I’m trying to do my best to avoid spin and talking points when analyzing the battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and I’m aware that a lot depends on the eyes of the beholder. Having said that, I believe Bernie Sanders decisively won the debate last night despite doing poorly during the foreign policy segment.
And it’s more than just last night’s debate. Over the last couple of weeks, Sanders has begun winning this race.
Clinton’s “victory” in Iowa has turned out to be pyrrhic. First, she underperformed expectations, while Sanders exceeded expectations. Second, the entrance polls showed that Sanders is crushing Clinton among people under forty-five, especially among women. This bolstered his case that he’s the forward-looking candidate with the potential to excite the base and boost turnout, and it badly undermined Clinton’s case that she’ll rally women to her side. Third, the caucus process was so messy that even the Des Moines Register is calling shenanigans, questioning the legitimacy of the result, calling for an audit, and sharply criticizing the Clinton-aligned chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party for denying that audit. In these circumstances, it would have been better to lose.
Sanders came out of Iowa energized and with all the momentum.. And it showed in the debate last night. The first hour was a near-total debacle for Clinton.
It began when she fell into the trap I warned her about of coming across as the “No, We Can’t” candidate.
I’m not sure why the Clinton campaign wants to fight over who’s a progressive. The progressive movement pretty much defines itself as being in opposition to the politics of the Democratic Leadership Council and, to a significant degree, 1990’s-style Clintonism. What she needs to do to appeal to progressives is not to insist that she is and always has been one of them. That just elicits incredulous guffaws of outrage. What she needs to do is show that she’s not a clone of her husband, and never was. And, to state what should be obvious, no one who doesn’t consider themselves a progressive is going to care if Clinton considers herself a progressive. The only people who care about this debate are the progressives who, overwhelmingly, agree that Sanders is progressive and Clinton is not.
Even more head scratching is her attempt to claim that she isn’t part of the Establishment. She’s the former First Lady, a former senator from New York, and a former Secretary of State. She’s worth millions, and she and Bill run the Clinton Global Initiative that deals with the Establishment of countries all across the world. Saying that she’s not the Establishment is ridiculous on its face. Imagine if Eleanor Roosevelt, while serving as Ambassador to the United Nations, had attempted to argue that she was a political outsider!
And that’s before we add in that she can walk into the Conrad Hotel in Lower Manhattan to talk to Goldman Sachs executives and walk out a couple of hours later with a check worth more than her opponent’s total net worth.
Here’s how that went last night when Rachel Maddow questioned Sanders about why prominent political figures in Vermont who knew him best were endorsing Clinton. Bernie responded, in part, by pointing out “So, Rachel, yes, Secretary Clinton does represent the establishment. I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans, and by the way, who are not all that enamored with the establishment…”
This irritated Clinton, who responded nonsensically:
CLINTON: Well, look, I’ve got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment. And I’ve got to tell you that it is… (APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: It is really quite amusing to me.
I suppose this makes sense in a distorted kind of way, in that the head of the Establishment (the president of the United States) has always been a man. But this is just such a stretch that most people find it to be the worst kind of spin. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are the most Establishment candidates in this race, everyone knows it, and she should stop trying to convince anyone otherwise.
So, having dedicated significant effort to implausibly arguing that she’s a progressive and an anti-establishment candidate, she then got to the meat of why these things are supposed to matter.
That she was going to go here was telegraphed earlier in the day when both Greg Sargent and Kevin Drum went after Sanders for insinuating, without making the accusation outright, that Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street have a corrupting effect on her. The point was that this was negative campaigning and underhanded. If Sanders wants to suggest that Clinton is beholden to the Big Banks and investment firms, he should come right out and make that charge.
Obviously, the Clinton team read those pieces and thought they opened a promising avenue for rebuttal. I am going to quote Clinton from last night’s debate at length here because she got booed at the end.
CLINTON: Yeah, but I — I think it’s fair to really ask what’s behind that comment. You know, Senator Sanders has said he wants to run a positive campaign. I’ve tried to keep my disagreements over issues, as it should be.
But time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to — you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought.
And I just absolutely reject that, Senator. And I really don’t think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough. If you’ve got something to say, say it directly.
But you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received.
SANDERS: What…
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: And I have stood up and I have represented my constituents to the best of my abilities, and I’m very proud of that.
SANDERS: … you know…
CLINTON: So I think it’s time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out…
SANDERS: (inaudible).
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: … in recent weeks, and let’s talk…
(BOOING)
… let’s talk about about the issues. Let’s talk about the issues that divide us.
Needless to say, getting booed isn’t what she was going for. But, far worse, after she landed her little jab, Sanders landed a roundhouse counterpunch.
SANDERS: Let’s talk — let’s talk about issues, all right? Let’s talk about why, in the 1990s, Wall Street got deregulated. Did it have anything to do with the fact that Wall Street provided — spent billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions?
Well, some people might think, yeah, that had some influence.
(LAUGHTER)
Sanders went on to spell out other ways in which our politics are distorted by big corporate donations, including the price of prescription drugs, and the Republicans’ refusal to accept the science of climate change. And his point was obvious. Corporate giving distorts our politics and gets results. They don’t hand out checks worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for brief speeches for the fun of it.
Clinton continued to bleed on this issue when Chuck Todd asked her if she’d release the transcripts of her private corporate speeches and she was reduced to saying she’d “look into it.” Of course, if Politico’s reporting is correct, there’s absolutely no way she wants to release the Goldman Sachs transcript.
On a recent afternoon, executives at Goldman Sachs invited a few hundred major investors to the Conrad Hotel in lower Manhattan. The bankers and their guests filed into a large room and turned their eyes to Hillary Clinton…
…Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish…
Certainly, Clinton offered the money men—and, yes, they are mostly men—at Goldman’s HQ a bit of a morale boost. “It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,’” said an attendee. “Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”
This was all devastating enough, but when they got to policy, she had the distinct disadvantage of having to argue that we can’t have a health care system as good as Canada’s and we can’t afford to give people free tuition to college like we give them free tuition to K-12 education, and that we can’t raise the minimum wage as much as her opponent would like. This is probably the most frustrating part of this campaign, because on the merits Clinton is much more on the level than Sanders. It’s easy to offer pie in the sky proposals that are popular with the base, but it’s a cheap way of politicking and it presents problems later on when you can’t even come close to keeping your promises. She deserves credit for her refusal to engage in a pandering arms war.
