I was disappointed to read many of the comments in BooMan’s Serious Question about Hillary Clinton, while yet understanding and sympathizing with them.
To those of you (us) wishing for third parties at the national level, that’s not going to happen anytime soon. It will be years before an organization like the Working Families Party can compete in every state, and they’re one of the more effective alternatives out there (big misstep with Cuomo though, guys). If we want a viable third party, it needs to start at the local and state level. You don’t need a dope like me to tell you this. Just be aware, it will be a long time before we elect a WFP or Green to the House or Senate and even then, like Socialist Sanders, they’ll HAVE to caucus with the Dems or the GOP to get anything done. It’s baked in the cake.
To those of you that claim you’ll vote for HRC but won’t do GOTV on her behalf, I guess I wonder if anyone has any short-term memory of the last time we made the perfect the enemy of the good. Also, I don’t remember many of you loudly declaring your opposition to Obama based on perceived (and often real) betrayals on war, a public option, surveillance, and civil liberties.
Look, I’m not a big fan of the Clinton brand. But I am much less a fan of Republicans. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I will gladly GOTV for her. I will do the same if it is Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, or Herman Fucking Munster.
We have to win. We have to crush the Republican Party because they have gone insane. Stop with the “how has Hillary failed me today” bullshit, and work to elect some fucking Democrats you whining all-of-a-sudden purists.
So boo hoo hoo. The likely nominee is imperfect. THAT NEVER HAPPENS.
And now some music. It’s the Supersuckers. It has nothing to do with the rant above. But it kind of does.
Sure. Libertarians are a much bigger danger to Republicans than Greens are to Democrats. Libertarians are polling between 4 and 8 percent in Georgia and North Carolina, eclipsing the lead of either major party candidate in either state.
The Left needs a string, consistent third-party alternative to counter-balance the Libertarians.
Munster/Fester ’16. I’m in.
Speaking of short memories, I still can’t figure out how a second GHWB would have been different from all the nails hammered in the New Deal by Bill Clinton. It might even have been better because then there would have been no purchase for Newt’s revolution and Republican Presidents fare poorly in their second midterm. Could have paved the way for a “good” DEM president in 1996 and the country would also have been sick enough of a Bush that there would have been no GWB.
Neoliberalcons are not good. And I for one am already sickened by all these “lectures” telling me to suck it up and get with a Clinton restoration when the first one bore no resemblance to why I chose to be a Democrat.
I vote for the Democrats because I’m a “radical” leftist who knows that common sense, goodwill and reason have absolutely no place in the current Empire, hence the candidates who should be elected are laughed at as being unSeriousTM.
I’ll vote for Clinton only because I despise fascism and I know that Republican scumbags won’t be able to help themselves with abject misogyny, further alienating women from the Republican brand.
Divide and conquer? Of course. In any Empire, it is the most consistent and successful political maneuver. Again, because in Empire, reason and goodwill are vulnerabilities. Empire is as Empire does.
I also think that ratfucking is a very, very legitimate political tactic, and wish Democrats had backbones and used it more often. When I win the lottery, which I’m sure is going to happen any day now, you can be sure I’ll put my money where my fingers are, and will have a LibertarianTM candidate in almost every race in red districts.
Because fucking duh, thats how you ratfuck fascist-enabling useful idiots.
This is the only time in the election process when we have leverage over the candidates. It would seem pretty silly to forgo the opportunity to affect Clinton’s positions by saying we have to settle some 2 years before the election.
Are we not even allowed to voice an opinion anymore?
What the heck?
Apparently not.
Sorry BooMan.
All Hillary can get from me is a vote. She’s lucky to get that.
I don’t do shyt else for her candidacy.
She can have all those ‘ hard working WHITE people’ do the work for her campaign.
Look, a warhawk or austerity fetishist Democrat in the hot seat for 2016 may be coalition-destroying. For all of the talk people say about ‘2016 might usher in a new era of fascism if the Republicans win’, people forget that 2020 will usher in a new era of fascism if Democrats fuck it up. If we have an unpopular war or a recession during this timeframe all it will do is enable Republicans in 2018 and 2020, whereupon not only will they have all three branches of government but the Democratic Party will be discredited and unable to launch a counter-attack. We’d seriously be better off allowing the Republican Party full control of the government for a two-year window for 2016-2018 and striking back from a position of demographic and political strength, 1980 Republican style.
Thus tactically, if Hillary hasn’t learned anything by 2016 and ends up winning, we might be better off intentionally torpedoing her and playing the waiting game until 2018-2020 while we give the Republican party a taste of its own obstruction medicine.
