Also when talking about Clintons run in 2008 don't forget that after all 50 states had voted Obsma only won by 40k votes. If you count the caucuses RCP estimates Obama won by 150,000 votes. She had a much stronger case to make to the super delegates has she ended up with more of the popular vote whereas Bernie is way way behind in every way of counting and has effectively be out since March 15th.
Hillary Clinton to CNN: "I will be the nominee"
- Thread starter Fracas
- Start date
- Status
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Here:
Again only the surface. This stuff has not made an appearance on the campaign trail because he is being handled with kid gloves.
Clinton has been able to weather the GOP machine for nearly two decades, she has the scars from it sure but tell me would Bernie be able to hold like she did for the 11 hour Benghazi inquisition? He can't take a tough question without literally walking away.
As an incredibly devout Obama supporter from 8 years ago, it is not remotely analogous.
Everyone was hitting Obama from the minute he won Iowa. Clinton was going hardest at first but as it became clear he was a viable candidate taking a lead over Clinton the GOP went after him far harder than they were even going after Clinton, thinking that as a black man with a funny name he'd be an easy take down mid-primary and throw the Democratic process into chaos.
No one has attacked Sanders on just about anything. GOP strategists have outright stated they're avoiding doing so because they would love for him to be the GE opponent.
The skeletons aren't nameless and they're part of public record, but Clinton won't use them because they attack Democratic party ideals too closely. Something Sanders isn't opposed to as he pushes anti-globalization rhetoric throughout the rust belt that only helps isolationist candidates like Trump.
- Bernie Sanders was the Chairman of the Senate Veteran Affairs Oversight Committee during an administrative scandal that directly resulted in the deaths of 13 veterans and many, many more going without treatment. Sanders' committee held 7 hearings to the House committee's 42. Sanders has been described by people in the room as unable to fathom government managed healthcare failing.
He is now the guy trying to sell single payer for everyone. It wouldn't be swiftboating to line up a dozen of the veterans denied service under his watch to turn out a campaign commercial because it'd actually be the goddamn truth.
- Bernie Sanders has never passed meaningful regulation in his nearly three decades in the House and Senate. He attaches riders that people look the other way on to get bigger bills passed. It is incredibly easy to paint those riders as local pork barreling because that is exactly what he was doing. Trump's entire narrative of the establishment is people who do exactly that.
- Sanders really actually DID praise Castro on video and he really actually DID spend his honeymoon in the USSR while gulags were still a thing. When George Will writes a hit piece about you that Politifact then concedes as "mostly true" you've got skeletons. The fact that polling shows most Americans would accept a Muslim or atheist POTUS over a socialist is pretty damning and these ads basically write themselves. A larger segment in the country has become pro-socialism which is a sign of some progress, but the majority still see it as an immediate disqualifier.
- He has not big debate wins over Clinton despite her handling him with kid gloves throughout the process, despite all the hype from his campaign that once they got to the debates he'd land some mortal blows. He isn't a particularly good debater or quick on his feet so there is no reason to think he would score points against Trump in that sense.
These are the negatives I can pull off the top of my head. What do you think research will reveal about Sanders' record? What do you think the GOP machine can spin the tenuous threads they find into from said research? He is an incredibly vulnerable candidate left untouched up to this point because Clinton is caught between a rock and a hard place not wanting to offend his supporters while he's going as hard at her as he possibly can. Meanwhile all of Trump's negatives are baked into the cake already and he still polls better and better as the weeks go by and the media builds the false equivalency narrative.
BlastProcessing
Member
When I look at that graph, my predominant thought is "The little man really needs to show the fuck up in the midterms."
People need to stop acting like the President is a Godking. Trump and Sanders are doing well because they are offering solutions that require the lowest amount of sacrifice/effort from their electorate. They are populists.
1. He isn't just shitting on the democratic party. He's shitting on the idea of globalization as a force for good. Nothing is going to stop the exportation of manufacturing jobs, but instead of being honest about this he's demonizing NAFTA. In the process calling for isolationism that would degrade the standard of living in those same rust belt towns while causing significant harm to the economies of developing nations finally climbing out of poverty thanks to U.S. trade deals. It is reductionist and either dishonest or deluded, and it has done and will continue to do substantial damage to U.S. politics in general.
2. Why does the democratic party deserve to be shit on? Because it has over the last thirty years shifted to one that paid lip service to minorities and progressive ideas to one that actually pursues them, if in a pragmatic and cautious fashion? It isn't perfect but it is so obviously better than all of the alternatives that targeting it strikes me as tearing down your friend because he's less likely to fight back than your enemy.