The problem is that she is thereby pushed into being a naysayer who can’t speak to the aspirations of the base. Her incrementalism is probably well-suited to actually occupying the White House in a time of Republican dominance in Congress and in the states. But it’s a wet blanket on the campaign trail.
Sanders is arguing that the reason all these things are impossible is because politicians take checks from Wall Street. Clinton is arguing that she’s just being honest about what a Democratic president can actually deliver.
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that Clinton has almost completely lost her national lead since Iowa. It’s easy to see why.
Seems like Sanders is trying to turn a corner and making progress. Watching last night, it seemed to me that Bernie’s iron-clad ability to reduce his POV into incontrovertible statements is a sort of parallel for BHO’s presidential personality. HRC had some better ideas — certainly her view on the individual mandate proved prescient. But BHO made us believe that he would be better able to move middle-of-the-road Americans to his side — and I think he’s been pretty successful, judging by how unpopular the GOP is and is becoming!
HRC keeps trying out for the head of a think-tank. And she’d be great at it! But she is struggling with a fundamental question of legitimacy and authenticity, some of which is just her personality (she doesn’t do fake all that well), and some of it is that her launching accomplishment was that she was the President’s (unelected, un-Senate-confirmed) spouse. While it seems impolite to mention this, I suspect it casts a strong shadow on her public persona.
Vive le Sanders! (No,I don’t speak French — just excited!)
Well, my window continues to be “who will beat a republican in the general election?” That’s all I care about.
From that point of view, I am very concerned about the way that Sanders conveys lack of interest–and even lack of knowledge–about foreign policy. How can a sitting US Senator not know how many leaders North Korea has?
Foreign policy WILL be a big issue in the general, and saying “I voted against the Iraq war” over and over again is NOT going to cut it. Rubio will flay Sanders to pieces.
On one hand, I think foreign policy absent of recent crises (and looking at how quickly people got over the Paris attacks gives you your definition of ‘recent’) is mostly a toy for our insular, upper-middle class centrist media to use to sound tough and knowledgeable given how little most voters care about non-domestic issues.
On the other hand, Sanders has been saying some genuinely stupid shit. Calling Abdullah a hero? Calling the conflicts in Syria and Libya a ‘war for the soul of Islam’? This is a genuine weakness and it will get him killed if he goes up against Kasich or Rubio. Hopefully Sanders spends the next few weeks brushing up on this area. He’s getting a pass right now because Clinton is significantly more of a warhawk than the Democratic base and it’s really hard for her to gain traction, but that’s not going to work outside of the primary.
those are two of the more sensible things he said about foreign policy.
Also worth remembering that if Bernie wins, HRC might still be around — or at least her people will be — for foreign policy-ness (though I’m skeptical that “foreign policy knowledge” is all that relevant: give me the person’s values!).
AND, if Hillary wins, Bernie stays around and he — or his people — will be available to help push HRC forward (along with Prof. Sen., etc.).
I don’t know shit about foreign policy, so I’d love to read a post explicating this comment!
Angela Stent had a nice essay in Foreign Affairs mag this month on Russia and the ME shit.
Basically the whole thing is very simple: she lies, she’s corrupt, she’s selfish as in what I can have you can’t because of the Republicans, and maybe a lot of people have just gotten so damn sick of hearing her remind everyone she’s a woman, as if no one can see that for themselves.
You’re overlooking the fact that Sanders’ appeal is pretty much limited to us liberals. While you and I might be alright with our taxes going up, most Americans are not. He’s got some huge vulnerabilities in a general election.
I’m beginning to get frightened because this is a time in our history where it’s so very important a Republican is allowed nowhere near the levers of power associated with the presidency. Both of our candidates are deeply flawed. Much as I love Sanders as an ideal, I don’t see him playing well in a general election. If he goes up against Kasich or Rubio, we’re in trouble. If he’s up against Trump or Cruz, who the fuck knows what would happen — but it potentially opens the door to a President Trump or Cruz.
Alright, enough. Time to go dig a bomb shelter in my yard.
This is where the whole ‘we can’t win the House, so let’s plan a rearguard action for the next four to eight years’ is coming back to bite Clinton.
I don’t know where this idea that the House cannot be won came from. It’s difficult and requires a significant retooling of the platform, but it’s quite possible. Obama got 4% over Romney despite getting Kerry-like numbers with Millenials. Passive demographic growth would’ve made that 4% in 2012 5.5-6% in 2016 with his turnout-% and exit poll margins. And it’s not like Obama was some unique transformative President. His 2012 victory pretty neatly follows the trajectory of brute demographic growth started by 1988 Dukakis’s crushing defeat. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I’d expect her to get at least a 5.5% margin on popular vote no matter who the Republicans ran with the possible and dubious exception of Trump.
But… no. HRC has built her campaign around the increasingly mistaken ideas of A.) Obama was a uniquely competent President whose performance can’t be readily replicated, B.) The current Democratic platform is optimized for votes; the fact that certain positions antagonize and depress the votes of certain segments are made up with the fact that the money these positions bring in allows them to fund schemes that will get them more votes than they gain, and C.) Because of A and B, the House is unwinnable.
If Clinton designed her campaign around the idea that the House was within reach with the right kind of appeal, she’d be able to offer political weregild and Sanders would have a much harder time gaining traction. But that’s just karma. I’ve made it quite clear that my biggest misgiving with Clinton is that she’s content to win the Presidency without the House and to that end is running a prevent defense. A lot of the other stuff I don’t like about her adds fuel to the fire, but that’s the biggest one. If HRC had a plausible plan to win the House and Sanders didn’t, I’d be in her camp.
This!
It seems obvious to me that neither Clinton, nor the arrogantly condescending (to the little people) Debbie Wasserman-Sucks, are totally disinterested in doing anything about House. So, so, so much easier to hide behind the skirts of those dreadful R-Teamers, whilst accepting big buck$$$ from Goldman Sucks and other Wall Streeters, in order to NOT even try to pass something similar to Glass Steagle.
HRC is just NOT that into the rubes, er, marks, uh, D-voters. We are but a means to end, which the coronation of Empress Hillbot, who btw, has a vagina, which automatically makes her “progressive.” Whodda guessed? Does Carly Fiorina grasp this?
Without a Republican house, their triangulation strategy doesn’t really work anymore. Republicans make a great excuse about why Democrats can’t get anything done, except of course whatever corrupt thing the donor class might want. And their whole election strategy is to point at the Neanderthal across the isle and say “who are you going to vote for, that crazy guy?”