Yeah, I know, I know. USSC appointments. Well, guess what? We’ll be appointing people to the USSC indefinitely. Acting like 2016-2020 is somehow a more critical time period than 2020-2028+ is like taking steroids to compete in a city marathon.
Could almost agree except there’s no evidence that the GOP fails after two years in power. They tend to do well in their first midterms, and generally continue to do well until their second midterms. And even when they do fail and Democrats come back into power, they don’t undo the damage that Republicans did when in power.
Truman/Democratic majority didn’t repeal Taft-Hartley and all the other odious legislation the very busy, one term, GOP so-called “do-nothing” Congress did.
The most significant rollbacks of prior administration and congressional actions under Obama has been DADT and DOMA. Clinton non-visionary policies.
I’m willing to burn that bridge if I get to it. Until then, I’ll keep my options open.
Exactly right.
This ain’t a video game and not about your feelings. The number of imperfect Democrats I’ve voted for in my life is exactly equal to the number of Democrats I’ve voted for.
Which is the exactly the inverse of the number of Republicans I’ve voted for.
Funny, those formulas.
Sure, I’ll vote for HRC, just like I voted for many Dem nominees without much enthusiasm – just a desire to keep the thugs out. But just about every other thing she says makes me cringe. Much worse than Kerry. She may look strong now, but she has shown the ability to screw that up. I don’t like her and will not give her money. She can count on Goldman Sachs though. Big comedown from the feelings I had – and still have – for Obama.
That “much worse than Kerry” part is weird to me.
I just don’t get it. And there’s FAR more enthusiasm for HRC in the Democratic base (the real base, not progressive academics in elite enclaves) than there ever was for Kerry.
And there’s FAR more enthusiasm for HRC in the Democratic base (the real base, not progressive academics in elite enclaves) than there ever was for Kerry.
That’s not enthusiasm, that’s inertia + pluralistic ignorance. It’s very distressing that a lot of Hillary supporters are basing their support on her supposed strength in polling, because that’s exactly the kind of thinking that leads people into boondoggles like the Iraq War/AUMF. That is, chasing the illusion (huge majorities in Congress plus easy Presidential victories!) while ignoring the structure (gaffe-prone, convention candidate with uninspiring policies).
I think that’s wrong – but it is the general POV of the progressive, academic elite circles crowd (my crowd, btw).
There’s huge, real, personal enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party. She is – no kidding around – a beloved figure on par with Presidents Obama and Clinton. She’s a historically important female public figure and political leader.
It’s vital not to deny this – women especially do indeed feel the pull of the first she represents (and is easily the best shot at achieving).
I think too many high information progressives falsely deny her evident, long-term, and poll-proven popularity.
I’m not going to currently contest the idea that Hillary’s support among the base, the masses of people who sit between the committed political blogosphere and independents, is strong. That doesn’t matter for my argument. Her Waterloo is the people who are left of the Republican Party’s base but are willing to support them if the Democratic Party is fucking up in some way.
Look at Obama for instance. He’s very well-loved among the Democratic base that supposedly supports Hillary. But currently he’s also floundering. He’s floundering despite the fact that except for a couple of grievous fuck-ups (inadequate stimulus, 2011 debt ceiling debacle) he’s played his cards about as well as any President from Lincoln to Bush Jr. with the possible exception of Truman. He’s floundering because the Democratic Party is not nationally a majority. There are always going to be a significant minority of voters who does no ideological or historical analysis of either major party and will gleefully run into the arms of the other party over the stupidest shit. Sometimes this betrayal is well-deserved (Katrina, 2007 financial crisis, etc.) most of the time it isn’t.
Fortunately, we have a pretty idea as to what antagonizes these mushy middle voters who only care about results and will betray the dominant party at the drop of the hat. The primary things that antagonize them is feeling disrespected, unpopular wars, and suboptimal economic policy. It thus behooves the Democratic Party not to run warhawks or austerity fetishists because it pisses off the mushy middle voters and they’ll punish Democrats by voting in Republicans regardless of their individual merit. It doesn’t matter how much support the warhawk/austerian has at any particular point in time because it’ll only last until the next recession or ill-advised war.
No, not talking about mushy middle voters, deathtongue (which is a cool handle btw).
I mean the Democrats who come out to mid-term rallies – registered Dems, those on donor lists, organizers, union members etc.
Fact is – they dig HRC … a lot … in every poll … and at every rally they attend. They know her and they believe she’s on their side.
