health plans to birth control without co-pay in the event their employers deny that access due to “religious beliefs.”
Limit the ability of consumers to access tax credits for installing solar energy systems in their homes.
Limit the ability for same-sex couples to marry.
Limit the ability of citizens who are perceived to favor Democrats to vote.
Inevitably they support policies that limit representation, means of redress for harms, and economic, political and civil rights for consumers, workers, communities and individuals – while providing powerful corporate and financial interests with more power and more protection from the consequences of the harm they may create for consumers, communities and taxpayers.
Big government for the interests of money and property; limited rights and limited avenues for redress for people. That’s the essence of modern-day conservatism.
3 Likes
(Geeky-drama aside) I’m a big fan of Nate’s numbers.
The professional and athletic circles I move in are pretty conservative.
So when I used Nate’s predictive skills (to a number of those in my circles) in my 2012 assessment in advance of the GE-- I was snickered at when I boldly predicted BHO’s victory-- and the number of EVs he’d receive (307 or 332; dependent on too-close-to-call-FL) doing so.
When BHO won with 332 EVs-- most of those I know don’t express their RW talking points to me any longer.
Thanks Obama Nate!
jw1
4 Likes
Romney was exactly that.
And still could not generate the enthusiasm required to stop a steamrolling by BHO.
I’m convinced HRC would have done him the same way.
IMO we won’t see a coalescing of (R) voters around the candidate this GE-- as has been the rule the past 2 decades in POTUS elections. Again IMO, the climate is such that there may be less (R)s at the polls next November for a number of reasons.
(D)s cannot allow a competitive or contentious set of primaries-- to generate an ambivalence that matches the lack of participation from our counterparts.
jw1
2 Likes
The national media, Sanders supporters and Republican leaning pollsters are trying desperately to make a horse race out of this. This old Democrat knows that Bernie can never be elected President in spite of Republican disarray. He really should drop out. I am offended that he has never even called himself a Democrat since he arrived in the Senate. Time to go Bernie. You made your point whatever it is?
1 Like
One thing that I’ve found both interesting and frustrating is that many Sanders supporters (at least the most vocal ones on my Facebook timeline) are highly gullible to repeating things that are either highly exaggerated to the point of false or from outright fake news sites. E.g., one I just saw today: “79 year old bird watcher takes down Oregon militant with old high school wrestling move”. That too resembles the teabagger side and has me worried about their critical thinking facilities.
3 Likes
How am I being dishonest ? You’re the one tossing around the labels. All I’m saying is that the Democratic party has aided and abetted the gutting of the middle class, and the Clintons won a blue ribbon. I don’t know where you fall on the economic spectrum, but most of the people I know are a couple of missed paychecks from economic disaster. I grew up at a time when union factory workers could retire with a degree of economic security. Now everyone hopes they can last in their jobs until they are 70. Did Bill Clinton repeal Glass Steagal to help workers or bankers? Did he decide to outlaw the regulation of financial instruments that no one understood because it would help workers or bankers? Did he deregulate telecoms because it was a good deal for the average person or for corporations? And DOMA? And NAFTA? No, I’m not a “true” Democrat, but don’t feed me the line that the Democratic party is waging some noble campaign to look out for the middle class and minorities, and that Hillary Clinton embodies that. Sanders at least makes the case, and the fact that he has a pretty substantial following shows that it’s ringing true for a lot of people. The Clintons had eight years to show what they stood for. No seconds for me, thanks…
No, you said he wasn’t a real Democrat. That’s not the same thing.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/
In that her proposals are out there and fair game to be debated, and Bernie’s aren’t. It IS a perspective of some sort, I agree.
3 Likes
For whatever its worth, Nate Silver disagrees. He gives Hillary an over 80% chance to win Iowa, considering more than just the state polls in his model. When he only factors in state polling, she still has like a 65% chance of winning according to his models.
2 Likes
I thought it was extremely telling that during last week’s debate, every single candidate was booed at least once in their responses. And bear in mind, we are only talking minor shadings of differences with regards to any actual policy points. The base is light years away from coalescing around a single candidate,so you may be very correct in that analysis.
3 Likes
I have never equated Bill Clinton’s actions with Hillary Clinton’s actions.
Her achievements and actions are hers-- his were his.
Bill Clinton left office in January 2001.
It’s been 15 years. You need to get over him.
If you don’t consider voting for HRC as POTUS if she does win the nomination over Sen Sanders-- and she loses the the GE? Then you’ll be complicit in allowing Trump/Cruz/Rubio to select 2-3 SCOTUS appointments in the next 4-8 years. The you’ll see some serious gutting of anything remotely progressive.
This country has almost climbed out of a huge hole-- made possible by the splitting of the FL vote in the 2000 GE. Thanks to a very similar attitude-- of those who felt Ralph Nader was ‘a principled choice’.
You can contribute to a reprise-- by clinging to your sophomoric conjoining of the Clintons-- and refusing to participate if your principled choice isn’t the nominee.
Living in the past-- isn’t really living.
jw1
6 Likes