It also helps with the fundraising immensely as they offer some of the same services that Republicans do to the money class without the stench of the radical right social policies that currently dominate the Republican party.
Word.
Triangulation is the most easily identifiable Clinton strategy. Can’t have that without an R House. Weasel Ryan is HRC’s wet dream of a Speaker. Couldn’t have asked for anyone better, frankly, with whom to triangulate (ew that sounds gross… and frankly it is).
Bah.
Really agree with the last paragraph. Even if Sanders plan is bad it is an improvement over HRC’s nothing.
It has been such a long time that I can’t remember how long that a President has campaigned on a specific platform and also urged the people to vote for his Party in Congress so that he could accomplish that platform. Reagan maybe?
I take this to be evidence that the platforms are just spin to attract the faithful and not real plans.
All the campaigns, both sides have been “Me Me ME” so long. When Bernie says “We”, it is refreshing. He hasn’t called for the election of people who support him, but that is more of a general election strategy.
I have no use for someone who wants to be the General but doesn’t care if they have any troops.
ADDENDUM:
Obama said “We” in 2008 and it was electrifying. too bad he didn’t mean it.
iirc the word Obama used during the ’08 primaries was “you.” A follow-up to the 2006 Time person of the year and it was hot in 2007. Clinton went with “I” and Edwards was a mix of “me” and “us.”
Reasons why Clinton’s “I” has seemed less pronounced this time around is that O’Malley’s was more “I” than she is and she touts those that have endorsed her — cough-cough like Henry Kissinger in the debate last night.
Some months ago I did point out that Sanders use of “we” this time around was appropriate for the this election cycle.
Yeah, that comment re Kissinger (I’m only marginally less evil than Cheney, but that’s because you’ve mostly forgotten about me) was a HUGE Tell last night, wasn’t it?
GAH. Henry the K endorses HRC.
That’s enough info for me, frankly.
Color me unsurprised, except that HRC is in such a bubble that she thinks Henry the K’s endorsement will be viewed as “good” by her rubes, er, marks, uh, voters.
By the by, that 5.5% margin? Was predicated on the idea that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be running her current strategy. Right now, I’d expect her to win by about 3.5-4% with the decrease being mostly attributed to Millenial dropout/vote switching.
About 75% of Millenial women make <25K a year. That’s a recipe for a Lost Generation if this keeps up. No wonder why Clinton got so badly spanked with <45 year old women in the Iowa primary.
At this point, it’s probably too late for Clinton to significantly reverse these numbers enough to have a prayer of winning the House. Gen-Y heard the Clinton campaign loud and clear: don’t you DARE dream for much more, because you won’t get it and you’ll enable a pack of troglodytes who will make your life even more miserable. Also: you have to overlook my flaws like my warhawkery and Wall Street donations. In fact, you’re not even allowed to talk about it. Because it’ll make it harder for me to win and make it that much easier for
Mr. Jonesthe GOP to clean-sweep government and shove TVU wands into you and your forced-to-be-divorced gay friends.No matter how ultimately true that analysis is, it’s still extortion. And no one likes being extorted.
If because of structural reasons both candidates can only accomplish a very limited action, then I’d prefer the candidate I have no doubt aspires to do more. Okay, so assume currently single payer or free college is politically impossible. Does HRC at least want it to be possible? Thats where that legacy of third way establishment incrementalism sows massive doubts. Why shouldnt I pick the candidate who I know wants more? Who I have more confidence I would not have to burn energy fighting free trade pushes or entilement cuts?
And the thing is, these things ARE largely impossible because of the checks politicians take.
That Quinnipac poll is likely an outlier, too. As many <30 year old LVs as >65 year old LVs? In a primary election, national or no? Not a chance in hell.
It might be. Have you seen places like Reddit though? It’s become a breeding ground of rabble rousers for Bernie. Passing around links to make sure Bernie gets on the primary ballot in every state and all sorts of other good advice. I keep telling people. Don’t sleep on Bernie. People keep acting like this is his first rodeo or something. It’s not!!
I may be going out on a limb here, but I’ll guess that Reddit is not a representative sample of likely voters.
Is Clinton more likely to enact a $12/hour minimum wage than Sander is to enact a $15/hour minimum wage?
No, because it’s not getting through a GOP-led House. I have to believe Bernie, and his people, would at least try to retake the House. I’d have to bet the first part of that plan is firing DWS.
History:
The minimum wage (in constant dollars) peaked in 1968. It’s low point was in 2006.
Here’s the history of when increases took effect. It’s misleading because increases often phase in over more than one year and therefore, the administration at the time can differ from the administration that signed the legislation. For example, the ’75 and ’76 increases credited to Ford may have been legislation signed by Nixon. I do know that Clinton and GWB only signed one bill and Obama hasn’t signed any.
That increase to $5.15 in 1997 under Bill Clinton in 2015 dollars is equal to $7.61 or 36 cents more than the 2015 actual.
To answer your question, Clinton is unlikely to propose a $12 minimum wage and even if she did, she’d settle for increases more like those of 2006. Maybe $0.80 to $0.90 cent increases over three years instead of $0.70. So, in total still less than $10/hour.
I think you hit the nail on the head. That exchange with Sanders that you highlighted was devastating because it is so true. Our political process has become corrupt, and Hillary Clinton and the rest of the corporate wing of the Democratic party won’t lift a finger to try to change it because they directly benefit from the corruption.
I think it’s pretty obvious that Hillary Clinton has made some major political errors this campaign, not the least of which is clearing the field of other challengers (except for the smarmy and mostly inept Martin O’Mally) which left a huge space on her left for Bernie to occupy.
Opposite trends happening at the same time.
Nationally the Q poll is right in line with the bounce when someone beats a front runner.
In New Hampshire it is clear that Clinton is closing fast. My guess is this is a 5 to 7 point race at the most. Polling that showed her under 40 never made sense (she got 39 in a multi-candidate field in ’08).
So much baggage to have to drag through what will be a tough primary. So much to have to spin. So much contrarianism to have to manufacture. Such endless 25-year-long supply lines to have to protect and defend. Yeah, you’ll “look into” releasing those Goldman Sachs transcripts, riiighhhttt…
One would think it exhausting. How many versions of HRC are to be presented to a weary nation? The intelligence of how many millions must be insulted?
Oy.