BTW, “austerity fetishist” – that’s certainly not Clinton. She’ll be defending SS, and Medicare, and the ACA (and its expansion), and minimum wage, and funding for universal pre-K. Heck maybe even a modest jobs program. You have her actual politics wrong there.
In national politics, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, “It’s the Congress, stupid, both Houses.”
And in the case of Clinton, the selection of the vice-president is likely to be equally important. Don’t ignore the fact that Joe Biden has provided all sorts of insurance and defense for the Obama presidency even as it has created some difficult tradeoffs.
I’m wishing for a disenthrallment of the political culture so that voters begin thinking of politics in practical terms instead of cultic terms again. I have a sincere hope that at some point even the folks in Mississippi will notice that the Republican Party has jumped the shark and that their cheerleading politicized GOP-worshiping preachers and wanna-be grifting local and national media personalities have led them into lunacy. What actually happens in a Clinton administration depends more on that political culture than it does on Hillary Clinton’s personality (can you blame her for being a bit freaked out slow burning, well-hidden, freaked out angry) or personal policy inclinations (it’s brought her where she currently is, agreeing with powers that be is always rewarded).
When some party figures out how to make all that post-Citizens United media money become a complete waste in an election and have the power of legislatures and the Congress voted out from under the plutocrats, whether Hillary Clinton is or is not elected President might be an important US political issue. For now, the five media giants are more important than the President, even one that can get elected in spite of them.
I have a sincere hope that at some point even the folks in Mississippi will notice that the Republican Party has jumped the shark and that their cheerleading politicized GOP-worshiping preachers and wanna-be grifting local and national media personalities have led them into lunacy.
They won’t. No, seriously, they won’t. They might reject the GOP specifically, but they’re not going to reject the preening, authoritarian tribalism that led them to switch from the Democrats to the GOP. Conservatives in this region have endured much worse than even the George W. Bush administration and they haven’t even budged an inch towards rejecting the underpinnings of their worldview. They can reject specific manifestations or policies or events wrought of this worldview, but not the worldview itself.
Some day the frontier balance of power that has kept middling whites aligned with wealthy powerful whites and bullied poor whites into racialized politics will end. My hope is only that it is sooner than later. I have 50 years of experience with the difficulties of changing attitudes in Southern states. No giving up irrational hope has kept me active instead of capitulating to my surroundings.
“Realism” has always been the enemy of change.
No giving up irrational hope has kept me active instead of capitulating to my surroundings.
Your hope isn’t irrational. I, too, have hope that the South will change. The nature of this change will be this: the urbanization of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Texas will crack open the solid south such that the idea of progressives being thwarted by Southerners becomes obsolete by 2032. Then the new anchor of conservatism becomes centered in the Rockies and the rural spider of the Midwest + Appalachia + Solid South.
When people talk about the Obama coalition, we’re not just talking about racial minorities. To be sure, that is the anvil but the actual hammer is the growth of the big cities located in the Chesapeake and South.
Seriously? That’s where you went with our answers? A third party? I think the problem is the definition of bandwagon. To me bandwagon implies support at the grassroots level…working to get people to be delegates for Clinton. Will I vote for her if she’s the nominee? Of course I will. But I won’t lift one finger to help other people to vote for her. I’ll be supporting Patty Murray and our Governor, etc., but not Hillary. She gets my nose-holding vote and that’s it.
I think you misinterpret my rant.
I too would like to see a third party. But as a realistic person, I know that the only way that happens is county by county, state by state. That takes a LONG time.
But that is not the thrust of my point. My point is that crying “I’m not going to help” if Clinton’s the nominee because you’re not totally thrilled by her does nothing to help win elections. I watched all this play out in the Bush/Gore election, and then watched as everyone freaked out when Gore lost.
Was Gore perfect? hell no. No one liked him. But jesus fuck, the disaster that ensues if a Republican wins in 2016 makes me shudder. And whatever her flaws, HRC is better than ANY Republican you can name.
Also too, I remember being told to shut up about my objections/resistance to Obama back in 2008 (and a few of those reservations I think have proven to be well-founded). But once he was the candidate, i did some GOTV and supported him all the way; same in 2012, when he had a presidential track record. And that was because he was better than McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan, despite any grievances i may have with the man.
