As best as I could ascertain the thinking inside the Sanders campaign, they thought that if Bernie could do better than 35% in South Carolina it would indicate that he had a fighting chance to win in some other southern states. Well, he barely topped 25% and now he has to abandon the entire South to Clinton.
Super Tuesday could easily now became a wipeout that effectively eliminates Sanders from serious contention. As Nate Cohn notes in the New York Times, even in the increasingly unlikely event that Sanders pulls off multiple wins on Tuesday in states like Colorado, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Vermont, the delegate math is going to look much worse for him at the end of the night. If he doesn’t pull off these wins, his campaign will no longer be something that should be considered a threat to win the nomination.
It seems to me that black folks got the message loud and clear from the president that he prefers Clinton to Sanders, and anyone who thinks that they aren’t going to come out in huge numbers to protect his legacy is completely delusional.
She has won South Carolina in a rout, 73.5 percent to 26 percent, exceeding Mr. Obama’s own 29-point victory in 2008. She did it the same way that Mr. Obama did: with overwhelming support from black voters, who favored Mrs. Clinton over Bernie Sanders by a stunning margin of 87 to 13, according to updated exit polls — a tally that would be larger than Mr. Obama’s victory among black voters eight years earlier. Black voters represented 62 percent of the electorate, according to exit polls, even higher than in 2008.
The county’s most progressive and loyal Democrats have spoken.
Maybe you agree with their decision or maybe you don’t, but you ought to respect it.
With reference to the previous post: Progressives around the turn of the 20th century invented the primary because they thought there should be an element of democracy in the nomination process. Not that it should be democratic but that democracy should contribute.
This South Carolina thing, I think, illustrates how the theory is supposed to work. Very clarifying for me.
The turnout was not terrible, but pretty modest, providing more evidence against the Sanders theory that there is a mass of people out there who don’t normally vote but will come out if there is a left enough candidate. I still believe there’s a problem like that, but after four low-turnout contests it’s evident that Sanders is not the solution. The other theory, that Democrats are at their best representing diversity, is borne out (Clinton did win the SC white vote, though narrowly).
Most progressive? Socially at least they are more like moderates. Which is fine, I respect the voters and their choice even if I think it was a mistake. On to the next contests.
What does respect have to do with anything? You can agree or disagree, and I disagree. I think their choice is bonkers. But that doesn’t mean I don’t accept the outcome. I’m not about to raise the Confederate flag, even though I don’t respect their choice, which doesn’t mean I have no respect for it. The chance that Sanders manages somehow to survive next Tuesday is not big, I’m sorry to say. Whatever, he and his supporters can have the poor consolation that a Brooklyn Jew from Vermont managed to get this far calling a spade, a spade: plutocracy and corporatism are overwhelming us, to which the Clintons are living monuments. You see, I’ve already given up so Bernie and team are much more courageous and principled than I am. If Clinton doesn’t make a pleasant gesture towards Sanders when he throws in the towel as a token of gratitude for his expressing his impatience with the the commotion around her emails during a debate before millions, she will show a stunning lack of grace. My prediction is…the winner takes no hostages! ‘She came, she saw, she prevailed.’
Clinton spoke very graciously and positively about Sanders in her SC victory speech, as a matter of fact, and if I recall the clip I saw correctly, asked for and got a warm response from the crowd.
But I’m sure you’ll find a way to dismiss that.
I don’t know about Marie or Quentin, but I would easily dismiss it as simply good politics. I do believe I’m the loudest HRC supporter on this site, but the definition of politician includes: “don’t piss off anyone you don’t HAVE to” and “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar”. HRC quite often mistakes opposition to betrayal. I’m glad to see someone (hopefully her) remembered that graciousness in victory is more important than graciousness in defeat.
This is known as reality in America. The base is no longer enough to win. You HAVE to get disparate forces together and the first step is to defuse the angst between people who basically agree with you.
But the very problem with politics is that it’s full of politicians.
Everyone knows this. It’s bi-partisan.
The right is obsessed with having business leaders run things, not politicians.
The left wants have the same functions performed by issue-oriented activists and community figures.
“Everyone knows this.” Really? ‘Cause I certainly don’t. And when you say “EVERYONE” you are most certainly including me.
Perhaps you should moderate your statement with: Everyone (who believes like me) knows this.” That statement has at least the quality that its true … no matter how juvenile it might be.
It’s a feature, not a bug! Politicians are good at this stuff and businessmen and activists are not. Gandhi doesn’t get nearly as much done without a Nehru to do the dirty stuff, or Dr. King without a President Johnson. It’s how it works.
Whether heartfelt or merely good politics, Clinton said the right thing, and said it with warmth, not grudgingly. Either way, works for me, and I daresay for most people who aren’t so consumed with hatred for her that they can’t acknowledge one single positive thing about her.
Oh no, I stand corrected.
Thank you for that. It’s honestly appreciated.
Sanders more than deserves that from her. Good.
Sanders had the ethics and dignity to walk into the SC belly of the beast and refrain from racializing his campaign there. (Even if that could have led to a win for him (it couldn’t) he would never do that.)
just to note, for me, anyway, my support of Sanders is not from animosity against Hillary herself and I would never characterize it as hatred of her. I do oppose what I understand many of her policies and interests to be in the areas where she and Sanders disagree.
Yep. Same reasons I opposed her in 2008 remain true and evident now. If anything, it’s worse. NYT’s Libya story comes as cold comfort.
You, a few others, and I could include your statement at the bottom of every comment we make and we’d still be called “Hillary haters,” etc. by some people here.
Their choice is bonkers? Is it any wonder Bernie trails with minorities? Perhaps you should try to understand instead of dismissing their choice as bonkers.
There has always been a schism among progressives. Back in the 60’s blacks had race and the war. Women had the ERA and the war. White men – like Bernie – had the class struggle and the war. It was the war that united us.
White males have always mostly given short shrift to the other two issues – they support the right side, but it was never a motivating political issue to them because there is nothing in those issues for them. Also because they are white and because they are male. Their demographic is part of the problem and their privilege is what is being challenged by both feminism and by civil rights.
So white male progressives serve their interest by focusing like a laser on the single issue – the class struggle – while tending to leave feminism to the women and anti-racism to the blacks. They define progressive by the attachment to the class struggle issue. Or at least this is my experience in progressive politics.
Racist and sexist are both too strong to describe it, but white progressive males are frequently tone deaf. Bernie was surprised by the BLM movement. His program is the best program for blacks, he thinks, and so as soon as they understand him, they will be with him. In fact most blacks don’t give a shit about Wall Street. The income inequality they really care about is between blacks and whites. The core of Bernie’s case is that trillions of dollars has been transferred from the (mostly white) middle class to the (almost entirely white) top 1%.
How does that resonate with blacks? Their single biggest issue is they want cops to stop killing and jailing their kids. Sure Bernie says the right things about race, but John Lewis spent 25 years in Congress with him and doesn’t know him. In other words, Bernie has spent 25 years in Congress without paying any attention to race (understandably considering who he represents).
Oh, yeah, and Bernie wrote the forward to a book exp0laining why progressives should have buyers remorse for electing Barack Obama. This is a twofer because the most reliable Democratic voters are black women.
According to Sanders, Hillary isn’t a true progressive because she has focused mostly on feminist issues throughout her career rather than going to war with billionaires. Bernie is a feminist, his supporters say, so it doesn’t matter whether we actually see a female president. Bernie supports more women running for office and it is just coincidence he likes to run against them. Some day it will happen, white progressive males assure women.
Just not now.
finally.
Couple of issues I would like to take with an otherwise incisive analysis:
My personal take on this, as one guilty of that particular blind spot, is as follows:
Race, Gender, Homophobia and other such extreme cancers on our society are pernicious, stubborn, and inherent to the very structure of our society, rooted in many generations of privilege, self-image, and ingrained biases. They are going to be extremely difficult to eradicate, no matter what laws we can (and we should!) pass.
Economic issues are actually much easier to deal with, because they involve straightforward, measurable, and quantifiable changes.
My personal opinion is that it is NOT that “class structure gives rise to the gender/racial/choice injustices” I’ve been taught otherwise (with difficulty, I admit… it is hard to see what you cannot experience, sometimes).
It is that the class/economic aspect of the multifaceted social cancers we try to address is the one that can allow the breathing room, social power, and economic might needed to really get after the more difficult issues of not just legislating around, not just motivating around, but literally eliminating from our social fabric the biases and hatreds that give rise to Sexism and Racism.
It has most often been the case that social progress toward more liberation and empowerment of subjugated populations takes place when wealth and economic power is more equitable.
It is easier to fight for all forms of social justice when you have enough to eat and a good place to live.
No, Bernie hasn’t said Hillary’s not a true progressive because she’s focused on feminist issues, but that’s how blind spots work. He simply doesn’t recognize feminism as being particularly progressive. He may not think of feminism as a vanity project, but that’s kinda how he acts.
I would also suggest that the whole notion of waiting until the class struggle is won (which I assume is what you mean by “when you have enough to eat and a good place to live”) before addressing racism and sexism is, quite simply, patronizing. And that too is how blind spots work.
It is patronizing and patriarchal, and shows a significant amount of assertion and assumption of privilege to put words into peoples’ mouths, and even more of the same to then use the words you put into their mouths to then assume what they’re thinking.
It’s not what I said, and not what I meant. I do not thing “waiting” is an option on any of these issues, and I do not think that “having enough to eat and a good place to live” equals having won the class struggle.
And thinking about feminism is a vanity project is not how someone who votes like this:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/68/women#.VtN_b5MrLUo
would act.
I think I see a big ol’ beam in your eye. Do you see it?
So perhaps you can tell me what you actually meant by “having enough to eat and a good place to live” and what effect you think that should have on addressing racism and sexism.
The bitter struggles against Racism and Sexism must never “take a back seat” to anything.
In order to fight those bitter struggles, we must have enough economic security (equal pay, affordable health care and housing, strong and vibrant schools) to fight from strength. We can and should push for all of the above simultaneously and never allow one to gain primacy over the others.