So tired of defending Clintons…
Eh? I never defended the Clintons. Gave up on both a long long time ago. I saw exactly who they were back in the ’90s. It’s unclear to me why so many D voters are so in loooove with them. Beats me, but I’m a DFH, so there’s that… I must be f*cking r*t*rded and need a drug test, stat!!
that is what is so upsetting to me, personally. I turned my back on the Clintons back in the 1990s, after NAFTA and welfare reform. It is a major cognitive dissonance to me to look at Sanders on one hand -who I like but who’s electability I doubt- and Clinton on the other, who I dislike, but who I think can defeat whoever the GOP runs.
Ugh.
If she can’t defend herself, there’s no sense anyone else trying. We want the candidate most likely to defeat the r.s’s come November, and last night she highlighted some real weaknesses.
Hey, my login finally worked!
ANYHOO: I enjoyed watching the debate. It was substantive and informative, so let me get that out of the way first.
Second, I tend to agree with whoever said their window was “who can win?” And I worry about the tide turning against Clinton, because I think Sander WILL get eaten alive, and that the Democratic party is getting McCaskilled.
I fear that Booman is correct: that the tide is turning (or has turned) against Clinton. For example, I understood WHY she was saying ” we can’t have this, that, or the other thing”, but it sure went over like a lead balloon. I worry that, as with Obama, people are looking for someone with a magic wand that will fix all the things, and that they will be deeply disappointed when things are not fixed in 2018 (should Sanders win election). And we all know what happened in 2010 when the disappointed people stayed home…
Yeah, that’s the other side of the equation for me. Clinton highlighted some important weaknesses in her candidacy last night, but I’m still worried Sanders is going to get crushed when he goes up against the R’s in the general, with a more conservative electorate than those who come out for the dem. primaries
I think my position on Clinton is similar to my position on Obama:
In a reasonable, sane discussion among progressives like myself, Obama’s a big disappointment, since so many of his promises cratered and so much pro-corporate and war/security-state stuff happened. But, in the larger (totally insane) climate of the entire American populace, I’ll defend him forever against the ridiculous, idiotic ways he’s portrayed as a Hitler-like monster — I’ll parade his slim portfolio of achievements, on principle, because the opposition is so barbaric.
Same remarks on Hillary: in any normal discussion she’s a slippery corporatist warmonger, but we don’t live anywhere near that “normal discussion;” we live in 2016 America, where they’re talking about deporting muslims and bombing ISIS and teaching creationism (still!) so I have to defend her.
Hmm. I don’t know what to make of my own response. I find myself liking Sanders less and less. I like his ideas well enough, especially when I can just read his words and don’t have to listen to his harangue. But even with that, I think he’d be a terrible leader and end up isolated and unable to work with anyone.
And it’s not that I’m such a fan of Hillary. I am supporting her, but more by default than anything else. Maybe I’m just an outlier.
It was “Yes, you can”, not “Yes, we can”? OK, I’m not so good at Spanish.
This is how I reviewed it after Obama won the general election: “You” & Obama. “You” figured more prominently in ’07 when he made his large strides.
No, I’m not overlooking all that. I’m just saying how simple it is to understand that Clinton might go under/ is going under. She’s a liability. And there’s no guarantee that she would win against Cruz (or Rubio?). She won’t. I discount Trump, he’s past his high tide, he doesn’t have the stamina, commitment, necessary organization.
So each speech she gave to Goldman-Sachs earned her eight years of a Millennial salary. but they should believe that they didn’t want any quid pro quo, because they are known as such a public spirited organization.
Because they won. Victory is an intoxicant and power is an aphrodisiac.
Kissinger.
Yes, it is a first-class whopper: channeling Barry Goldwater anyone.
The reaction she receives on this seems to be the equivalent that a Republican candidate gets from their base when they come out in support of a sensible debate on immigration.
Look at the reaction to Kasich’s faith argument for supporting Medicaid expansion in Ohio.
“Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer.”
He still gets skewered for this, and it’s a part of the reason the Republican base will never support him.
Unless she stepped on her tongue last night.
I’m with you too but I have some problems with some of his ideas too.
Yeah, actually I do too. Some of his domestic policy ideas don’t seem terribly well thought out. His notion that the entire business model of Wall Street is fraud is pointlessly over the top — would he get rid of banks entirely? surely not, they do serve a purpose after all — and his notion we can go from 0 to 60 on some of his more socialist ideas are just non-starters. I agree with him that they aren’t particularly radical, anywhere else in the world at least, but they’re still non-starters here.
I agree with him on the death penalty, but he’s oddly uninterested in civil rights issues which are important to me. Not everything can be reduced to or effectively couched as wealth or income inequality.
And he’s just lost in the area of foreign policy. Not as bad as Ben Carson, of course. But not good.
What particular ideas of his do you disagree with?
Equating “Wall Street” with the generic “banking” is a strawman argument, imo. Further, if this isn’t fraud, then I don’t know what is. That is how they make money; defraud investors and our economy, pay slap on the wrist fines, and go back to doing what they were doing. The entire system of slapping useless fees for wrongdoing has to change. Start using RICO, seize their fucking assets. The LEO’s certainly do it for less.
Yeah, that was a shorthand. I don’t know that it’s a strawman though. I don’t see where anything at all is to be gained by saying the business model of Wall Street is simply fraud. Nor does calling it that identify any particular solutions. It’s meant simply to incite and get people to turn their brains off. We see enough of that kind of crap on the right.
Reading over my response, I see it sounds like I actually don’t agree with Sanders at all, which isn’t the case. I was just focused mostly on ideas I disagree with. But I do tend toward the more socialist end of the continuum of ideas on the social compact. Strong medicare, social security, universal health care, and generally speaking a strong social safety net. I don’t know about free college, but something sure needs to be done about those costs. Strong consumer protection. Etc. etc.
Of course, Clinton wouldn’t disagree with any of this either.
Last night his answer on trade was nonsensical. He’s for trade but only in a way that guarantees no other country trades with us?
Frankly I don’t think single-payer will work here and even if it does the top country that has single payer isn’t even in the top 10 when it comes to healthcare outcomes. Shouldn’t we be aiming higher and can’t we get there without scaring the crap out of everyone?
I only got to see the last 45 mins or so of the debate last night so I don’t have a lot more. It just feels more like a purity test than a political platform and not a very good purity test.