Changing the ideological composition of a big tent party also takes a long time. It took the conservative movement in the GOP 30 years (from Goldwater’s nomination in 1964 to the Gingrich revolution and capture of the media in 1994) to take over the Republican party in a way the opened it to the John Birch Society. As we discuss this, the Libertarian party is recapitulating that history within the Republican Party through having Goldwater-loss candidates like Paul and Cruz on the ticket. Tea-Party libertarians (radical corporatists, actually) aim to pick up from the nationalist militaristic conservatives when they lose to Hillary Clinton (or that is one scenario). To do that they cannot let the GOP let up from pushing in a crazy direction.
The only movement with any momentum like that is the corporate capitulation “No Labels” bipartisan reincarnation of the DLC. Thirty years after McGovern’s Goldwater-style loss, guess who picked up the pieces? It wasn’t the progressives. And Hillary Clinton is not looking at all like the progressive reincarnation of Reagan wave politics or Roosevelt New Deal politics.
My analysis has maintained since 2010 that the progressive movement has not done the work to make any progressive electoral movement work because they have ignored the political geography of elections and the numbers required to elect someone. Instead, the progressive movement has indulged in the risk-free politics of “sending a message to Democrats by not voting”.
And then watched appalled as state after state fell under GOP radicalism – Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina and according to the conventional wisdom Iowa and Colorado are next.
People in these states hear fewer and fewer progressive arguments because progressives are self-selecting to move elsewhere and if they cannot move are keeping silent instead of risking antagonisms that might be risky to themselves or their families.
That political culture is not how one preserves democracy.
My analysis has maintained since 2010 that the progressive movement has not done the work to make any progressive electoral movement work because they have ignored the political geography of elections and the numbers required to elect someone. Instead, the progressive movement has indulged in the risk-free politics of “sending a message to Democrats by not voting”.
And your analysis would be found wanting because progressives are voting in record numbers since the nadir of liberal strength in the 1980s. Seriously, check out the voting percentages of self-professed liberals and the population at large — they’re record high. Both in their strongholds and on the margins.
What you’re seeing is the downside of A.) relying on a low-turnout political coalition + B.) a Constitution which is heavily slanted towards rewarding rural coalitions.
I’m not even going to get into the absurdity of complaining about liberals self-segregating. Aside from the fact that, you know, they aren’t (explain the bluing of the Southwest, Chesapeake, and urban South) it’s just an asinine thing to be worried about. Gee, sorry that they put jobs and community over some circuitous political scheme that won’t pay off anytime soon. How selfish of them.
Wow. What part of helping Patty Murray and the Governor, etc. didn’t you get?
I got that, and that’s fine.
I simply do not want a repeat of 2000 and that was my point entirely.
The progressive movement has a serious problem on its hands. The radicalization of the GOP is costing that party its Wall Street base, which is increasingly putting its money and influence behind prominent Democrats. It’s a safe bet that the Dems will follow the money and we’ll get frozen out completely. What then?
In the meantime we have to do all we can to remake the federal judiciary into something resembling what a republic might have. So we’ll have to work with the Dems on this, hoping that they won’t find an endless well of pro-choice John Roberts types.
My view of the next ten years is extremely bleak. But we have to make the best of it somehow.
Remember, a Democratic Senate confirmed all those Right Wing judges.
for a perfect candidate. That’s not what most were saying. Hillary is uniquely horrible. She’s a war hawk, she is a poo manager, she has a never-ending swirl of chaos and incompetency surrounding her. She and her campaign engaged in race-baiting against Obama in 2008. She has zero examples of her successfully leading on any piece of legislation while in the Senate or leading on an issue without Obama doing the heavy lifting at State. She is basically a backbencher politician who happens to be married to an ex-president. She is also a compulsive liar. All of this adds up to me not being able to GOTV for her. I can’t think of one positive thing I could say about her. Not one.
I GOTV for Kerry, Gore, and would GOTV for any candidate but Hillary as our nominee. But, the race-baiting, lying, do-nothing Hillary is going to have to get elected president without my help. Considering her mediocre political skills I expect her to lose the general election anyway.
she’s a poor manager, not poo manager. She’s full of poo but she doesn’t manage it or anything else well.
And for those trying to compare not GOTV for Hillary to Obama, the difference is Obama has class and is a good person regardless of whether or not you agree with this views. Hillary has shown through her time in the public eye to be small, vindictive, classless, and incompetent. None of those apply to Obama. And that matters to me.
In any event, Hillary is going to be such a dramatic step backwards from Obama in every way that it is just depressing. So much for drama-free, competent presidential administration.
My sentiments exactly.
Not looking for perfect. Looking for ACCEPTABLE!
And an (R) with a (D) label is not acceptable. I don’t care what the packaging says. I care what’s in the box!