I get that, but not sure about HRC “pivoting back” to her neoliberal stance. The Ds are a mushy center-right party, and all this progressive talk from the insider is just camouflage. HRC has thrust her finger into the air and sensed the wind was coming from the left, and so blithely coopted Sanders’ positions as positions from which to triangulate. Her donors fully understand she’s just doing that to win, and aren’t concerned she’ll try to break up the banks, rein in the pharmaceutical gouging, or do anything substantive with respect to wealth disparity or tax loopholes, and so on.
In the general election, she’ll assuredly move right and attribute that to her pragmatism in “getting things done” as well. And should she prevail, she’ll have a sudden bout of amnesia about all these carefully wordsmithed sound bytes issued during primary season. And as with Obama, any attempts to hold her feet to the fire will be met with attacks and belittlement from her staff and the party loyalists.
So sure, she can wrangle over these issues, but it’s all lip service. That’s the essence of Third Way politics: talk like a Democrat but solicit bribes and govern like a Republican.
Sanders has been holding these positions for decades, not just as a matter of winning the primary. They say that mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery. But in this case, it’s the most insidious form of duplicity. When I heard Clinton rattle off Sanders’ positions as talking points in her victory speech, it just rang hollow to me.
According to Nate Silver there are four states Bernie should own: Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa and Massachusetts (In that order). He only broke even in Iowa so it shows Hillary is strong even in Bernie Country. That was the surprise to me, that Hillary tied in a state that was much more suitable for Bernie. It remains to be seen if Bernie can be competitive in Hillary Country, but polls in most states generally show Hillary 10 points ahead or more. The dynamic of the race would have to change dramatically for Bernie to over-perform the polls in enough states to even come close to the nomination.
The message that is alarming the middle class is income inequity. Because people are hurting from the degredation of their spending power. In 1980 with the Reagan revolution income for the middle class stopped rising with inflation. So inflation has been increaseing but income has been virtually flat. So I am glad Bernie has raised the issue but both dems need to tell people what caused it and how to reverse it. Bernie??? Hillary???
I don´t disagree about Clinton. But in the otherwise lame the sky-is-falling piece by John Judis on the front page left, he points out that, HRC ¨lost 18 to 29 year old voters to Sanders by 84 to 13 percent.¨ If that doesn´t put the fear of god in their centrist 3rd way hearts, I don´t know what will.
As of a couple of days ago, 538 was giving HRC something like an 82% chance of winning Iowa, so how exactly were they saying Sanders ¨should own Iowa¨?
Despite the fact that NH is a neighboring state, I do think Clinton will give him a run for his money. I think that’s all she can do in NH but that’s still not too bad. She won’t get “blown out.”
They should this November-- regardless of the nominee-- as it’s their future at stake.
Pres Cruz or Pres Rubio appointing 2-3 jurists to the SCOTUS should inject the idea of near-lifelong social and political repression into their emotional and intellectual mix.
Further, all of us (D)s who have pulled the wagon for decades are counting on them.
The vaunted clinton machine, along with years as the presumptive democratic nominee couldn’t decisively beat a latecomer, nonpac/nonmillionaire who was all but ignored (when not being mocked) by a national political media.
Yep, that’s the kind of victory Wall Street billionaires paid for when the dumped millions into Iowa for Hillary. Inside baseball courtesy of DWS; Deep funding from Wall Street- and it buys three tenths of a percentage point in a state where HRC has been almost constantly campaigning in since Bill Clinton ran for office.
Rahm Emmanuel applauds the establishment spin being spun here.
Well, therein lies the rub. When we go into the general election with HRC (most probably), some will vote, but many will not. One might lament the fact, but it´s ever been thus: young people tend to vote based on their enthusiasm.
You get no disagreement from me on this. I’m just saying that I’m not trying to blow smoke up anyone about what I think will happen. I just think that the whole SCOTUS argument doesn’t resonate with them although it damn well should.