For this, that is:
Cuz I’m skeptical.
the 3 countries I know about are Denmark, Sweden and Canada
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-t
he-worlds-health-systems/
Canada is 30
Sweden is 23
Denmark is 34
BTW USA is 37
you cut out an important part of that post from Wiki
nearly 15% of Spaniards use private insurance
Really, that is what you draw from the quote you posted?
How about, it means 85% of the people in Spain use the single payer system which is rated very good in the world.
How about if only 10% chose to pay for private insurance they might be rated higher?
The conclusion I see doesn’t seem to be the image you were trying to project here.
News flash
85% single payer combined with the ranking of #7 on the planet isn’t the best argument AGAINST single payer
If Bernie wants a single payer system, Spain might be a good model to start from.
I agree it’s better than what we have, but I’m more concerned with the failures. Why aren’t the other countries higher? What can we learn from that? What is France & Germany doing that we may be able to apply here?
We all assume single payer is the best option without any real discussion.
By whose definition.
Remember the right covers up most of their bait and switch screw the poor and middle class with their freedum meme.
What metrics were used to rate countries?
Were those metrics slanted more toward what the rich upper classes want, like needless plastic surgery, or drug companies desire to push more big pharma on the consumer classes;
Or was the metric more tilted toward medically needed care, which the middle class and poor need.
so use the metrics when they work in your favor but don’t use the metrics when they don’t agree with your ideas?
doesn’t seem very reality based
If the right wanted to skew those results wouldn’t they show the US near the top? That way there’s no pressure to change things.
Besides those ranking came from the WHO. We need to have the discussion to see what’s the best way to improve our healthcare system
BTW this ranking list is from 2000. 15 years out of date especially since Obamacare is only 5 years old …..
IE not rated at all in the report cited here.
okay so maybe we went up a little but what does that have to do with anything we’re talking about here?
Well since the question of ratings was directly linked to that specific WHO report, actually reading it seemed relevant.
And the time period the report references does seem out of date given the changes brought about be the ACA.
Very relevant to the discussion, unless the improvement the ACA brought to health care in the USA is inconvenient politically for your talking points.
I don’t have any talking points. So are you saying that we don’t need to improve the US healthcare system?
This WHO report is what everyone references when they talk about national healthcare and it’s the only data that appears to be available from a third party source.
You can keep attacking the source if you’d like but that still doesn’t get to the point of which healthcare system would be the best to improve the US system given where we are now and how the politics would play out.
Never said any thing of the kind.
Yes we need an improvement;
First and foremost remove the wall street cabal from as much of health care in the USA as humanly possible;
Single payer with FULL benefits for all does that.
I’m not attacking the source , just pointing out how far out of date it is ….
Almost a full generation has bee born since that report.
The USA has implemented two major attempts at reform;
Medicare Part D and the ACA, while both contained flaws, neither are considered at all in the ranking of the USA.
Russia is ranked 130, meaning the info for this report was taken at the end of the Yeltsin era when the Russian economy had all but collapsed. I wonder how the intervening years have developed.
The report has China at 144, I wonder where it ranks today, given how different it’s economy is?
Greece is listed #14, wanna bet in 2016 it doesn’t hold that rating?
I could go on;
Ireland’s economy has gone thru a collapse, as has Brazil, Argentina,
but most non-partisan observers get the point;
The report is out of date for many nations health care systems to 2016
For example comparing France, Spain, Italy (#2 ranking in the WHO report you quoted) and the USA using statistics from the CIA “World Factbook”.
Health expenditures:
USA 17.1% of GDP (2013)
France 11.7% of GDP (2013)
Spain 8.9% of GDP (2013)
Italy 9.1% of GDP (2013)
Life expectancy at birth:
USA: 79.68 years
France: 81.75 years
Spain: 81.57 years
Italy: 82.12 years
Physicians density:
USA: 2.45 physicians/1,000 population (2011)
France: 3.19 physicians/1,000 population (2013)
Spain: 4.95 physicians/1,000 population (2012)
Italy: 3.76 physicians/1,000 population (2012)
Hospital bed density:
USA: 2.9 beds/1,000 population (2011)
France: 6.4 beds/1,000 population (2013)
Spain: 3.1 beds/1,000 population (2012)
Italy: 3.4 beds/1,000 population (2012)
Obesity – adult prevalence rate:
USA: 35% (2014)
France: 25.7% (2014)
Spain: 26.5% (2014)
Italy: 23.7% (2014)
Yes we need to improve, we spend more money to get fewer doctors, hospital beds, shorter lives, and are less healthy fatter people.
Our insurance industry and Wall Street profits off health care is doing much better that similar vulture capitalists in the three other countries.
lower healthcare outcomes: richer bankers ….
yea amurican exceptionalism,
I have to say that she looked much more passionate than he did last night. Bernie seemed stunned by her outburst and I think he had weak rejoinders. If only Hillary was as passionate about us as she is about herself…
I would like someone younger and more aggressive than Bernie and I think he would too. I had had hopes for O’Malley but he turned out to be a dud. No JFK’s lurking in the hinterlands are there?
Still dreaming of Sanders/Warren ticket.
And, no, I’m not ready to start wetting my pants over President Trump or President Cruz or even President Bush III. If you do that, you have already lost, like a beaten dog with it’s tail between its legs.
I’ll also add that I have an instinctual distrust of purists.
yes, me too
If the tide has indeed turned against Clinton, the single remaining question will be how are the power brokers of the Democratic Party and the Clinton machine going to shut Bernie Sanders down without appearing to commit murder, which would send floods of potential Democratic voters heading for the exits leaving HRC isolated and desperate. She’s closing fast in New Hampshire, they say, so I think it’s too early to count her out. And then S.C. She’ll release some of her talks to Wall Street, if only in redacted form, I predict. And she’ll make a huge effort to be contrite. The little girl act of hers we’ve seen before. You can’t trust her, we know.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/quinnipiac-poll-clinton-sanders-2016/
Hillary told us she is a progressive who knows how to get things done. Besides, she knows wars. Right. Now now tell me about that Wall Street thing….
“Progressive that knows how to get things done” is even more of a falsehood than “Compassionate Conservative.” GWB was never “compassionate,” but he was always a conservative. Clinton has never been a progressive and as for “getting things done,” on her own there’s been little and nothing to brag about. If she wants to take credit for what she did as “co-president” with Bill, that’s even worse.
Last night she claimed credit for the CFPB. A complete whopper, but will anyone call her out on that?