Fighting for the “economic strength” we need is actually much easier than the battles against racism and sexism, in almost every way… winning those economic battles can be accomplished by electing people and passing legislation around wage equality, tax fairness, socialized medicine, and infrastructure renewal.
Alongside, equal to, and never, ever “second” to the struggle for those pieces of economic security we must always push, fight, educate ourselves, learn from others, and commit to ending Sexism and Racism…
That people who support the economic aims are generally more likely to fight for social justice helps.
The “-isms” are interlocked and form a self-supporting web of repression and suppression, and any suggestion that one of them is “the root” of all the others, or that by solving “that one” we automatically solve the others is, in my opinion, dangerously wrong.
Several of the comments above and below this sub-thread make absolutely excellent points about that mistake, and you also make excellent points about that terrible error.
That attitude (class before all else) was and remains a prevalent strand of thought, and it remains deeply flawed for all the reasons presented.
What I mean is this: Simply passing and strictly enforcing a wage equality law (to name just one example) will NOT end sexism in the workplace. This is the mistake that the “class first” people made and continue to make.
However, passing and enforcing such a law is, relatively speaking, easier given the political will to elect people that will propose, support, vote for, and enforce such law. Enforced wage equality constitutes a very powerful step that will enable and empower a huge number of women and their allies access to much more economic and social power that can be used as leverage to push for and cement greater advances in equality into the social, legal, and political fabric.
The issue I keep coming back to as I struggle myself with these ideas is that the economic stuff is measurable and can be legislated. The bias and the hatred and the bigotry is socialized and learned from birth — we are surrounded and bathed in bigotry at every moment. Passing laws against it, teaching about its dangers and harms, educating ourselves and learning from others about its expression and its impact are all critically important, but eliminating a way of thinking that is woven into centuries- or millenia-old hierarchical traditions of culture will take much more than simply passing laws. We have to change the fabric of that culture, and changing the fabric of culture requires a lot of power on many levels.
This attitude about feminism (women’s rights) and Black rights are an echo of earlier battles. The IWW embodied both the best and the worst of the class struggle vs minority rights debate.
Bernie is a product of that crucible. For those of us in the IWW in the ’60s, it was became clear that class struggles would not resolve minority suppression. Unions, the embodiment of class struggle in the US, gave up their souls for “enough to eat”.
I haven’t heard it directly from Bernie, either, but it is the center of his campaign against her. She is not progressive enough because she is too cozy with Wall Street. In his worldview, progressive is measured by the class struggle and Goldman Sachs is the biggest villain. That’s fair enough. As a progressive white male I made the economic argument, too, in the 1960’s.
But it is not the only fair way to look at it. Take for example, income inequality. What would eliminating pay inequities between the genders or between black and white do for income inequality generally? I would guess that it would do a great deal.
There are a lot of women in my generation who think Hillary is by far and away the most qualified candidate, and that she is being held to a different standard than every other politician. They think “If not Hillary, who?” and “If not Hillary, when?”
Rightly or wrongly, lots of women in my generation already think they know the answer to the question, “If not Hillary, why?”
Maybe, for once, white male progressives should be the ones to suck it up.
“If not Hillary, who?” As a female progressive in my 60’s, I say: Elizabeth Warren 2020
She’ll be 70 years old then.
Y’all can fantasize all you want about my senator, but I like her just where she is, and she appears strongly to prefer being there too.
Right. A winning run for Pres (normally) requires a significant, established nationwide apparatus. And, YES, Obama had that in 2008. They call it “black churches”.
Warren will have to build one or take one over. I personally think the remains of the Kennedy machine, coupled with the Brown machine in CA and a pickup in Chicago or Denver would probably do it.
We’ll see.
You say Elizabeth Warren will be 70 then. She surely doesn’t look her age. Hillary Clinton will be 69 this year.
Maybe you should address the question to woman under 30 – who support Bernie by wide margins.
Really you are just coming here and shouting “Race” and “Sexism”.
I would remind you some us think Hillary isn’t progressive because she voted for the Iraq War.
Actually, Bernie has a really big gender gap with all women, not just those over 30. Bernie does much better with men under 30 than with women under 30.
Reuters national tracking poll has Sanders doing worse among men aged 18-49 than with women that age. The gap is even more significant when you change the tabs to ages 18-30.
18-29, men: 53.8% for Sanders, 27.4% for Clinton
18-29, women: 60.1% for Sanders, 23.4% for Clinton
link
Fascinating how many here throw out “facts” without bothering to check out the numbers that give rise to actual facts. Good work. (Particularly in this case in response to a person that frequently troll rates my comments.)
I tried finding cross-tabs for exit polls for any of the primaries which designated voters’ ages and genders so I could see if this was true in the actual voting, but none that I saw gave such information (was also on my phone).
So, the best we have are national tracking polls, and yeah…what a bunch of bullshit. The divide with Sanders and Clinton is not gender, it’s age. Older men vastly prefer Clinton to Sanders, too.
All the polls have been consistent. Sanders does very well with women under the age of 45 and even with AA women under the age of 30. Old people like Hillary — and as one of the old people, I haven’t a clue as to why they do. It’s as if they can’t recall how horrible the Clinton drama was during the nineties and still haven’t discovered all the horrible legislation that both Bill and Hill supported and Bill signed (some with little support from DEMs on the Hill). The only vote I’ve come to regret was the won I cast in ’92.
Maybe it is that the times are too unsettled to allow movement forward? FDR was not elected in 1929.
The single thing that has proven over time to be the smartest program for advantaging minorities and women was the civil service exam, imo. From Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressives.
We’re destroying that at our peril.
If the blacks are more comfortable with greater inequality, they won’t be fascinated by Sanders’ socialism. Particularly judging from the hip hop themes and videos – ever obsessed with cash and power – they may seem to accept the rules of “get rich or die trying”, and would seek all the luxury in the favorable case. Solidarity from affluent blacks is lacking apparently, as they love to demonstrate their otherly status.
Even the recent Beyonce’s “Formation” has this message:
The only time to use the master’s tools is to burn the master’s house down around his ears.
Wow – so let’s address start with addressing one fact:
This is a bald face lie. Full stop. John Lewis never said that. He said he doesn’t remember meeting in the 60’s. He then issued a clarifying statement.
What you said is simply an attempt at race baiting.
It is not factual.
Sanders was actually arrrested in Chicago for protesting segregated housing.
Here is another bald face lie:
This is a lie.
Sanders says Clinton isn’t a true progressive because she supported Welfare Reform, the War in Iraq, and is closely tied to the large banks.
Bernie has never said anything close to what you say in this quote.
You are making it up.
You know what: I do have issues with Obama. I believe that he badly misjudged the economic crisis. As a result we lost the House and the Senate.
I think it is outrageous that no one has gone to jail as a result of the widespread fraud that crashed the economy.
And before you start throwing race based charges at me, I would tell you that for 10 years I have been part of the legal protection effort in Florida. That has involved being on the front lines in the battle against voter suppression.
What have you ever done, except make stuff up.
Obama is not the Green Lantern.
The economic stimulus needed to be passed by Congress. Getting near zero votes from Congressional Republicans, and needing to accept major compromises in order to get those few votes needed to pass the stimulus, made it different and smaller than the original proposal the President’s team was proposing.
Then the Republicans executed maximum monkeywrenching on nearly every single subsequent action Congress took during the session, and have turned monkewrenching up to 10+ since then.
There are two recent examples of a Grade A+ financial crisis- 1929 forward, and 2008 forward. I’ll accept the response from President Obama and Congress, particularly considering the Congressional circumstances.
The moral hazard that comes from not jailing the heads of the financial institutions for their malfeasance bothers me. If you would care to cite the laws that could have been employed to bring charges that would have stuck, I would like to hear which laws those are.
Maybe you could check out some of the interviews with William Black. He had 90% convictions on the S&L crooks he brought to trial.
Thanks; I’m beginning to look at his stuff now. I’m in my workweek now, but this will remain bookmarked.
I’d be interested to see which statutes he was proceeding under, and what testimonial and documentation evidence he had to work with. Both aspects can make a huge difference in how gettable convictions are. And a wise prosecutor will pick her/his targets accordingly. I have read somewhere that a lot of what was done leading up to the crash was, while morally reprehensible, not actually prosecutable under the laws as they then stood, at least at the highest levels of the financial world.
Plenty of that chaff thrown around by compliant media at the time. Were plenty of zombie myths. Truth is they did not even try.
Deregulation, de-supervision and de facto decriminalization.
Bill Black: Wall Street Crime and Misdeeds
http://ritholtz.com/2014/06/bill-black-wall-street-crime-and-misdeeds/
Why would the NYT choose precisely today to run a frontpage feature online about Clinton’s role in the Libya debacle? Curious. The video is quite matter of fact, not exactly flattering. Is the Times trying to intervene in the campaign at this late date? To whose benefit? Or maybe it thinks that Libya was a thundering success for her. Ha!
http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/100000004216623/hillary-clintons-legacy-in-libya.html?hp&acti
on=click&pgtype=Homepage&modref=HPVideoRefer&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-a
b-top-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
○ Islamic militancy fight is a ‘battle against barbarity’, says French PM on Mali visit | France24 |
French intervention Mali as hundreds of trucks with well equipped jihadists headed for capital Bamako:
○ Expedition in Mali by French Armed Forces – Operation Serval
In January 2012, following an influx of weapons that occurred after the Libyan Civil War, Tuareg tribesmen of the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) began a rebellion against Mali’s central government …
○ Mali Hotel Attack: Gunmen Take 170 People Hostage in Bamako, Special Force Enter Radisson Blu | Nov. 2015 |
billman is on the case of the deceitful paper of record, explaining how Libya was reduced to chaos by deceit and ideology:
http://www.moonofalabama.org
That b not Billmon. Here’s how you follow Billmon
Jeez, you don’t miss a trick. I don’t use twitter, just crap, like facebook. You can also follow Billmon on his site.
b is not billmon, and billmon’s blog was called the Whiskey Bar.