3. What fundamental reforms? The kind that let a black first term senator from Illinois upset Hillary Clinton in 2008? The Democratic party runs the most equitable selection process in the U.S. today. It could improve but it is head and shoulders above the rest.
In Nevada we had someone pick up a chair and get ready to throw it at the stage before others had to restrain him. The next step in the situation is someone actually throwing a chair an hitting someone. Overt violence. That is your threshold for criticism. When his campaign selected supporters (that's what delegates are) respond to him losing with physical violence you'll then concede that maybe he's let it go to far? Great. Nice to know where you draw the line. No blood no foul apparently.
1. The Democratic party let Sanders run in their primary for his current Senate seat, then let him decline the nomination, blocking and D's from running against him, then helped fund his campaign. They've welcomed him into their caucus both in the House and in the Senate. He has always been given preferential status within their caucus in terms of seniority and committee assignments. But yeah, they've never liked or wanted him at all.
2. His platform is their goddamn platform. Bernie Sanders didn't dream up universal healthcare or affordable college. Dems have been pushing for those causes since FDR was in office. The difference is that Sanders would sacrifice universal government funded private healthcare in pursuit of true single payer healthcare while people like Hillary Clinton just care about the outcome. That's where he finds friction with the democratic party. They agree on where progress needs to be made nearly across the board, the only difference is that the party will take ANY progress while Sanders will only take HIS progress and fuck anything else.
3. They sure did work hard to anoint Clinton in 2008, right? Come on with this chosen one crap. Everyone else got out of the race because they knew Clinton was going to be nearly impossible to beat because her infrastructure was in place form '08, her support base was in place from '08, and the sentiment for radical change within the core of the party didn't exist after 7 generally productive years of Obama in the White House. Sanders has ran better than anticipated largely because Clinton and the party have handled him with kid gloves and given him every concession he wanted along the way.
He's broken FEC donation rules every month this year and a member of his campaign used an exploit in the party's server system to download private data but somehow he's the victim. Seriously now, how do you reconcile those facts with the narrative you're selling?
Like what? The only real think the DNC could do to improve it's primary process at this point while still being a political party and not some turnstile for independent fancy is getting rid of caucuses and moving entirely to primaries. But then Sanders benefited greatly from the caucus systems and had it all been primaries he would have been relegated as a non-viable candidate after the first Super Tuesday.
Soulscribe
Member
Sadly for some people, there is no actual path. The "path" for the past few rounds of primaries has been the hope that Clinton won't hit the magic number by June, thus heading into a contested convention. That looks to have been a myth as well, since she's on the cusp of clenching that number handily by next month.
Bernie's staying in either because he hopes something catastrophic happens to her campaign within the next month, or he thinks riling up his base (by giving them false hope) will serve his cause well going into November, somehow. Maybe as a third party candidate or just a protest write-in vote to take away from Clinton's potential. Honestly whatever he's doing it ain't helping anybody, and he seems to be lost in his own hype at the moment.
(sorry to quote a page one post but I really felt the need to respond to it, lol)
I frankly don't view those "skeletons" as insurmountable -- cue the dogpile -- but then I also don't fear the Republican attack machine, think the context of the political opponent matters, and don't necessarily think the "baked in"/"scar tissue" discount inherently applies as favorably as some seem to suggest.
You should be apologizing for quoting a Huelen post moreso than a page one post, FYI.
Biden > Carson > Sanders > Trump. That's the gist of Huelen's path this electoral cycle, isn't it?
It's nice that you don't view them as insurmountable, but all current polling on issues and blind candidate characteristics as well as all previous election cycle results indicate otherwise. I know, I know, math and history have an establishment bias.
Soulscribe
Member
I don't take offense to the idea, I just take much of that with a much more skeptical viewpoint.
Everyone loves to point to data sets and selective historical references that conveniently work in their favor, and that can certainly work a good portion of the time -- but it's not a flawless metric, and it can lead to a lot of blind spots.
Otherwise, we'd just algorithmically choose our candidates and history wouldn't be full of surprises. You're more than welcome to constrain your choices to the acceptability of the RNC attack machine and whatever the latest polling data shows. It's the index fund of decision trees.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Oh, there must be something I don't know.
lol.
Huelen is an irrational poster, there is no real logic to follow.
I'd counter: Trump is what should be causing fear, not the same old Republicans. He's destroyed the Bush legacy before our very eyes and will extend his ruthlessness towards the unfavorable Clintons who share similar weaknesses + ongoing FBI investigation. But I agree it is Hillary's to lose
BotoxAgent
Member
Those are some good posts. I can also add there are also recently some dirt on his wife having a part in Burlington College shuttering down.
googleplex
Member
Preach!
excelsiorlef
Member
No we're not.