Marie, I think she is a phony awaiting her coronation. She may be just a little better than the clown car for the supremes and maybe protection of SSMM and Obamacare (although I have mixed feelings on that last one). We should be able to do better. But she’s got the money and the establishment. Her credentials on war comes down to ” I can bomb them better than Bernie.”
Well, she signed on to the Iraq War Lie, and a million people died, so she is a fully vetted ‘made’ woman with TPTB. Who else now running can claim a belt with the notches of a million innocent people on it? Not Trump, Cruz or the other Repug clowns.
They are warmongering wannabees.
Clinton, Experience you can count on.
CLINTON: So I think it’s time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out…
SANDERS: (inaudible).
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: … in recent weeks, and let’s talk…
(BOOING)
… let’s talk about about the issues. Let’s talk about the issues that divide us.
Hm. Booman thinks the booing was directed at Hillary Clinton, but my interpretation was that it was directed at Sanders. I mean, she had just been applauded for her remark about the “artful smear”.
guess you didn’t watch it.
People often have a better sense of a fake than we think.
Redbaiting at its peak never worked on more than 60% of the electorate. Today it’s as archaic to half the electorate as anarchists and Bolsheviks were to Boomers. Nearly eight years of the rightwing howling about the socialist, Kenyan anti-imperialist (not that Obama is any of those things) has depreciated the currency that those terms once had with the electorate. In general, younger people are more astute at recognizing BS than older people because they didn’t live during the years when such BS was promoted and accepted as valid.
Hence those that weren’t stuck in the WWII and Korean War mindset could see the Vietnam War for what it was. Yes, a high proportion of the populace fell for the Gulf War and the Iraq War, but the latter never achieved the public support that of the first one and the value of the first one faded as quickly at the war had.
Young people today know that their elders didn’t have to attend and graduate from college to get a job that paid enough to live on, and those that did go the college route weren’t saddled with college loan debts that would take decades to pay off. And the most educated among them know exactly when that shifted and who is responsible for it.
Millenial voters who don’t ever remember the Soviet Union aren’t going to care about Bernie being a “socialist”. But not all voters are young millenials. Older voters care A LOT about “socialism”. My mom would probably vote for Hillary but she would never, ever vote for a socialist.
It’s not just that there are a lot of older democratic voters who won’t support a socialist, either. There are a lot of aging Cold Warrior types – the ones who supported the Vietnam war, cheered at the Rambo sequels, or still fly POW/MIA flags (one of those down the street from me and he’s only middle-aged). They will be phenomenally energized by one last chance to “save America from the Red Menace”. And while they’ll be in the voting booth ‘saving’ American from ‘Red Bernie’ they’ll be voting down all our swing-state Congressional candidates too.
Assuming that one reaches some conscious level of historical/political/economic understanding by the age of twelve, the oldest of those with no real time personal memory of the USSR are now 37 years old. Even Reagan’s posturing (and military spending) to fight the “evil empire” petered out midway through the decade of the 1980s. As did the various proxy wars in Central America after the Iran-Contra revelation. Bombing Libya, invading Grenada, and later Panama and Iraq were disconnected in the minds of ordinary Americans from the USSR. Plus Reagan and Gorbachev were negotiating deals. So, it would be more practical to speak of those born after 1975 — approximately age 40 and younger. Exactly the demographic of liberal women that overwhelming support Sanders. And a far larger proportion of them view their elders as full of it than did so back in the ’60s.
Me and a fellow stay-at-home parent (a dad) are significantly older than most of the other parents at our children’s preschool (over 40 and over 50). Each of us feel strongly about Bernie – on the issues and both of us worry about his electability. At today’s playdate we decided to ask the other parents about their thoughts, feelings, and memories of the the “Soviet Union”, the Cold War, and Communism. The response was unanimous: Blank stares.
Two things:
1992 – “two for the price of one.” She was most definitely active and involved in most of the major changes that Bill pushed for and has never in her own right rejected any.
Because when asked about what “things” she supposedly “knows how to get done”, she invokes her time in the White House.
It’s very hard here to make any positive comments about Clinton because one gets skewered. I wish the demonization of Clinton would stop. After all, the Hillary supporters don’t skewer Sanders.
Nonetheless, I’m going to try to state my case for Clinton. Though she is flawed, there is no one running who has seen the rigors of the presidency like she has. She is clearly the most prepared for the job, even if you disagree with some of her past decisions.
For instance, on Iraq. As I recall, the authorization to use force was billed as a bargaining chip to try to get Saddam to comply. Reasonable people other than Clinton voted the same way. Many others were convinced by Colin Powell that an attack was justified. If in retrospect she voted “wrong,” then lots of good people were duped too. We were sold that war by Bush, Cheney, and Rice.
As for Bernie’s domestic message: Who on the left can not like it? But he’s counting on the “revolution” — people rising up and standing outside Mitch McConnell’s window, insisting. Well, Obama motivated a lot of folks in 2007/2008. He tried to parlay that enthusiasm into Organizing for America. What did that get all of us progressives with hope? There is a political reality that the country is quite evenly split on most issues and programs. Our government is very slow to respond (and sometimes totally resistant) even in the face of overwhelming public support (see gun regulations post Sandy Hook). Besides, most folks cast their ballot and say “OK, now it’s your job to do what you promised.” Not so many folks are willing to do the work required to make change. A few will chain themselves to the White House fence, but very few.
As for Bernie’s comments about the corruptive influence of money in politics: Sure it’s corruptive. But that goes two ways. Should union money be kept out? How about the lobbyists for environmental groups? Or for solar energy companies? There is some good (not all good) that comes from lobbyists. They know their subject and educate lawmakers. Think about if lobbyists were eliminated. Would you like Louie Gomert writing policy? How about Jim Inhofe? Though we should know more about lobbyists, they perform an important function in the legislative process. Think through the consequences, too. I remember when “pork” got bashed and then eliminated from the legislative process. A good move, right? But what’s happened? Folks got more ideological because the give and take, the horse trading, stopped. All that was left was the divide that we suffer through right now. So pork wasn’t great, but the elimination of it was worse (in my opinion).
That’s enough for now. No one ever comments on my comments, and I don’t expect any now. But in any event, I hope the bashing of one another, the name calling etc., can stop here. Coming to Booman Tribune has been, for years, a pleasure. Lately it has become a bitter pill.
there is no one running who has seen the rigors of the presidency like she has. She is clearly the most prepared for the job, even if you disagree with some of her past decisions.