Read the About statement in Moon of Alabama.
That said, the use of Al Jazeera by Qatar to set up the Libyan operation after the success of Tahrir Square (the point at which Ayman Moyeldin left Al Jazeera for NBC) is instructive that the events were not completely as they seemed to us in the US.
I suppose that those of you who are around 30 years from now might see the declassified documents as the revisionist historians get their first chance to correct the historical record. The implicit escalation from start to finish and the resulting chaos by the absence of follow-up to having succeeded at regime change (as in, the Libyan people got nada from the Western countries who carried out the operation) is now striking enough to have undercut the state cause of war.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/
The New York Review of Books article on the Clintons’ money structure points out that right after she gave the go-ahead for a weapons deal for Qatar Qatar in turn gave generously to the Clinton Foundation, no doubt in the hope that the Clintons used it for lifting up the meek of the world.
I’m curious where those weapons went. I’ve always suspected they ended up in the hands of ISIS, but maybe a few pallets wound up in Libya.
I don’t know. A few days ago the Times published as its lead editorial one of the devastating criticisms of Hillary Clinton I’ve seen in the MSM. I don’t think they’re in lockstep on this campaign.
It’s not so much that I’m trying to defend the Times, but I would like to see that editorial go viral.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/mrs-clinton-show-voters-those-transcripts.html
Excuse me …
.
A small minority has spoken .. too early to tell. The emotionals are breaking for HRC, what’s good for America’s future and the Democratic party? I would still trust a political revolution to change the dynamics of run-away capitalism. HRC is just too close and indebted to Wall Street and the Israel lobby (New York). My vote for an Elizabeth Warren, just not yet her time. 🙁
2012 Group Obama Romney
All Voters Pct. 51% 47%
SEX Men 47 45 52
Women 53 55 44
RACE White 72 39 59
Afro-Ameri 13 93 6
Hispanic 10 71 27
Asian 3 73 26
Other 2 58 38
In South Carolina HRC and the Clinton gang owe an awful lot to Rep. Jim Clyburn.
ssh — don’t interrupt Martin’s burial of the Sanders’ campaign and gleefully dancing on his grave. (Should have at least had the decency to hold a funeral and said all sorts of nice things based on all the facts.)
I love Martin[‘s writing] and he’s 99% politically correct.
On occasion he too gets emotional, one example today. 😉
That justifies a “1.”
There you go again, Marie. Interrupting Martin in his (potentially) Quixotic crusade for Bernie.
You do have to acknowledge that the Clintons have built a strong brand loyalty. And then you need to notice the Democratic Party is nowhere near sold on Sanders progressive agenda, especially, it would appear, among AA. But Sanders can be seen as a revival of Occcupy. So maybe it will not go away forever.
Considering that I still have no idea who he would have voted for, this seems unnecessarily rude.
But certainly your not surprised by the rudeness, right?
.
I’ve always been grateful to hold a minority opinion, even in the Democratic Party: from the Vietnam War till today. No anomosity towards Bill or Hillary, just making an honest assessment.
Doubt I’ll ever get used to the reality that the politicians with the longest record of making the right calls and holding to a progressive vision are stomped on by the majority in the DEM party who don’t realize that they are the crackpot realists.
Wow. Now that’s something.
I gave to Bernie’s campaign shortly after he announced. Similarly with MOM. I’ve not given to HRC (yet).
Bernie’s campaign e-mails have never mentioned South Carolina – not in the ~ half-a-dozen e-mails I’ve received from them since NV. Even yesterday after the blowout.
It tells me that their campaign knew SC was going to be a huge loss and they hoped they could raise as much money as possible before then.
I saw C-Span coverage of Bernie campaigning in a (small) rally in SC. He was trying (to some extent), but his campaign was hoping that they could ignore it.
Given that AA voters are a huge and hugely important voting block, it seems to me to have been a huge mistake to pretend that SC wasn’t important. A big meme is that Bernie can’t win AA voters. By not even trying, it only feeds that meme and makes it self-reinforcing. It was a huge, tone-deaf, mistake by his campaign leadership, IMHO.
Bernie had a good message, but hearing the same thing over and over and over again about the handful of millionaires and billionaires being the problem (rather than the hundreds or thousands of Teabagger Neandertals in the GOP holding elective office) got to be old to these ears after about the 15th time I heard it. :-/
HRC needed a strong challenger to become a better candidate and to show that she didn’t expect to win by default. MOM and Bernie did their jobs. Let’s hope she continues to get better even without them being significant threats at this point. We need her to win in the fall, and to have big coat-tails…
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
Yet the so-called liberal media still says she’s in trouble.
Um, no, they haven’t. South Carolina is, on the D side, even more unrepresentative of US voters than IA or NH. The party there is tiny and ineffective – this, after all, is the outfit that nominated Alvin Greene as its US Senate candidate six years ago. No major cities. Among African-Americans, levels of poverty and lack of education matched only in AL and MS. And unlike those states, and the rest of the South, no major civil rights confrontations (let alone victories) back in the day. South Carolina has its own math.
Not saying the prospects for Sanders aren’t grim – they were before SC, and are a little more so now. But rural black voters in SC aren’t even representative of the rest of the South, let alone the whole country.
I’m not disagreeing with the reality your analysis, but I do believe that the opticals of actually saying that in a campaign setting would be detrimental to your chances of doing well in … Chicago, Harlem (black and Spanish), LA, Boston, SF, StLouis …
Its probably not something Bernie or any of his campaign representatives would say. At least I hope not.
‘Tis a pity some of Sanders’ most passionate supporters can be his worst enemies, taking a flamethrower to the task of winning hearts and minds.
That’s because most of them cannot see what they actually are, or at least what they give the appearance of being.
Not long ago Booman wrote a post on how Sanders needed to avoid a certain trap, and how difficult that would be. I don’t think some here realized it was ever so slightly, aimed at them.
.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2016/2/11/135551/686
Not sure if voters not knowing who Sanders is is necessarily a trap.
The “trap” is to avoid sounding like a paternalistic shit head even if it’s true that you’re a relatively unknown politician who is an ally to issues “X” community cares about.
Fair, or not, that’s the way it is.
Ding, ding, ding!
All of the so-called Sanders supporters saying out loud and on twitter “I don’t understand why they’re voting for her” might as well be HRC double agents.
“Paternalistic shit” is probably the best way to put it.
I just say the blurb in the NYT about Clintons win. “Sanders is foiled by his rivals strength with Obama Loyalists”.
That probably is a more accurate statement than any I’ve seen so far.
I up-rated because I agree with your overall sentiment that SC is unrepresentative of US voters and the local party is largely ineffective. However, it’s also important to note that South Carolina voters did not see Sanders as “the most liberal:
Link
That speaks, I think, to the disconnect between different definitions of “liberal.” Sanders starts with a class-based viewpoint; most black voters, regardless of income level, don’t. This is also why it’s been so difficult to get any kind of poor people’s movement organized in the US: poor non-whites see their situation and interests very differently from poor whites, for good reasons.
That Sanders isn’t resonating well with many of those non-white voters is something Bernie’s most ardent supporters are loathe to admit.
Let’s no forget MLK, Jr’s popularity within the AA community when he shifted from pure civil rights to anti-war and a class based economic critique. The Black Panthers did some of that as well.
Who knew that an old VT/NY democratic socialist Jew wouldn’t be popular with SC AA voters? But with 13% of the SC AA vote, that’s not too shabby considering that:
Did anyone else here at the Pond watch the live broadcast of MLK, Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech? As a kid it was a stretch for me to understand it fully, but it was clear to me that it was important and it thrilled me on a deep and profound level.
Beyond Vietnam —
MLK – a visionary with prophetic words. Had the courage to go against the mainstream America. Had wrestled with this decision between loyalty to the president and his conscience. Bullits kill more than just a man: MLK and RFK in 1968. In the 1960s US government inserted fear of the red wave in the America’s, Africa and Southeast Asia: famed domino theory. Since 9/11 Bush/Cheney/Sharon inserted fear of the black-flag Islam into US foreign policy for self-interest. Creating the movement of another right-wing fascism across the Western world.
Society doesn’t react with mass protest. Why?? There is no place for solidarity on such a large scale. People need to hang on in their lives, family, jobs and low income. High incarceration rates and lacking of universal health care for all. Don’t rock the boat, leave us the status quo. Law enforcement is well equipped to quell protest, subdue the underprivileged and keep the powerful 1% on top. Bill and HRC have done well financially, but can and will they represent the 1% or 47%?
Equal opportunity starts before birth, but quality of primary education is crucial in people’s lives with opportunity to develop one’s talent at college or university level. A lot has changed since MLK, but the “white folks” are always pushing back to reverse equal rights. Wall Street, the banking crisis and the trillion plus expensive march into Baghdad has cost Mainstreet dearly.
○ I Have A Dream- Remembering Martin Luther King, Jr. by refinish69 on April 4, 2008
The dream of MLK was shortly relived in the person of senator BHO. He drew the crowds, inserted enthusiasm and hope and the appreciation of AA in America showed on Election and Inauguration Day.
Hillary is no Barack!
Martin Luther King Jr.: “Saving the Soul of America.”
○ Martin Luther King – Beyond Vietnam, A Time To Break Silence on April 4, 1967 [Full Speech – Audio]
[Getting the chills all over hearing MLK speak – Oui]
○ Period Vietnam War and its aftermath: 1960-1970s sees US government spending, low unemployment, surging labor costs, economic inflation, dollar crisis 1971, monetary inflation turning into a recession.
Posted from my new diary – Robert Reich Endorses Bernie Sanders .. and More.
if this is true:
then SC is as representative of the nation as IA or NH.
And as much as I like the BMT community and rely on it to inform my view of the world, it often feels like the terms “they, “them,” etc., imply “other” and undermine the progressive work that needs to be done.