AngmarsKing701
Member
I wonder where we'd be if Biden had run.
I'd like to think we'd be looking at a Biden >>>>> Trump landslide.
Instead of these two choices we're gonna have.
I'd like to think we'd be looking at a Biden >>>>> Trump landslide.
Instead of these two choices we're gonna have.
That we won't get to see Biden laughing at every dumb answer trump gives at the debate the way he did to Paul Ryan is the most disappointing thing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_diTHA_rhI8
uncelestial
Member
People were right to vote for Ralph Nader, if that was their conscience. Ralph Nader is not to blame for the 2000 election.
Honestly, people should vote however they want to vote, politicians should run for whatever office they want, and if they lose there is nobody to blame but themselves. Al Gore underperformed by keeping Clinton at a distance and putting fucking Lieberman on the ticket. He overplayed the center. Hillary is also lost on some on the left. Either one of them could have addressed the lack of passion from the left with meaningful action, but that's not their strategy.
Nobody likes blaming the candidate they support for their lack of popularity, but the world makes a lot more sense if you have the clarity to do so.
Sorry, but this is bullshit.
Voting for a candidate that has no chance to win anything is akin to not voting at all. You may not like that reality, but it doesn't change the fact that it exists. Nader absolutely lost the election for Gore which had real world consequences, so much so that I find it hard to believe that anyone would defend voting third party ever again.
We don't live in a country in which someone like Nader has a realistic chance. So if you are someone that cares at all for the following: LGBT rights, women's reproductive rights, gender equality, reforming the criminal justice system, voting in at least 2 supreme court justices, keeping/reworking the ACA, and keeping Dodd-Frank.... Then vote for that candidate. If the only thing you care about is finding a candidate that shares 100% of your political ideology, than don't vote I guess. Just remember all of the people you're fucking over if you don't.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this has been the WEAKEST Democratic lineup in decades. I believe part of what led to Sanders' rise is the complete lack of options beyond Clinton.
This is the precursor to the Sanders blaming narrative*. I'm telling you, you just need to let these things marinate a bit.
*
unless Clinton wins, in which case, we go back to the Sanders had no chance/he was never that popular/lolRonPaul2.0 narrative.
Definitely. I like Sanders, but he's got a ton of stuff going against him, and his biggest appeal to a lot of primary voters was "he's not Clinton", I think. Hillary Clinton is a tremendously flawed candidate who is hated by independents (and many Democrats!). Thank god for Donald Trump! We'd be in serious danger from any reasonable, moderate or moderate-sounding GOP candidate in the general.
The Sum of Zero
Member
Clinton definitely got my respect for enduring that inquisition (nice word choice).
Man I'll miss Biden.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
Holy shit
I don't know, are you capable of rational thought?
I was referring to the 2000 national election, specifically discussing Nader. I think your persecution complex has been marinating long enough. Maybe it's time to take it out of the oven and let it breathe a bit.
By the way, once again- Absolutely nothing on the content or my point.
DOWN
Banned
Hillary's advocacy for universal healthcare in the US is among the most publicized on the issue in history.
As for schools, you want to immediately write a check no one can cash. Theres no chance in hell that the money shifting and taxes needed to make the entire us population eligible for free college would pass quickly or realistically through any Congress in the near future.
You make a few good points in the rest of your post, but I want to call this part out as a piece of a theme that I've seen from your previous posts, like this one, which had some real pie-in-the-sky thinking.
Globalization is a force for good in developing nations, economically, there's no doubt. However, globalization has had a harmful effect in American manufacturing, which cannot compete with lower costs due to cheaper labor and looser regulations overseas. Our manufacturing sector losses have way outpaced those of other developed countries, even. You're talking about good middle-class jobs in many cases lost, replaced by low-paying service sector jobs or no jobs at all. We've lost over 5 million manufacturing jobs in the last decade and a half. Meanwhile, we subsidize these companies who have outsourced these jobs and destroyed communities across the nation.
So when you make a blanket statement like, "globalization is a force for good", I've got to call shenanigans. I'm not saying that the effect of globalization and trade agreements are all bad, but it's a mixed-bag at best, and for the average American, it's had a fairly negative impact. And I expect Trump to do better in the Rust Belt states than expected for this reason.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The loss of manufacturing jobs and jobs in general is a smokescreen. The wealth has remained here in the country. The US has not lost money, its just become more aggregated at the top. This is actually something that frustrates me about Bernie because I feel like he should be the guy who sees this. The problem is not inherently that the jobs went away, its that the money stayed but it stopped going to the people who held those jobs.