May we assume that you supported and voted for Clinton over Obama?
Technically, it’s an argument for sticking with Hoover in 1932 (the differences between him and FDR during the campaign weren’t anywhere near what was enacted during FDR’s tenure), Nixon in ’60, Ford in ’76, and GHWB in ’92. And it’s also what Carter ran on in ’80. So, as a general election strategy it doesn’t work that well.
No, I worked for, contributed to, and voted for Obama. And though I’m old, I don’t remember the Hoover election. So, Marie3, I don’t really know what you’re saying about a strategy. Too cryptic for me.
You made a claim as to why Clinton will make for a superior president. I merely pointed out that the same claim held true for Clinton over Obama in ’08. But apparently that criteria held no weight for you then.
The same claim, with at least if not more authenticity, was made in all the examples I presented. And was no more persuasive with the general public than it was for you in ’08.
(I don’t have any memory of FDR, Truman, Ike, and only a child’s impressionistic memory of JFK either. Doesn’t mean that I’m not aware of their elections and what they did in office. If one is going to engage in political discourse, isn’t it incumbent that one know some history beyond one’s personal lived memory? And since our lived memories are very fragile, to check out and confirm the accuracy of our memories?)
On the basis of experience in public office, in executive and legislative positions, Sanders has far more than Clinton. However, number of years in various public offices does seem to me to be a very superficial and low-level sort of criteria. We should all be grateful that voters didn’t go there in 1860 and 1932 in both the primaries and general elections.
I agree with almost all of what you say.
And preemptively, in case Marie gets to wondering, I supported Obama from the git-go until, well, now. The meter is still running.
Do admit that rationalizations to explain one’s inconsistencies in applying principles and qualifying criteria do drive me nuts. What exactly tipped the balance for you in 2007 in choosing Obama over Clinton? Couldn’t have been experience in public office, both were light on that measure and which very much concerned me, but there wasn’t an alternative and so, experience based on time in office wasn’t a rational criteria in choosing between the two.
On balance, my principles and criteria this time are no different than they were in ’08 or any prior election. But I can articulate them.
Oh my God. Smug, much?
I thought of Obama, at the time as well as now, as a visionary — but interestingly enough, a pragmatic one who would take great care in fashioning a strategy to move forward. So he was a mix that appealed to me, one whose truth north was justice but who would have a steady hand on the controls and who had, not just a facility with maps and navigational aids, but a real interest in them.
My problem with Clinton was the triangulating. I don’t feel her “true north” the way I do, and did, with Obama.
With Sanders, I can see his true north, and I like that, but he is too given IMO to trying to make everything into a problem of income inequality. Not everything is, in particular civil rights, which are and remain very important to me. So his true north is a bit cramped for my taste.
As for navigational skills, map-reading skills, controls, etc. — I see absolutely none of that in Sanders. I see Buzz Lightyear shouting “Too infinity and beyond!” — which has a certain appeal — but that’s all I see.
So I made my choice, which I can, and just did, articulate.
Too metaphorical for you? Too bad.
Maps?
I try not to project qualities that I would like to see in a candidate onto them in the absence of a demonstration of such abilities or qualities. Recognizing a serious problem, particularly if it’s long-standing, in government, the economy, environment, and society and having a desire to address the problem falls far short of visionary, a quality that is extremely rare. “Pragmatic” is generally code for doing the least amount possible in addressing the problem.
An example, at the formation of this country, a faction of the founders recognized that slavery was a moral, ethical, etc. abomination. Another faction had no such qualms and their personal wealth was based on slavery. A third had personal qualms but they too enjoyed wealth based on slavery. The first faction was visionary in that no peoples and their economy could survive and thrive with a core abomination. The third faction didn’t dismiss that, but they were “pragmatists” and believed that institutionalized slavery would crumble in its own time (ie after they were dead and not dependent on it). So, they agreed that at the federal level nothing would be done for twenty years. And slave owner Jefferson signed the legislation banning the importation of new slaves at the expiration of those twenty years. A visionary would have foreseen that far from making the institution of slavery less abominable, the legislation set the stage for the worst period of slavery in the US.
“No drama Obama” was/is an accurate read of his character and reflected his personal bio of having been raised and lived in multi-cultural and multi-ethnic environments. After the high drama of the prior sixteen years, he would and has been a refreshing change. He also didn’t have personal and financial baggage and was/is comfortable in his own skin and intelligence, another refreshing change. How he’d handled legislative efforts in IL suggested an inclination to compromise with Republicans to the point of watering down what could have been more effective and liberal legislation. That for me was a negative, but his rightward lurches were small compared to what had been seen in Clinton.
Is the state of civil rights today better than it was eight years ago? For lesbians and gays it is. AAs not so much. Minority voter disenfranchisement in law is even worse than it was. But when we move to disparities in income and wealth the regression is far larger. Chasing civil rights abstracted from the economy is a fools errand. They’re intimately intertwined. Government can and should act on both, and it all you hear from Sanders is a limited focus on economic issues, you’re not listening all that well. Predatory lending (which “Wall Street” is invested in) robs minority communities of wealth. Corporate charter schools enrich “Wall St” to the detriment quality education in minority communities. The prison industrial complex does the same. Near the end of his life, MLK, Jr. got that civil rights isn’t independent of economic rights. Some times are right to work on more of one than the other and vice versa.
Empty all the jails and prisons of young non-violent minority men and stop the killing of young men by LEOs and they still won’t have jobs. Exactly what civil rights legislation will create those jobs?
I don’t like to project qualities either. I also understand that you think I do, and no doubt you fancy that you don’t.
That’s fine. I think we understand each other.
I don’t know, Marie3, if you were addressing me or someone else. I guess you are a very educated, smart woman because I can’t always follow your argument. But I’ll try to answer as best I can. I was swayed in 2007/2008 by several reasons: 1) I was very inspired by Obama’s rhetoric; 2) I felt it was time for the next generation to govern (my fear now about Rubio); 3) I liked that he had spoken against the war in Iraq, though I had supported it at the start; and 4) I felt that the Republican attack machine on “the Clintons” for more years after Bill would just be too much nastiness to take and Obama seemed to offer a more welcoming hand to Republicans.
But now I’m seven years wiser and less naive. Perhaps I’m paying more attention to the sausage-making, to how the Republicans don’t care which Democrat is in the Oval, they’re ready to continue being nihilistic. I understand that youthful idealism and enthusiasm is terrific and moves the needle, but only slightly.