Well, considering that it was never, ever a threat to win the nomination, I suppose that represents incremental progress.
Feeling the Bern ain’t no fucking progressive movement. Never was. It’s the resentful, white reactionary wing of the Democratic Party who hate the fact that the base of the party is black women who vote like clockwork. Bernie Sanders was awkward and uncomfortable addressing nonwhite voters and nonwhite concerns, he’s been openly disrespectful towards the President, and that stuff simply won’t fly.
Of course, that just means we’re stuck with President Hillary. But I knew that six months ago, twelve months ago, etc.
Oh bullshit.
Oh, you are really swimming in the dirty dregs. So Bernie Sander’s support is based on white Democratic backlash against black women? You won’t even give black men the compliment of voting like clockwork. Do I need to make some anti-black remarks about how counterproductive the clockwork voting behavior of black women seem to me? If the Democrats are going to tear out each other’s eyes, no one needs to go out and vote. why do you think ‘the base of the party is black women’?
You misunderstand the word “clockwork”. They always vote. They vote in primaries, they vote in midterms and they vote even when they are not enamored with the candidate.
If the youth vote turned out like black women, the Democrats would never lose an election. And yeah, that does give them more influence within the party. Shouldn’t it?
Er, they have no influence if are voting for whomever is put in front of them. Are they all requesting status quo?
But maybe their Machine does, still.
who says they don’t get influence? did it ever occur to you that there is a reason they don’t agree with your assessment?
I won’t speak for a group of people that I’m not even part of but basically saying they don’t know what they’re voting for is very insulting to large portion of the Democratic base.
Just how much of political machinery remains, I wonder. No need to educate yourself–trust the Padrone. Was a lot of that here in South Texas, but not so sure it does much these days.
so you’re saying the only reason Clinton won by over 45 points in SC was because of the Democratic machine? First off why didn’t the “machine” work for her in 2008? Secondly, again you’re saying that a large group of Democratic voters don’t know any better and only voted for the machine candidate? That’s incredibly condescending and frankly not a good way to build up your candidate.
Saying that if a group of people don’t vote for your chosen candidate only because they didn’t know any better or were tricked or were controlled by the “machine” is incredibly insulting. Do you not see that?
Nope. I had forgotten the reason the machines down there keep ticking… seniority in the House of Representatives committees. So those AA ladies are voting smart. They are better represented than most other Dems for their numbers.
Curious, are you a young person? Cause you don’t seem familiar with the very looong tradition of party participation, a la Machine.
That’s a load of crap.
BooMan, you said this: ‘It seems to me that black folks got the message loud and clear from the president that he prefers Clinton to Sanders…”
Granted, I have done some tuning out because I don’t want either of the democratic candidates as president. (Seriously not a fan of Clinton and Bernie has made several own goals in February and I don’t think he’s ready to handle foreign policy.) But I apparently missed it completely whenever the President sent the strong message that he prefers Clinton to Sanders.
Can you clue me in?
I will vote for our nominee, whoever that is, of course.
What do you think local surrogates are for?
His former press secretary announced it to the world.
Well he didn’t endorse her, just prefers her. After all why not a third term?/s
I had completely missed that. Thanks for the link!
I don’t even think he needed to send a strong message. Hillary has positioned herself as upholder of the Obama legacy, Sanders has not tried to present himself that way, and has even criticized Obama about some things. Ths obviously has had a negative influence on a lot of black voters. because of that, I think a lot of the folks who voted for Hillary in SC were not even open to Sanders at all.
I think I should say something about my own position, because while I’m sure it’s shared by many, it doesn’t fit the cliché.
I really am not that critical of Obama, I voted for him enthusiastically twice, and I don’t think he ever meant to be a Clinton clone. In fact he started out with a stunning victory over them. I think he has done a great job under extremely difficult circumstances, and consistently horrible behavior from the GOP.
I see SANDERS as a continuation of Obama in the sense that he wants to accomplish things that Obama couldn’t even think of doing. (So whether he wanted to or not is kind of beside the point.) Now, a guy like Sanders wouldn’t have had a chance in 2008. We needed a much greater push back against Wall Street then; Robert Reich was pretty much representing my POV at the time. Now Robert Reich is one of the strongest supporters of Sanders.
Wall Street has to be gotten under control or this country and the whole planet are in big, big trouble. Many more people see this and realize it than in 2008. Bernie is the champion of that POV, not Hillary. Comparison with Obama is fairly irrelevant, we have to try to do now what he could not do then. Hillary is the voice of the 90s, if that. If her leftward turn, for which Bernie is almost entirely responsible, is genuine, then I would feel better about it. But unfortunately there is no reason I can see to be sanguine that it is genuine.
This has nothing to do with disrespecting black voters. And there are plenty of them supporting Sanders for the same reason I am, I just wish there were more, and I still believe there will be. SC really is not a typical state, and it’s a state that definitely won’t go for the Democrat in the national anyway.
Progressive? Not really.
No intended offense or aspersions cast, but the African American community as a whole, particularly that in the South is not by any stretch “progressive” in the sense that the word has come to mean.
Loyal? Yes.
Liberal on most issues? Yes.
But not progressive.
Either ‘progressive’ has come to mean something it shouldn’t or you’ve been smoking meth.
Does being progressive include supporting Gay Marriage?
Does being progressive include supporting decriminalization of or legalizing marijuana?
Does being progressive include support for comprehensive and human/sane immigration reform?
Does being progressive include support for stricter environmental regulations?
In disagreeing with the characterization of the African American community as “progressive” I am pointing out that on a wide array of issues, the African American community as a whole, and in the south in particular, is more hesitant in their support of these issues, as is recorded in any number of easily available surveys and polls.
I did not say “they’re conservative” I did not say “they’re regressive” and I did not say “they’re not liberal”
They’re just not “progressive” and in particular, they are not “the most staunchly progressive” as you characterized.
That’s an incurable view progressivism. I’ve never agreed with it in these pages.
Support for the right to an abortion? Is that progressive?
In your mind, progressivism is issue oriented and largely about class and identity. And the issues are skewed to what academia and wonks care about.
In my mind, if they’re not talking about it in corner barber shops in our inner cities, it’s not core to progressivism.
But this is deep subject that can’t be expressed adequately in a mere comment.
For me, a real political movement cannot be anti-establishment. A real political movement is about creating a governing coalition. Call it a rainbow coalition if you want. That at least gets closer to what defines what we’re trying to accomplish than some itinerary of so-called progressive issues.
At the core is a multiracial, multicultural coalition that seeks to empower people and liberate them from silos.
If 87% of black folks are preferring Clinton to Sanders, then it doesn’t mean much to me that Sanders is allegedly the more progressive candidate. At a certain point, when the numbers are that decisive, you might as well argue that the Republicans are right and blacks just don’t know enough to understand their own best interests.
Next thing you know, you’ll be saying that unions aren’t progressive because their members are more socially conservative than the student body of most of our universities.
The truth is, even southern church-going elderly black folks are pretty liberal on social issues compared to their white brothers and sisters, and they followed Obama’s lead on things like gay marriage where he slow-walked to the goal.
No, they’re not at the forefront of the movement for women’s and gay rights, but they’re the biggest single segment of the progressive coalition.
If progressivism meant single-payer health care and breaking up the big banks to them, more than 13% of them would have voted for Sanders.
That’s not what progressivism means to them. It’s only what it means to you.
Curious, isn’t the millennial split just as unbalanced? How does their segment of the democratic rainbow compare in size to the the bloc of older minorities?
Don’t ever put words in my mouth, thanks very much.
Progressivism to me means self-determination for all peoples and control of one’s body and mind and decisions for all individuals.
The right to choose an abortion is a progressive value.
The right for gays to marry is a progressive value.
Fighting environmental degradation and environmental racism is a progressive value.
Equal pay for equal work, workplace protection for minorities and women is a progressive value.
Equal funding for schools and investment in school infrastructure is a progressive value.
African Americans as a demographic support and vote for politicians that support several of the above, and are a staunchly liberal and staunchly loyal voting bloc. Their values and their political priorities are entirely and completely their business…
But do not try to tell me that African Americans as a voting bloc are “staunchly progressive” in terms of their support for Abortion Rights, Gay Rights, or any number of other core progressive values. They do not support those things as strongly as other, also loyal, voting blocs do.
Furthermore, please do not condescend or degrade my political views by bowdlerizing them into “single payer health care and breaking up the banks” or throw-away phrases about issues and class and identity.
I know what people in barbershops talk about, because I go to barbershops… they talk about wanting better jobs and better pay, how their family member/friend got sick and can’t afford the treatment, they talk about crime and the police, and they talk about how crazy the weather is… if I am lucky enough to have had the education to be able talk about those things with fancier vocabulary and with respect to underlying forcing factors, then what you’re complaining about when you sneer about “academia and wonks” is not what I say, but what words I use.
If “real political movements cannot be anti-establishment” then what was the civil rights movement? Were the folks getting their heads beaten in by the police, or shot by the national guard, or railroaded by a “justice” system that was explicitly and vocally supported and protected by the political establishment “creating a governing coalition”?
The Civil Rights Movement culminated in sweeping legislation and a total political realignment of the country. It even inspired a counterrevolution against the establishment it had so recently created.
It was a real political movement because it sought power, not just rights. It sought to win offices and majorities, not just to occupy space.
The political calculation of Jim Clyburn is as progressive as anything I’ve ever seen.
Because it’s about winning power to do good things with power.
It’s about understanding how to empower his people effectively.
And it doesn’t have time for nerds who want to tell him that he’s a dope or a sellout.
What progressivism means to you is righteousness. That’s not what it means to me.
And insofar as what people are talking about in urban barber shops is different from what people are talking about in white liberal circles, it’s about police violence and racism directed at the president and crime and city hall and rip-off artists.
The consumer financial protection bureau, credit card reform, and taking on the college loan industry have done more for them in a few short years than anything else I can think of.
The idea that the president isn’t progressive enough is not only foreign to them but actually a risible insult.
