Yes. When I say that there's a lot of revisionist history about the 2008 primary, there are really two big things in my mind. The first is that Clinton began with a seemingly insurmountable lead and was regarded as the inevitable nominee until late in the campaign. This is somewhat understandable because a big part of her campaign strategy was to position herself as the clear front runner, but the truth is she almost never broke 50% in the polls and fell behind Obama in most polls by February as the anti-Clinton vote coalesced around him.
The second big piece of revisionist history is that Obama was an outsider who came out of nowhere to win the nomination. While it is true that his rise was awfully fast, he still had good name recognition from giving the keynote address at the 2004 convention and was universally recognized as a rising star within the party. Clinton certainly started out with more establishment support, but Obama was still a mainstream Democrat who had a decent base of support within the party, especially in comparison to Sanders.
Frankly I see a fair amount of revisionist history or just plain historical ignorance when people talk about this primary. My first presidential election was 2004 so I was indeed well aware of the public opinion on marriage that shinra posted. Two years later I was living in Wisconsin when the voters approved a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage and even civil unions with over 59% of the vote (in a blue state during a Democratic wave election!). When people chastise Clinton for changing her position on marriage equality since 2004, they seem to forget that a lot of people, not just politicians, have also changed their views since then.
Similarly, even though I was too young to really be politically aware at the time, I know that crime was much higher in the early 90s than it was today, that many people (falsely, as it turned out) thought it was getting worse, and that a significant factor in Dukakis's defeat in 1988 was that Bush had successfully painted him as soft on crime (Willie Horton, "revolving door," etc.) That's not to say that one can't fairly criticize politicians for their positions at the time, just that so much of the discussion omits that context. People unfortunately are prone to viewing the past as though it were the present.
I'll say that the youth vote is a big reason for it. Someone posted that exchange about why "Hillary is a carpetbagger!" was a bad attack since it had already been put to bed 16 years ago, and the poster responded with, "I didn't realize that since I was only 4 in 2000."
Add a few other instances like that dumb Robert Byrd meme where people just aren't researching fully when pulling up old information. These people would be so screwed in a real history class because they'd try to write a massive paper on small tidbits without any context.
I've had similar interactions with a couple of friends, and some family members.
In my experience its been people that took out 100k+ in loans for a degree that has no market value or people that think their credit card debt is the fault of the banks and not their own.
Yeah, and I really want to know what the setup is for people that do this and don't finish quickly (or at all!). Like, should tuition go away for a person who's changed their program 4 times, and hence are looking at 8-9 years in school? I literally know someone like that who just graduated after 8 years of undergrad. At what point does that become a net-negative no matter the program they finished with?
Perhaps I have no say since I have never been a public figure, but my stance on gay marriage has been consistent since at least 92, that they should be able to get married. People praise Obama for 'evolving' his views on the matter, and immediately after, as if over night, a bunch of other politicians changed their tune. Perhaps this could have happened earlier, maybe if the Clintons had stated they were in favor when they were in the Whitehouse, a bunch of other politicians who were secretly in favor, or who didn't care enough to stick their neck out would have gotten on the bandwagon. It's all speculation, but I'd rather politicians say what they think is right, rather than hide their thoughts until someone else with the courage stands up to do so. They are the leaders, they should lead not follow.
Perhaps Hillary really did have a revelation this recently, and she was truly against gay marriage and just now came to the correct side. I'm not against people eventually coming to the right decision, late is better than never, but do you really want to vote for a person who continually comes to the right decision so late?
You'd be hardcore in the minority on that issue, and in 50 years, I suspect we'll all be a little problematic is so way or another. And that's okay. None of us are perfect, and if we're good people, we'll change our worldviews to accommodate new information and concepts.
There is a revolution happening. In Europe. Americans just aren't up to the task. We're all still praying that our American Dream tickets will be worth something some day. The rest of the world sees us acting this way and rolls their eyes.
The revolution is economic in nature.
If a company wants to leave the country and lay off thousands of employees, then those employees should be given the chance to own/buy that business. The Labour Party is fighting to give them that opportunity.
First, the rise of the European far-right completely debunks this liberal utopia nonsense. At least here, in a few months, we can show the receipts when our voting base overwhelmingly rejects racists like Trump, but those groups are actually winning a fair bit overseas.
Second, the idea that economic pressures are the only pressures is laughable at best, and it's one of the big reasons that Bernie isn't doing better. Telling someone about income inequality when they're worried about getting shot by police or fired at work for wearing pants isn't going to sway them.
I am starting to get angry when I hear people say this. It is happening all the time in WA right now. They are actively saying some voters just don't count. It is gross.
*Raises hand*
I'm one of those "You live in the old Confederacy, and hence shouldn't be allowed to vote apparently" states. Remember, the revolution is only for some people. And a campaign strategy that makes me think of
Animal Farm is probably not going to go well.