The solution is to get the money back, not get the jobs back. Globalization is not the problem, our response to it is
DOWN
Banned
ether
Probably because you're raising the spectre of a debunked myth, and making silly false choices to shame people into voting for your preferred candidate.
It's your argument to make, but let's not pretend it merits some scholarly rebuttal.
You are absolutely right, but you are absolutely wrong about Bernie not seeing it. One of the cornerstone issues of his campaign is income inequality. That wealthy has concentrated at the top.
fake edit:
Yes, but how do we do that?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
But I'm mad at him for using rhetoric that implies that globalization is the problem and that the solution is for the US to be more protectionist and try to "return the jobs".
Raw preference/identification data called Trump winning the GOP primary, FYI, while experts and insiders kept saying "nah, the party bosses will fix this!". Data won.
As for "selective" historical references - denigrating your opponent by inflating any negative associations you can with them isn't selective, it's politics 101, right up there with everyone saying "I'm going to run a clean campaign, not get drug into the mud by the other guy. He's a real sleaze bag but not me!" then going negative the second it benefits them. Oh, and not wearing hats, though Trump is trying to break that one.
There's too much meat on the bone for Sanders to not have at least one incredibly successful "Swiftboat" style narrative built about him in a GE. Dems can't attack him on the VA because the last thing they want is bringing up government program failures. Dems can't attack him on the USSR trip because they generally want to avoid the socialism comparison with their party period. You can go down the list, Sanders is too far left to really be a viable GE candidate but gets to hide that fact because the last thing the Democratic Party wants is to mock the furthest left member of their caucus for being so far left. It hurts them with the far left base while verifying all right's claims that they're a bunch of pinko socialists who want to euthanize Grandma the day she turns 70.
You wouldn't consider Barack Obama someone outside this alleged algorithm?
A lot of candidates come along who have far less ready made attack baggage than Bernie Sanders. So why take a candidate with a mountain of untested baggage over a candidate who's baggage has been a matter of public record with GOP attacks for nearly 30 years with none of it derailing her yet? Clinton's negatives are known and played out. Even then Sanders is only slightly ahead of her in a H2H against Trump, with that difference largely reflected in additional undecideds who are likely just Sanders voters unwilling to say Hillary until Sanders is actually out.
More importantly, I choose my candidate of preference on who can do the job best. Clinton is head and shoulders above this field in that regard. Proficiency in the White House is a win for everyone, as seen by the stark contrast of the Obama years v. the GWB years.
Estate taxes. That's the real problem but Sanders wont' touch on that in a substantial and public way.
The 1% holds roughly half the wealth in the nation. Do you really think these people are making billions in their lifetimes? The people who pull that off are household names. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, etc.. The vast majority of that 1% are inheritors of familial wealth.
Obey the true rules of capitalism, as set forth by Adam Smith and reiterated by Thomas Jefferson, have a nearly 100% estate tax, and truly reset the playing field with each generation. Everything gets more fair after that.
A debunked myth... Really. According to whom?
PS- Hillary wasn't always my preferred candidate, Sanders was. Impressive projecting, though.
BlastProcessing
Member
I don't think that what happened in New Hampshire in 2000 is a debunked myth.
He hasn't just blamed globalization, but I do think he has been overly simplistic in his stance on this. Income inequality, outsourcing, and corporate taxation are massive, complex issues. He may feel that it's tough to keep voters' attention with a nuanced plan as opposed to just shouting "I oppose the TPP". Of course, Hillary is just as guilty of that.
Would love to hear how Florida in 2000 represents a debunked myth as well...
Improve labor negotiating power with a basic income so that they aren't coerced into selling their labor for a lower price, and can accumulate capital themselves.
rokkerkory
Member
Now just go beat Trump
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Sure, but I actively disagree with his stance. His problem with TPP doesn't seem to be with, say, some aspect of it that he finds objectionable so much as a real problem with the way that global trade harms US employment. I think that global trade is just about universally a good thing and that the fact that we are not handling it properly within our borders does not reflect badly on the idea of free trade as a whole.
Hillary was incredibly popular right up until the primaries started. I have a feeling she'll bounce back pretty quickly once the people attacking her are all Trump/FoxNews. i.e. its not as big of a jump as it sounds from yelling "corrupt shill!" to yelling "Fox News is a lie!". Hell, Trump's entire campaign is built around the fact that people happily forget/forgive information they don't want to know.
But that's just a guess too. I'd love to see some historical charts of how candidates numbers have moved around during elections.