I don’t hold illusions that either Democrat, if elected, will be able to get done what they talk about now. But I did see a change with Obama in so many directions: college loans out of the hands of middlemen (though more to do on overwhelming debt); health care for millions (though more to do to cover all); increases in minimum wage for federal workers or those who work for contractors; a protracted recovery from a financial crisis with new regulations on banks and others and a consumer protection bureau, and on and on. These are not minor steps given the opposition.
Would I wish for more? Faster? Sure. Do I understand better than in 2008 how difficult it will be? Sure. But I fear that the candidate who talks about socialism (democratic or otherwise) and revolution (political or otherwise) has put himself behind the 8 ball.
How will you feel as he tacks to the center for a general election? Will you be shocked? Disappointed? Betrayed? Or will you consider it a political necessity that he has to “run to the center”? Perhaps he should just stick to his principles, unvarnished, and lose 49 states.
I say all this with great admiration for Bernie. He’s a mensch, to use the Yiddish term. His answer last night on capital punishment was great. I guess I just don’t think he can win in the climate we now find the country in. Not confident Hillary can win either, truthfully.
Well,anegadagino , I just rated your comment, because I agree with you, particularly this bit.
I too have enjoyed Booman’s place because he’s first and foremost a progressive but yet pragmatic Democrat. He’s thoughtful, knowledgeable and analytical and I most always learn something from his posts.
These days I sometimes just read his posts and then eyeball the comments to see if the wind is tilting way anti-Hillary. Obviously the Bernie supporters here outnumber the Clinton ones, but I will be darn if I’m gonna be made to feel guilty for supporting her at this point. So, as I said on a thread a few days ago,I’m avoiding many of the progressive blogs I formerly was accustomed to reading. I so hope this one doesn’t become one of them.
Saw a piece this morning on how many one-term Republicans are dropping out of their House races. Almost 30 of the 60-some are already gone?
How many House races don’t a Dem running this time?
Honestly, Hillary is more dangerous with a Republican house than a Democratic one, imo. That can involve accountability. Remember SSDI has to be funded, and that opens all kinds of possibilities for neoliberals to change things.
For the first part I say; fuck with the bull you get the horn. It serves her right to arrange for Debbie to limit the debates until it was too late.
“It’s easy to offer pie in the sky proposals that are popular with the base, but it’s a cheap way of politicking and it presents problems later on when you can’t even come close to keeping your promises.”
She should get credit for this if that was what Bernie was doing but it’s NOT. These are not pie in the sky proposals but things every Democrat everywhere needs to DEMAND, especially in the context of us being the richest nation on the face of the earth. The only problem is that the corporatists do not want to give it up. Too bad, this is where we should have always planted our flag.
i thought she won the debate tand that she was spectacular except for one or two little things. i thought bernie was good but im getting tired of hearing the stump speech every time someone asks him to explain how he is going to get something done. also my feed was full of people who also thought she was great. and we all consider ourselves progressives.
and i really need to ask, the value of bernie was supposed to be that he would bring people, esp youth, into the process. thats how you create a revolution. thats what he has said and i agree with him. and if he got people out to vote who usually dont i would be jumping for joy. but so far thats not what we are seeing (excepting your anecdotal evidence of friends of your stepson aside). the youth voted for bernie overwhelmingly in the caucus but the total youth vote was lower than in 2008 as was the overall turnout. i havent read anywhere that democratic registrations are up (except in the latino community) overall and actually the rate is lower with more people registering as independents than either dem or republican. so if bernie doesnt get that very large percentage of people who arent motivated to vote to get off their asses and vote then what good is he and what revolution is really possible? you arent going to change citizens united (or get anything thru congress)unless you change congress and that isnt going to happen without a lot of people voting who dont normally vote. also bernie is not raising any money for the down ticket races whereas clinton has raised over 20 million already. you think we can win without money? ohio pa and fl can be flipped to red if the republicans completely outspend us there. look i like bernie a lot. i will be happy to vote for him in the general if he is the nominee. but i think clinton will not only be a better choice for the nominee but also as president. and i think we have a better chance of flipping congress critters from r to d with her coattails and her fundraising skills.
i did however just read this. not quite sure what to make of it.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/index.html
I’m curious where this whole idea of Sanders ‘not getting things done’ has come from. From the reports I’ve heard, he was one of the MOST effective CongressCritters. He was called the ‘Amendment King’ while in Congress. (Now apparently it’s Grayson). Doesn’t it make more sense that the Repugs will find it impossible to be seen working with Clinton?
Just pointing out an okeydoke Clinton’s people are doing. I’ve seen it happen at Salon twice now. It goes like this:
“If Sanders wants a revolution then what about reparations?”
This sudden support for reparations is only directed at Sanders. Clinton, apparently, doesn’t have to talk about reparations. If someone comes up to me and demands to know why Sanders doesn’t support reparations, I ask how come Clinton doesn’t ask for reparations for women. Reparations is dead on arrival, but it’s fun to watch Clinton supporters’ confused looks.
I would imagine that Clinton’s people are in panic mode today. Two national polls put Sanders statistically even with her and she’s going to lose NH. I don’t think Sanders can win SC (yet) but Nevada could be in play. Just saying.
Kevin Drum called last nights debate a clean win for Hillary. Had a totally different take on it than Booman.
The problem for Bernie is that he’s going to go into Super Tuesday, most likely having lost 4 of 5.
The last poll out of Nevada had Hillary up by 23.
The last poll out of South Carolina had Hillary up by 37.
On Super Tuesday itself Bernie will be lucky to win 3 or 4 of the 11 contests. I don’t know how that translates into delegates but loosing 11 of the first 15 doesn’t really inspire confidence.
Also, let’s not cherry pick polls Booman. Quinnipiac has Hillary up by 2 (they also had Bernie winning Iowa by 8 in their last poll).
However the PPP poll from the same period has her up by 21. Two other polls covering the same period has her up by 16 and 18. The aggregate of all the polls gives her a 17 point lead.
Quite frankly I’m just not seeing any tide having been turned.
Yeah, it’s probably a representative sample of people who’ve never voted before. So there’s that.
You’re likely right. I just find it funny what’s going on there. I remember the early Reddit and Digg. While there was a big Obama push on both back in ’08 there was nothing like what’s happening on Reddit now re: Sanders. Meaning the organizing and stuff.