But, look, the numbers speak for themselves.
My history with the Clintons is well known. If I voted in Congress, I’d have a record that resembled Bernie Sanders more than any other congressperson.
The difference is that I take my queues on what’s core to progressivism from the folks who just massively endorsed Hillary with nearly 90% of their votes. I do not tell them what progressivism is.
The civil rights movement MADE the space into which political majorities were installed.
They made the space by occupying space, getting beaten and jailed and killed in that space, and doing so in the most visible, repeated, and unflinching ways possible.
Maybe you’re catching on.
No, maybe you are.
The same way labor MADE its space in the 20’s and 30’s. By putting its body out there.
If Dems are all about the POWER of office, just how the f*ck well are they doing with that? They can’t even find people to run.
At this point I have no idea what you think it is.
I would add that I think it pretty shitty that you responded with the ad hominem insult.
“Meth”? Really?
It seems to me that you have always been uncomfortable with Sanders.
It’s come to be used in an awful ahistorical way, all the time. As a kind of vague synonym for an even vaguer meaning of “left”, the way Davis mocks in his sig line (“more progressive than you”), and by people who feel betrayed by Obama because he isn’t whatever they think it is, or those Greenwaldians trying to be anti-corporate libertarians. I’ve tried to stop using it myself–except with a capital P for people active before 1920. I think I know what you were saying up in the OP and I think you’re quite right, but it’s causing a lot of chaos in the thread.
Governor Haley is on the teevee this morning, calling the prospect of a Trump nomination “scary.” She also said “Donald Trump can’t beat Hillary Clinton.”
So I guess Nikki won’t be running as the Donald’s VP nominee, then.
OT, but saving you the trouble of an old thread. Found this comparison of Clinton/BushII NLRB histories that fulfills your challenge.
The NLRB at Age 70: Some Reflections on the Clinton Board and the Bush II Aftermath
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=bjell
I am curious why it has taken seven yrs for Obama to restore overtime to the workers BushII/Elaine Chao took it away from.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/overtime-pay-obama-congress-112954
You find it “curious”. I find it “unsurprising”.
Obama is not a guy who has helped the working person in the US. He has, over and over again, favored illegals over American workers, H-1bs over US STEM/IT, OPT foreign students instead of US STEM/IT students.
His administration is possibly worse than Bush’s as far as policy for American workers.
I am no longer a Democrat following Obama’s abyssmally bad choices.
During the Obama debacle of an administration, Disney, Toys-R-India (no US workers there anymore), SC Edison, Hertz, and dozens of other companies replaced highly trained US IT workers with scummy scabs from India, because they are cheaper.
Trump and Sanders get it.
Clinton is possibly the worst choice that we are offered as far as jobs for US workers. She is worse than Trump. She is worse than Cruz. She would be the same as Rubio, who has not lifted a finger to help the Disney workers who were fired after having to train their replacements.
She’s worse than Trump? The same Trump which says that wages are too high? The same Trump whose merchandise is completely outsourced to foreign countries, likely for slave wages and poor conditions? The same Trump that is crushing union activity at his hotels? The same Trump who hired undocumented workers to construct his towers?
That Trump is now the proletariat hero? Please.
Clinton’s last speech that she was paid for was to the American Camping Association’s national convention. They spent 1/6 of their entire budget on her speech.
Why would a trade group for camps spend that kind of money on Clinton?
Well, camps run today on the J-1 visa. This is basically a huge swindle, where foreign “students” (some who are in their 30s and 40s) pay money to get summer jobs in the US, which have the pretence of “educational travel”. Actually, it’s just a form of slavery – they take the passports, force the workers to do long hours, and pay them under minimum wage.
Under minimum wage? Why, yes, because the employer does not pay a bunch of taxes. Plus the workers are all foreign and often speak very poor English. Plus they can be charged huge bucks for crap housing.
This is what Hillary supports.
Plus she supports the horrible H-1B situation. She is the Senator from Punjab, which she herself used to describe her appeal. She is entirely pro-visa.
It’s a disgusting thing. Trump at least has said that he does not support the H-1B. Cruz also has come around. Rubio is still in favor of increasing it, which is a horrible idea.
As to Obama, he created (without congressional mandate) the ability of H-1B spouses to work. He is attempting to double the OPT training time. Someone is telling him lies about US IT/STEM workers. And he is harming US workers every single day.
Sanders was at the start of the campaign saying good things. For instance, he said that we should not have an open border, and that we should deport illegals who have failed asylum hearings, which is a very modest position.
However, the illegals mafia got to him. He is now saying that those who did not gain asylum by the process of the immigration court hearing should not be deported. Incredible. These people are simply criminals. They should be OUT, NOW.
But i understand Sanders’ dilemma. During the campaign, you are forced to lie and say things that are false and stupid. This immigration idiocy is not his fault – the illegals scum like Gutierez got to him. Hopefully, in the very unlikely event of his winning, he would return to his senses and deport the criminals.
My previous links to you which shows that ICE is acting on their own accord and that many people have not received due process had no effect on your view of the situation, it appears.
Pity.
Apparently, there is always an excuse for criminality, and never a situation in which responsibility is taken.
And ICE should act on their own. That’s their job. We need a force to eliminate criminals from the US. I support ICE. Call 1-888-DHS-2-ICE to turn in a criminal illegal.
Reading dataguy reminds me of all the people who have told me that those damn foreigners just don’t want to learn English.
I happen to be a long time volunteer literacy tutor for refugees and other immigrants. The reason that volunteers are desired in the first place is that community college ESL classes are completely over-subscribed, with long waiting lists.
I point this out to the people who complain about those foreigners refusing to learn English. It never affects their attitudes.
reading dataguy reminds me of Rush Limbaugh.
Grandpa Bush was probably the last president who upheld the Depression Era consensus in labor relations. His board got decent marks for neutrality.
Clinton began the trend of dis-investment in government by civil service job cutbacks. I have read that 40% of missing employment is in state and federal job losses. There is your missing middle class. Especially minority MC.
Combine that with BushII’s instructions to business on how to create McJobs, and you have the at-will employment market.
Very true. The minority civil service hiring is a very important career path in DC for black and brown folks.
The Republicans have devastated the civil service. Although as you indicate Pappy might have been OK, since then the congress has been totally unsympathetic. Take the IRS. I pay my taxes, every year. I would like a lot of folks like Trump and so forth to be audited. But the IRS has been decimated by idiotic cutbacks. It’s crazy.
Is not helping you make your point at all. I actually mostly agree with you on H1-B and student visas but frankly I don’t want to be associated with anyone who uses the term “illegals.” It is a racially loaded term that only serves to obfuscate the point you are trying to make.
Now to address what you have said – I agree that the visa section of Trump’s immigration platform is one of the main reasons he is appealing to white working class voters. Democrats, including now Senator Sanders, are letting tech dollars have far too much influence in their policy proposals. One way the Democratic party could begin to win back support among white working class voters, especially those in suburban areas, is to completely overhaul their approach to visas and visa enforcement.
In the past, I have clearly defined a number of groups as being illegals, which include those who come over the borders, but also include those who come in over the jetbridge, and those who come in on the visa programs. In fact, the notion that “illegal” is a racist term is in itself racist. Illegal connotates behavior, and there are German illegals, Irish, Canadian, English, Mexican, Guatamalan, yada yada yada. This is a behavioral term.
If you rob, you are a robber. If you do illegal things, you are an illegal. You don’t like the term? Use another. I don’t impose language restrictions on you.
A racially loaded term. You can say all day long well that is now how I mean it but it doesn’t change that in the common vernacular it is now used as a racially loaded term. Your stubborn insistence on using it is only hurting the points you are trying to make.
By the way in proper English if you do something illegal you are a lawbreaker not an illegal.
Whatever, dude/duddette.
You call ’em chicken salad, I’ll call em illegals. Cause they are. I don’t buy that bullshit. I use the correct term. You use your term.
Actions may be illegal. People are not.
Not in proper English nor in accepted political discourse. As I pointed out the proper English term is lawbreaker. Political discourse usually uses undocumented. Either term is acceptable. Illegals is not.
As someone who generally agrees with you when it comes to the issues in our Visa system let me say you again your insistence on usually that racially loaded term takes away from the salient points you are making.
The term Wop means WithOut Papers. It was actually first used by legal Italian immigrants to disparage illegal Italian immigrants. but I guess they were anti-Italian racists.
Not so. No passports or any other papers were required to enter the US before 1918, yet the word ‘wop’ for an Italian is attested by US dictionaries a decade earlier.
Per Online Etymology:
Interestingly, we innocent white racists in South Carolina were ignorant of the urban ethnic slurs for Southern and Eastern Europeans until television brought them to our attention in the late 1950s. That is unless some World War II vet had been exposed to them. Some evidence for the use being constructed by intergroup social relations and diffusion of epithets.
Theodore Roosevelt referred to Latinos as “dagoes”…which subsequently became a slur directed at Italians.
We can count on the general election campaign bringing out this part of Trump’s business record:
http://fortune.com/2015/08/03/donald-trump-foreign-workers-visas/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431933/donald-trump-foreign-workers-american-workers-arent-goo
d-enough
So no, Trump won’t be able to effectively run against Hillary on work visas. OTOH, maybe Laura Ingraham will help:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/26/laura-ingraham-is-happy-that-trump-hired-undocu/208835
To the degree that Trump will attempt to attack Hillary on this, it will successfully shove her into a better position on this issue.
Only if the Clinton campaign discovers a way to rhetorically slice and dice Trump and his Republican allies. Hauling out Big Dog won’t do what she has to do herself.
Think Trump can’t be “beaten by a girl”? Ask what those divorce settlements were. But is the Clinton campaign up to this style of politics and are they competent at it? The good ole boys have to see that their hero Trump doesn’t have the spine his bravado pretends.
It’s easy to imagine Trump losing his composure publicly as the attacks pile on him, attacks the GOP candidates and right-wing SuperPACs have been unwilling to level. Many of them will be direct hits on Trump’s “looking out for the American worker” hogwash.