That gets us part of the way, but the children of the wealthy still have great advantages. Do you think Donald Trump, child of a Ford plant worker in Detroit, goes to the Wharton School on his own merits? Still, it's a good idea because it would be a heck of an equalizer. Which is why it's totally unrealistic and will never happen.
Free college for high school students that qualify academically is another way to bridge that gap, IMO.
I like this as well.
Zeouterlimits
Member
This election continues to be fascinating to watch from afar.
Trump and Clinton have felt like practically sure bets for a long time, so this isn't too surprisingly for her to say it.
Trump and Clinton have felt like practically sure bets for a long time, so this isn't too surprisingly for her to say it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Bernie's socialism isn't really socialist, at least that I've seen. He's not really interested in fundamentally shaking up the relationship between labor and capital (other than as a side effect of health care reform, which is more a result of how fucked employment derived healthcare is as a system)
Which has never really bugged me personally, actual socialism is the sort of thing that either requires a real grassroots revolution or some kind of catastrophe. People referring to it as socialism is annoying though.
What about it do you see as "pie-in-the-sky"?
1. The tax subsidies for various companies, job exporters or not, is something that needs to stop but is entirely separate from free trade agreements.
2. The jobs you are talking about were leaving anyhow. Do you really think a modest tariff will stop a company from outsourcing when the U.S. minimum wage is $7.65/Hr. plus payroll tax, unemployment benefits, and healthcare costs as well as worker safety and environmental protection regulations while the alternative is $0.50 a day with absolutely zero obligations beyond finding more people to maim in unregulated factories?
Free trade deals allow for the U.S. to:
A. push some basic worker standards onto various trade partners.
B. open the market for competitively priced U.S. products (agriculture).
C. allow U.S. living standards to slowly infiltrate the trade partners, forcing their expectations, and as a result their governmental policies, upwards.
Trade deals were unavoidable from the first day the U.S. engaged in rebuilding Japan and exported manufacturing jobs there as part of the rebuild. Pandora's box was opened at that point and if it hadn't been then it would have happened all the same just maybe a decade or two later with Mexico just south of the U.S.. The only thing trade deals did was get something back in exchange, which is what they should be judged on.
3. As for the losses here outpacing the gains elsewhere, welcome to the beginnings of manufacturing automation. I'd rather the U.S. extract free trade deals that allow for our service sectors to get a foothold in developing nations and give up manufacturing jobs a decade too early rather than hang onto those old industry jobs to then be trying to make inroads into new markets when we have no leverage and an economic crunch of our own. Large employment manufacturing is a dying breed of occupation. Clinging to it does no one any good. The transition needs to occur and opening as many markets as possible for the new economy jobs will only expedite that transition. It is unfortunate that people are caught out in the cold during this transition, but retraining and redeployment of the U.S. workforce should be the focus here, not protectionism and isolation to grasp what last little bit of time we can run out on the clock.
Globalization is a net positive for the U.S. and is a massive force for good across the globe. It is not a mixed bag for the average American, it is a mixed bag for 45+ year old white Americans who want to cling to their old economy jobs at the expense of their children's future. It is a false narrative, but yes, it is a false narrative that plays. Much to the benefit of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
Honestly, I'm totally fine with that disparity. That is a meaningful motivator for people. We sure as hell need to raise the floor, but I see no reason to even try to force a ceiling. That is a path to true socialism, which is counter productive to workforce ingenuity and upward mobility.
Also, it very much can happen. estate taxes, much like top earner taxes, used to be in the 80's. The government did a poor job regulating tax evasion so when Kennedy moved top earner taxes down to the mid-60's but strengthened the regulations the "trick down" myth took root.
Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are effectively making this choice on their own. Buffett even has a coalition of millionaires and billionaires who have joined with him to give away the majority of their net worth. That is exactly how you make it work. If they earn massive fortunes let them disperse them as they see fit to various charities during their lifetimes, bringing back the patronage system and massively expanding funding for arts and humanities. When they die though all but a modest sum (probably about $5M as from last I checked that was the top end of anything that could still be called a "family farm" without being insulting) goes to the government.
If you pair it with some aggressive re-alignment of the corporate tax rates (which would weaken the 1%er coalition) I think you would quickly find the 1% having to concede as the 99% would be staunchly in favor of it and we do live in a democracy after all. But yes, the first politician who campaigns on this and has a real pathway to election might get shot.
Fenderputty
Banned
The only way manufacturing would ever return is if we either lower our standard of living to that of other countries or they raise their standard of living up to ours. Take your pick.
Neither are going to happen by the time automation occurs anyway.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Quoting so its not lost on the last page
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked