And I have said all along that if the Berniacs aren’t on board by now, what with Rump showing his true insanity and authoritarianism on display, they’ll never be on board. Never. If you don’t respond to facts OR to fear, then you’re impervious to the idea of doing what’s right.
If we lose this election (which we’re not) it’s not because of “insiders at the DNC.”
You are suggesting Hillary will be OK when people start focusing on the race. Just when do you think people will tune in to this race? Sometime early in November? The fact is this race has the full attention of most people nationwide. Hillary has giant hurtles to overcome. She has been the victim of non-stop negative press for about 30 years. After a while all that negative press creates a lasting impression. To overcome that negative press we needed to start a long time ago. Thank God Hillary isn’t as complacent as some of her supporters.
If we lose the election it will be the result of complacent centrist supporters, including “insiders at the DNC” who don’t know how to work hard or don’t think they have to. I am sorry to be such a Cassandra but assuming the progressive wing of the party will jump on board is stupid. That is what the DNC did. Now Hillary and her team are scrambling. Apparently they read the numbers.
Bernie should have been a three day story in the late winter. Instead he gave Hillary a big scare. If that doesn’t tell you something, you aren’t paying attention.
If you’re calling me complacent, don’t, but it’s an unfortunate fact that most people are not paying as much attention and as rabidly as we here are. The average voter turns his and hers thoughts to the election somewhere around Labor Day after they’ve been on vacation, back to work, back to school and have less to preoccupy them. If people did in fact pay more attention to elections we wouldn’t get such pisspoor turnouts in midterms, such as the national average of 36.3% in 2014.
Clinton’s knows she’s been the victim of a right-wing conspiracy who’s put out these canards for many years, and she’s also prepared to rebut the charges after trump loses that it was a rigged election and possibly a call for a re-count. She’s the most well known woman in this country, and it’s not because she’s corrupt and has overwhelming negative baggage. If that was the case she’d been discarded similar to what’s happening to DWS.
Why do you think the DNC and mainstream Democrats are being complacent? Hillary and her supporters are working their butts off and have been doing so for the past year.
And why do you ignore the complacency of the Bernie Bro die-hards, who are waiting for everyone to kiss their asses for their vote? Who feel that Hillary is solely and completely responsible for party unity while they continue to pillory and throw spit balls at her and her supporters?
I am not calling you complacent. I know conventional wisdom, but I also have a lot of non-political friends. Trust me, they are paying attention right now. Waiting tell labor day is too late.
I didn’t say Hillary and her team was complacent, but it is pretty clear that a lot of people including a lot of people who post here are shocked that Trump hasn’t folded in upon himself.
At the start of WWII the American army in the Philippines was convinced that if the Japanese invaded they could brush them aside. After all the Japanese hadn’t fought a real army. They were rudely awakened in December 1941. It took 4 years for the US to defeat the Japanese. If the Americans had taken them seriously in 1941, the result might have cost fewer lives.
Trump has the Republican party behind him. Paul Ryan says he will support Trump even though he acknowledges Trump says and acts like a racist. Ryan isn’t alone. We can’t assume we are going to win.
Honestly, I don’t like getting into virtual shouting matches with people who are on the same team. We see the approach to running a campaign differently and even the role of the DNS and DWS, also see how unjustly Clinton is perceived by the talking heads itching for a durable horse race story, but I’m not going into panic and despair modes because of Monday’s breaking news. If she’s not getting raves on Friday, I’ll reconsider.
I see no evidence that the Democrats are not taking their Republican opponents seriously.
I see evidence all around me, but I don’t think you see the same things.
Why is Donna B not gaveling the convention in every day? I vote to send Debbie WS home
Your concern has been duly noted.
There are two stories on front page above the fold of NYT print edition today. One is Leaks Bring Down a Democratic Leader and slightly smaller In Hacking, Russian Is Accused of Playing in American Politics. and predictions the convention will devolve into dissension and disunity. But the former story could not exist without the latter. The Russians are manipulating our politics for the benefit of trump and we’re going off on tangents about the head of the DNC and what may have been done vis-à-vis Bernie Sanders. People don’t seem to demanding that trump be called to account for cozying up to the Russian oligarch, just calls for a Democratic leader to brought down.
The second story should be the bigger story, but God bless the NYT. They deeply hate Hillary and the Democrats.
That’s easy to say, but in fact the Times gets a lot of criticism for being too left leaning and appealing only to its lefty readers. That’s an indisputable fact. Editorial yesterday trashed trump while praising Clinton. So I don’t see the hate. Maybe if you read it as much as I do you’d see the difference. But you stick to what you’ve been taught.
I humbly disagree. You have it backwards.
(Some thoughts I agree with here: Grim Economic Realities )
At the start of WWII we were sitting on the sidelines. We didn’t even want to get in the game.
(<350k troops in the Army/Navy/Marines in 1939. >12M by 1945.)
It was the Americans who were underdogs going up against campaign-hardened troops that had conquered China, Indochina, Burma, and pushed the British back into India. Deciding they needed to cripple the neutral US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, simultaneous to an air attack on the Philippines, in order to continue southward to New Guinea, then Australia. The goal being control of the entire Pacific Rim. And but for the grace of serendipity-- they would have too.
jw1
You mean the Times hasn’t push a phony narrative of the email story? I must be reading the wrong NY Times.
“Push” and “phony narratives” are only what reporting looks like to you. In any case, try the editorial page. It’s on the left side of the sheet.