I believe some of the attacks are best leveled by our SuperPACs. Some should come from Hillary herself, I agree, but having facts presented by workers, homeowners, students and consumers who have been fucked by Trump and his associates will be valuable.
I was unaware that Barack Obama controlled hiring decisions made by Hertz Rent-a-car (for example).
The Gould paper you share here is a worthwhile historical analysis and critique. It provides personal experiences of the difference between the NLRB’s of the Clinton and Bush Administrations, and the roots of the differences:
“Inevitably, the pendulum shifts from one Board to another. The newest Board, composed exclusively of George W. Bush appointees (“Bush II Board”), has exhibited an unprecedented and indiscriminate onesidedness in both its promotion of supposed employer interests and its subordination of the collective bargaining and freedom of association policies at the heart of the Act. Three factors have been particularly important in furthering this trend: (1) the Board member appointment process; (2) the doctrinal shifts described by Hiatt and Becker; and, most importantly, (3) the breakdown in law enforcement due to the administrative backlog and quagmire in which the parties now find themselves-a phenomenon that is exceeded only by the work and record
of the Reagan Board in the ’80s.’ This third factor is the most significant of all, for it undercuts day-to-day regulatory administration which affects employees and employers far more profoundly than doctrinal shifts.”
In the ’90s, the Clinton Board acted as an impartial arbiter between labor and management. President Clinton appointed me as Chairman, with my thirty-year record as an impartial arbitrator of labor disputes, having decided in favor of management in nearly seventy percent of the cases that had come before me. While the politically-charged appointments process
induced other members of the Board to function more like labor and management representatives-which is similar to the role given to Board members by statute in Japan, which has a similar system’-the Clinton
Board’s approach was a balanced one, with different combinations of Board members moving back and forth across the statutory and ideological spectrum.”
Now, a brief summary of the Labor record under Obama. One of the things which President Obama and his Administration have consistently engaged in and spoken about is the need to try to accomplish changes in statutory laws rather than doing them through executive order. This is extremely sensible, in my view. It creates better assurance that policy improvements will last; an executive order can be undone or altered instantly by a future President. Additionally, executive orders undermine a President’s leverage in working with Congress to pass improved policies into law; with the policy change resolved, and the Congressional opponents to the change angered by being bypassed by the executive order, it makes it even more difficult to work together in the future on that and other policy issues.
This provides a likely explanation of why the President took some time to re-reverse the overtime rule you linked here. It’s worth noting that another action by Obama’s Secretary of Labor which created, for the first time, overtime and minimum wage protections for home care workers, was blocked in the courts for a lengthy period. Fortunately, the Administration has prevailed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/business/us-court-reinstates-home-care-pay-rules.html?_r=0
On to the NLRB. Here’s a linked summary of some of the many cases decided by the National or Regional Boards which have helped working people:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-labor-ruling-20150829-story.html
http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/252124-obama-administration-issues-controversial-labor-ruling
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/morning_roundup/2015/11/targets-bid-to-block-first-ever-union-
is-nixed-by.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2015/03/obama-vetoes-bill-overturning-nlrbs-
ambush.html
The link below is to the Supreme Court case which dealt with the issue you referenced yesterday, the complete obstruction of the President’s nominees to the National NLRB Board. The National Board acts in the “Supreme Court” role for rulings made by Regional Boards appealed by the loser:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-1281
During the Obama Administrations, employers have been the most frequent loser in the most important cases decided by the National Board. The Canning ruling by the Supreme Court tossed out years of pro-worker rulings which were decided by two Board members. The National Board had become unable to fill a quorum of its five seats; the Roberts Court invalidated all the decisions made by the reduced Board.
The remaining seats to the National Board were finally filled in the middle of 2013, when Senate Majority Leader Reid finally pushed through an agreement with McConnell and the Republican Senate caucus:
http://peoplesworld.org/senate-confirms-all-five-obama-picks-for-nlrb/
Hope this helps. Glad to gain responses.
Being very involved in my union in the 90s there was a general hope that having a Democrat in the White House would give us a better NLRB. Didn’t happen.
The Gould analysis provides direct evidence from an NLRB insider that the Board was better for workers under Clinton than it was under Reagan and Bush. In fact, Gould specifically identifies the Reagan Administration as the one whose oversight of the Board broke from past precedence to undermine working people.
It always seemed like half-stepping at the time.
We wanted more than an “impartial arbiter,” that’s for sure. Particularly after a dozen years of getting explicitly targeted by Republican Administrations, and doing the work to get Clinton elected and re-elected.
That said, the NLRB under Republican Administrations has been a partial arbiter on behalf of corporations and other employers. The difference is significant.
The republicans are in real trouble. Trump is going to do well on Super Tuesday. If he wins each state, he wins ALL THE DELEGATES for that state. NO PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION.
This was a decision by the Republicans in 2000, I believe, to make contests even more final.
Now it is going to bite them in the dick. Big-time.
That is incorrect. Winner take all doesn’t start until March 15 and doesn’t apply to all states.
Thanks for your correction. Apparently I need to check that situation.
The last time that South Carolina voted for a Democratic presidential candidate was Jimmy Carter, in large part because he was from next door in Georgia. The last time before that was JFK, before Nixon’s southern strategy.
I would guess that like the rest of the south the Democrats in SC are more much conservative than Democrats across the country. You will get more arguments against welfare, for free trade, etc., than in New York, Ohio, et al. I would also say that the strategy by the media of not talking about Sanders for all of 2015 has worked as expected. Last week a Clinton voter interviewed on NPR as much as acknowledged she knew nothing about Sanders.
Because of the history of hurdles that whites put up for black voters there a lot of turnout is organized through churches. Churches provide turnout. With the exception of the concept that black humans are equal to white humans they are not particularly progressive.
It is perhaps the worst place for Sanders’ candidacy in the US.
Does this mean it’s over? Another four years of neoliberalism under Clinton may mean the end of the Democratic party in its current form. Like Trump, Sanders has made remarkable progress without ANY help from the DNC. Quite the opposite.
Progressive and loyal? No. Not progressive. Loyal to the party as defined by church and party leaders. Hip hip hooray.
When Dubya ran in 2000 I presumed that many low information Republican voters chose him, maybe not so much in confusion with his pops but because it felt comfortable to vote to for a Bush. I’m sure that there’s a lot of the same with Democrats.
And, here’s the bonus: touch-screen voting machines that can’t be verified.
In short, it was pretty clear that the media, owned by the 1%, did not want Sanders anywhere near the White House. Now the 1% would like to continue to ignore Sanders. The red scare big guns haven’t come out yet.
So it was not a cheerful weekend for Bernie supporters. But presuming that South Carolina, which last gave an electoral vote to a Democrat 40 years ago, is the make or break state for Sanders, is absurd.
And again. Progressive? Anyone have any statistics?
Questions asked in exit polls in South Carolina:
South Carolina Democrats
Do you want someone to continue the President’s Policies?
70%
More liberal?
19%
South Carolina BLACK Democrats
Do you want someone to continue the President’s Policies?
87%
More liberal?
7%
Hmm. Black Democrats in SC are more conservative than white Democrats.
There is a reason why churches refer to God as the Lord. It has nothing to do with independent thought or progressivism.
that’s a little condescending, maybe they just perceive liberalism differently
I don’t think it’s close to being over – I think Clinton will rack up big margins on Tuesday, but Bernie could blow it out in a couple states with largely white populations and make up some of the deficit. Either way – I don’t think Bernie would concede unless he gets rolled the next few weeks.
That said, I am not terribly surprised that African-Americans did not take too kindly to his campaign. I won’t repeat what (sadly few) commenters above have said, which is that Bernie & his supporters simply do not know how to talk about racial and social issues in isolation from his economic policies.
And frankly, I am glad that someone who is a Johnny-come-lately to the Democratic Party and has done absolutely ZERO with regards to organizing and increasing turnout over his quarter century in Congress is going to be gone soon.
How did MLK, Jr do with that?
“Johnny-Come-Lately to the Democratic Party.”
Not a JCL to civil rights, equal justice, women’s rights, gay rights, a fairer economic system. Just a JCL to having the D behind his name. This, yes, this is the reason to resent Sanders. He didn’t learn to compromise, how to accept money from Wall Street and the military-industrial complex.
Since the Clintons and Wassermans are barely recognizable as Democrats (except for the D after their names) I guess we’ll just have to go by what the TVs scroll under their names.
If he doesn’t get big wins in VT, MA, CO,& MN he should probably get out. If he loses any of these 4 he definitely should. If it’s close in these states I don’t see a reason for him to continue.
Even if he does not do well it is still useful to the dems to have him continue to campaign IMO. His message bears repeating. (And boy does he like to repeat it!)
And frankly, I am glad that someone who is a Johnny-come-lately to the Democratic Party and has done absolutely ZERO with regards to organizing and increasing turnout over his quarter century in Congress is going to be gone soon.
You’re a clown. I guess you haven’t noticed how the Democratic Party is doing below the Federal level lately. Hell, even on the federal level it’s pretty bleak. You do know that the Democrats can’t even field a candidate for US Senate in Georgia this election, right? Lets see. 2010 in South Carolina, they likely fall for rat-fucking, or got rick-rolled. Either way, that’s pathetic. In 2014 they didn’t bother fielding a serious candidate in Mississippi. BTW, do you know what kind of candidate the Democratic party is promoting for Booman’s Congressional district? A guy who was a Republican as recently as 2012.
Having worked long hours for Barack Obama in 2008, and remembering as I do the dogwhistles blown by the Clinton campaign that year, I will never understand how the leadership in the black community could trust the Clintons again, or even want to be caught anywhere near them.
It’s not really about Sanders, or whether he speaks to their concerns directly enough. I think it could be any other white candidate running against Clinton — the same thing would be happening. For the life of me I cannot understand it.
I respect any voting bloc’s decision to vote its self-interests as it sees them, and I assume there must be some sort of quid pro quo in the works here that will reward black leadership for their loyalty, but I’ll go to my grave seeing it as a corrupt bargain. But yeah, often the right things get done for the wrong reasons.
Bernie had nobody to vouch for him.Nobody Black. He couldn’t even get the 3 Blacks that live in Vermont to speak up for him.
I guess Spike Lee, Danny Glover, and Harry Bellafonte are not black enough, to name just a few. Hillary got the establishment endorsement.
I think the key word is not “establishment”… it is “church”
Harold Middlebrook?
Hey, hey, hey! Don’t forget who the Sanders campaign rolled out as their outreach to the black community: Cornel West! Wasn’t he just the bestest evah person to wean black folks away from their foolish admiration for that useless failure Obama and his horrible former SoS?
The two areas where Sanders won in SC were in voters under 29 and first-time voters.
The LA Times story suggests that SC was a victory of low-information voters.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-sanders-black-voters-20160226-story.html
it always surprises me when people call certain voters stupid and then they’re surprised that these same voters don’t vote for their candidate
It’s not stupidity — it’s false consciousness.
If a voter says he’s too buy to investigate Sanders and says he’ll just vote for Clinton that pretty much says “I am low information and I won’t put out the energy to see what this guy Sanders offers.” The man in article called Sanders a newcomer to civil rights.
No one called the voter in the LA Times article stupid, certainly not me. He just didn’t know anything about Sanders and didn’t want to spend the time finding out. That might be intellectually lazy or incurious, but when you are 59 you’ve pretty much decided how curious you are going to be. Maybe he’s quite happy with our country over the last several decades.
In a real democracy the voting public should be well-informed about their options. Our media intentionally ignored Sanders for most of 2015.
Most Americans are low information. People who are rallying to Trump are not on the list for any MacArthur awards, but the media and our secret services have scared them about Muslims so they hate Muslims. Not much thought after that.
Now you have probably decided to vote for Clinton for your own reasons. You may not see the rise of Wall Street’s power within the Democratic power structure as especially threatening. Maybe you work on Wall Street or have your eggs in that basket. Maybe you support endless war. Maybe you don’t mind Democrats’ absence in Congress, or presume their low numbers are because kids are lazy or it’s cyclical. Maybe you think that DWS is the cat’s meow as party chair.
That wasn’t my Democratic Party in the sixties.
You’re classifying some of the Clinton voters in your linked story as low-information voters.
The representations you’re bringing forth here are ones held by a highly selective and distorted-information voter. They’re a little over the top, and if I were a solid Clinton supporter I’d feel talked down to. I certainly wouldn’t begin to be persuaded to change my vote.
The declared “low-information voters” in South Carolina who disappointed you yesterday can be counted on to oppose Trump or whatever nightmare of policy positions the GOP nominates.
That is important to me. I hope it is to you.
As a fellow Sanders supporter, I’d encourage us to understand that we don’t win people over to our side of the policy and personality argument by insulting them and their neighbors.
Well it isn’t the 60s anymore, maybe you should move forward with the rest of us.
Every time someone says low information voter many people take that as calling them dumb or stupid.
Lastly, fuck off you don’t know anything about me, who I”m voting for or why I’m doing it.
Don’t know your problem. You insult, now you’re insulted by me. It’s not about me or you. And by now I have no intent or hope that anyone who spends time on sites like this are going to be changed.
Nice senior ad hominem though.
I never insulted you. You ascribed to me all the boogeymen of the left and then you’re wondering why it pissed me off?
I mentioned the 60s only because you did, like it’s some talisman of what liberals should be like now. Things change, people change and the liberals of the 60s made a lot of mistakes that we’re still paying for now. It had nothing to do with your age, because frankly I don’t give a crap how old you are or even if you were around in the 60s.
Sorry but when you publicly tell someone to,
fuck off
like YOU did above
that is insulting them
no calling someone a dumbass is an insult telling someone to fuck off is not
unless of course we moved to the point where any curse word is an insult then we must completely be in end times
Try doing it publicly FACE to FACE,
and see if the other person reacts like it is an insult.
not much would happen around here, so I guess I’m good
Nice “trumpian” dodge there.
You still insulted him
both of you go to your rooms.
no dinner for you.
this has to be one of the most surreal conversations I’ve had in a while
Did Nikki Haley just endorse Hillary Clinton?
Will the new Democratic President cause the old obstructionist Republicans to jump into the Democratic Party, leaving the so-called Freedom Party with Trump?
Like most fundamental elections (1932, 1968, 1980), the primary season suddenly gets very strange as the constituencies are realigning.
I hate to agree, but I do.
I love Bernie and I’ve worked hard to stomach Clinton after 2008’s debacle, but I’ve been reluctant to go all in for Bernie because I’m truly terrified of even Kasich, not to mention the others, and I’m clinging to the idea that Hillary can beat all GOP comers because of the electoral college. And the electoral college strategy depends on blacks, latinos and women. So it’s their call, frankly, and they’ve made it clear, so I suggest that progressives follow the one smart thing that Ronald Reagan ever said in his pathetic, destructive life: don’t diss your own side. At the end of the day, Hillary is “likable enough” and competent as hell. And there’s no doubt that she would appoint great SCOTUS justices and that’s more important than anything else.
So, barring some massive upset on Super Tuesday, I think it’s time to be “ready for Hillary” and turn our efforts to the platform and the VP choice. Julián Castro doesn’t thrill me at all. He can’t speak Spanish and he doesn’t sound that bright in English. I’d be curious if anyone has an argument against Elizabeth Warren (aside from VP less valuable than senator – I mean an electoral argument), but if not her, then who? A Latino or Latina would be ideal, but please let it be one who speaks fluent native Spanish and isn’t Cuban (that may sound racist, but the facts of the matter are that Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans don’t consider themselves to be of the same ethnicity. Each has passionate ethnic pride. Puerto Ricans are hugely important in Florida, Mexicans are hugely important almost everywhere that matters aside from the rust belt.)
It’s too bad she is just getting into the Senate now, because I would definitely put Kamala Harris on the national ticket, and soon. In fact, if I was playing the really long game, I would ask Biden to stay on another 4 years as VP and replace him with Harris in 2020.
I think people are very gung-ho about Julian Castro, but from what I have read, he is a pretty face that is a bit of a lightweight (mayor of San Antonio was a part-time job with no real power, and as HUD Secretary, it seems like he is there to burnish his resume and keep the wheels turning, not do anything revolutionary). I would definitely be betting on him to be the favorite at this point.
You could probably make the case for someone like a John Hickenlooper, but I don’t a generic white guy cuts it anymore, nor will it excite the base. I think Clinton & co. are smart enough not to do this, but you never know.
You could probably make the case for someone like a John Hickenlooper, but I don’t a generic white guy cuts it anymore, nor will it excite the base.
Hickenlooper is even more yesterday’s news. He’d certainly succeed in turning young people off to the party.
If Hillary has the AA vote locked down then William Blaine Richardson III, would certainly help with the Hispanic vote, and he has worked with the Clintons before.
No thanks. He’s been accused of corruption multiple times.
Boo, someone is stealing your headlines
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/27/hillary-clintons-south-carolina-victory-means-is-on-glide-
path-to-nomination.html
HRC is perceived by many to have a better chance against Trump than does Sanders. I’m not sure that’s true, but that is what I am hearing on any number of levels. Forget about special interest blocs among the Dems, be they racial, economic, socio-cultural and/or locailty-based. The main point of the coming election will be…provided of course that some massive scandal or other horrendous event doesn’t derail Mr. Boss of All Bosses:
HRC’s win in SC…and increasingly stronger wins Super Tuesday and after, I believe…wili be a vote against, not necessarily a vote for.
A vote against Trumpism. No bad thing, overall. HRC’s going to get the nomination as much due to that one fact as anything else.
But…
Will she succeed?
Personally, I think that she will be able to do so only if she is physically well enough to stand the gaffe of another 8+ months of campaigning.
We shall see.
She doesn’t look so hot to me.
(Feb. 27, 2016)
Really.
One problem with all of those airbrushed images of her on posters and carefully made-up appearances at rallies/in debates is that when the mask slips off…and it does and will continue to do so…the truth is quite shocking.
Trump just made fun of Rubio for relying on makeup. So did Christie. Imagine what they will do to her!!!
Later…
AG
If he attacks her for wearing makeup, or for her appearance in any way, the women of this country will eat him alive. I doubt he’s smart enough to know that.
Could be. Could not, be too. So many things that he has said and done over the previous 8 or 9 months have elicited similar responses from people from all sorts of different political positions, all of whom have been fervently praying that he will fall flat on his (
T) rump.And he hasn’t.
You say “…the women of this country will eat him alive.”
Which women, exactly? Other than the ones who already oppose him. The millions of women who watch reality TV? The millions of women who themselves spend millions ad millions of dollars every year hoping to not eventually look like she does now?” I wonder. I wonder if those people will look at her and be repelled by the stone truth of the matter. Everybody gets old,sooner or later…if they don’t die first, of course.
I dunno.. I really don’t. Maybe the women who aspire to be Kardashian Klones, the ones admire the sort of women you see surrounding Trump…all makeup and hair, an inch deep in all other respects…maybe the’ll look at an aging HRC and go “EWWWWwww!!! Who needs that old bitch!!!”
I’m serious here, tb92. At least since Clinton I, the presidential elections in the U.S. have been won by the candidate who most closely resembles…physically resembles…a successful, grown-up version of a winner of “The Bachelors” reality show.
Clinton I, Bush II, Obama…all marketed as romantic images.
And now here comes Trump…marketed as a sexually dominant Daddy Warbucks figure…vs. HRC, marketed as…as what, exactly? Someone’s kindly ol’ grandma? With the blood of millions on her hands? I think not. A survivor of a seriously sexually fucked-up marriage? A policy wonk who wasn’t smart enough to protect here own emails from possible hacking?
Please!!!
Unless something wonderful happens…Trump in a landslide.
AG
Arthur, your attacks on Hillary’s appearance…ugh.
Perhaps we can bring some reality into the discussion:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-2016-women-voters-217086
“But Trump’s current coalition in the primaries relies heavily on male voters — especially less-educated men. The female vote is less important in Republican primaries — where, because women are more likely than men to be Democrats, they make up a minority of the electorate — and a candidate who appeals mostly to working-class males can emerge in a fractured field. Once that field is whittled to only the top candidates, however, the 40 percent to 50 percent of the GOP primary vote represented by women will become crucial.
And with women expected to comprise between 52 percent and 54 percent of the November electorate next year, Trump or any other Republican can ill afford to lose ground among female voters. (President Barack Obama won women in 2012, 55 percent to Mitt Romney’s 44 percent, according to exit polls.)”
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188177/trump-image-among-democrats-independents-negati
ve-gop-candidate.aspx
“Trump’s -74 net favorable rating among Democrats who know him is still the lowest of any GOP candidate, way below Cruz’s -54 and Huckabee’s -52 among Democrats who know them. And among independents who are familiar with him, Trump’s net favorable score is -30, significantly more negative than Bush’s -18 or Huckabee’s -11.
It’s possible that Trump’s image could become more positive during a general election campaign — although we’ve seen no evidence of change so far. A look at our data from last July, the first month in which we tracked the candidates, shows that Trump’s net favorable rating among Democrats was -68, essentially the same as it is now. In other words, after months and months of exposure to Trump throughout the fall, Democrats’ views of him have not shown any signs of getting better (nor worse, for that matter), suggesting a lower probability that their views of the entertainer and businessman would change significantly after more months of exposure to him this year.”
Get real. I am not “attacking” Clinton in any way. I am predicting how she will be attacked.
All of your jive percentages and polls mean nothing.
It’s going to be…barring the totally unexpected…HRC vs. Trump.
Know your enemy.
And know your champion as well.
AG
Oh, so you’re going with denial.
Taking responsibility for what you post is beyond you, apparently. Doesn’t have to be that way.
No denial, centerfielddj. Know thine enemy.
AG
You were posting nasty sexist crap about Hillary and her appearance well before Trump entered the scene. But you go ahead, my man. The First Amendment is your friend. So’s that hole you keep on digging.
AG spent 2007-08 telling us incessantly that Obama couldn’t win and didn’t have the balls to stand up to the GOP. He urged us over and over again to support Hillary.
Then he tried to sell us Rand Paul.
LOL.
I wonder what would have happened if you had paid attention.
Probably nothing better…certainly nothing worse.
AG
P.S. I never said that Obama “didn’t have the balls” to stand up to the GOP. I said that he would have a difficult learning curve in order to find out where the levers of power really lay and how to use them as opposed to HRC. I wasn’t smart enough then to realize how deeply both of them were immersed in the ongoing PermaGov fix. I thought then…and I think now…that Hillary was the least of several evils. She is…was, at least…a pro.
Now?
I’m beginning to wonder how much juice she has left. I really am.
Whatever.
Time will tell.
I’m about ready to walk away from it all. What’s going to happen is going to happen. Best of luck to all of us.
We’re all going to need it.
Huh, didn’t know that history. That’s a riot.
He goes huge for the Big Savior. There’s always one. I have seen a migration or two. The Paul thing was pretty quixotic and peculiar for a person who deigns to lecture progressives.
I’m sort of new here but…seriously? AG was a Rand Paul fan?
To the point of refusing to admit what they represent, up to and including denial that Ron Paul had anything to do with his newsletters.
I’m flabbergasted about the Rand Paul thing.
I had a grad school flirtation with the Libertarian Party until I figured out that their fundamental message was “I’ve got mine, Jack, now you fuck off.” No wonder so many of them, like Rand Paul, are so comfortable being Republicans.
It was remarkable. He was very persistent about it for a while.
Then he started writing that the only two politicians who could win the Presidency and defeat the PermaGov were Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren. One was as good as the other, apparently.
Peculiar ideologies, terrible prognostications…that’s our Arthur.
Dunno how old you are, centerfielddj…you sound fairly callow. 40s, maybe? One age or another, you will eventually find that 8 years in one’s 60s can make a big difference in how well you operate.
I am not posting “sexist” crap about HRC; I am posting…from a position of intimate, personal knowledge…information about aging.
Deal wid it.
Now or later, no matter. Eventually we must all deal with it.
AG
P.S. I think…and have stated here a number of times…that Elizabeth Warren would be the best potential president rationally available today. Is that sexist too?
Grow the fuck up.
Whatever will happen to your crush on Warren when she begins to campaign enthusiastically for the Democratic nominee?
Just another PermaGov sellout…
It’s all about sex with you, isn’t it centerfielddj.
I have no “crush” on Elizabeth Warren; neither am I being sexist when I point out that Clinton doesn’t look very healthy, to say the least. (Sanders doesn’t either, by the way.) I must be a misanthrope, eh? Some sort of equal opportunity hater?
And of course if I support Elizabeth Warren it’s because she’s a female on whom I have a “crush.”
Well…crush this, fool.
Telow is my the reason for my so-called”crush.” Had anyone else publicly said the following…regardless of party or political philosophy…and appeared by ample evidence over a number of years to both actually mean it and be in a position to do somehing about it, I would be supporting them. (Speech given on the Senate floor. Emphasis mine.)
Get a sex therapist. Or…at least undergo a PC exorcism of some kind.
You sick wid it.
AG
If Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination, Warren will campaign for her very enthusiastically.
What will you say then?
If she’s running against Trump, I’ll be working for her, too. Trump is pure evil. HRC is sincere, I believe. She’s just wrong. There is no choice between the two. Better stasis than destruction.
AG
Never underestimate the appeal exerted by an obnoxious incoherent bigot with an target already socially determined to be “fair game.”
I’d say you could ask my great uncles and aunts, but they were murdered by just such a man with similar followers.
If that sentiment were true to the extreme degree you are suggesting here, why have Trump’s negatives outside the GOP base remained so sky-high for all this time?
You think his negatives will go down after he launches his cloddish sexist attacks and his “looking out for the average person” claims are shown to be preposterous shams?
The Republican electorate has separated itself from the general electorate quite distinctly. Appealing to tens of millions of women and others outside the GOP base requires something quite different.
It’s the 21st century. This won’t fly.
I think that his negatives will remain high because most people will never tell you that they’re racist or sexist.
But that his support will remain solid among at least 40% of the overall electorate that is actively racist and sexist…
And that the remaining percentage points will be strongly leveraged by the supreme court seat the GOP is holding hostage for exactly this purpose.
Do I think Trump an extremely weak and bad candidate? Sure.
Do I think that will matter once the GOP machinery, the megachurch evangelicals, and the nativist mouthbreathers get into line?
Well… George W Bush got elected… twice.
David Duke couldn’t win in Louisiana in 1992.
George W. Bush aggressively and skillfully sought the Latino/Hispanic vote.
What about the non-white vote in general?
You think that the remaining 10% of voters you imagine that Trump needs (I disagree on the number, but OK) are going to hand the Presidency to someone they intensely dislike because they’re desperate to overturn Roe v. Wade, discriminate against The Gays/Blacks/Browns and gain even more rights to wield guns everywhere?
Might women, gays and non-whites respond quite enthusiastically in support of Trump’s opponent?
Obama beat Romney with women voters 55%-44%. You think Trump will do better against Hillary?
Some perspective is in order. It’s upsetting and a little frightening to witness the Trump phenomenon within the radicalized conservative movement, but we can choose to look at the big picture.
Didn’t I just see that Hillary’s negatives are in the high 50’s? 58?
Trump’s are at 60, I believe.
Voters HATE everyone pretty much. lol
Ditto. The ones who didn’t leave Poland for North America got turned into lampshades.
Well, to make the tastelessness of the remark even more obnoxious, we can say that not all of them were turned into lampshades, but they were nearly all turned into ash and decay. So there. We’re all so stuck in fucking WW 2 and the Nazi genocides as well as the Cold War (you know the enemy RUSSIA!) that we can’t move one fraction of a fraction of an inch into the reality we need to survive further. Trump is someone I can’t tolerate, nor his fans, but that’s maybe what we get for the neoliberal, neocon scam the Democrats have dished up with Clinton, Obama and now Clinton 2. I’ve had my say. Earlier I complained that the progressives, liberals or whatever they call themselves are ruining their future by obsessing about how terribly horrible the Republicans are, laughing their chops off about the clown car, a piece of verbal farce in itself which has seemed to vanish, instead of examining themselves and what a bill of goods we’ve been sold. This blog is so enlightening: now I know that the Democratic primary process wasn’t even meant to be democratic! So what is it then, Machine Politics, Authoritarian, Dictatorial, maybe someone can clarify. Imagine, the real presidential campaign even hasn’t begun.
‘We came, we saw, he died.’ This is the most literary and historically educated statement of a person who people are defending on this site with their last drop of blood to become president. In my book only a psycho/sociopath would make a statement like that in public. Someone with a lesser degree of mental disequilibrium would know to say it only in private. Her good friend Madele Albright is equally unhinged. Talking about a clown car!
“loyal democrats” does not “progressives make” in yoda speak.
as time goes by they are more accurately labeled “rightwing/fascist-lite” given their knowing or oblivious praying at the corporate altar.
I take issue with statement “The country’s most progressive and loyal Democrats have spoken.” In the very first two debates the issue of “who was progressive” came up. Hillary invoked the name of Paul Wellstone, the original author of a book called “Conscience of a Liberal”. Ironically, at least in the present time, that same title was adopted by Paul Krugman both for a book and the title of his blog. Paul Wellstone before he died, was the only senator facing reelection to vote against authorization for Iraq War. Hillary’s invocation made me go back and look at Wellstone’s book.
The first issue he takes on is Universal Health Care. Wellstone writes:
“No American who is struggling with an illness or has a loved one who is ill should have to go through this, to worry whether or not they can afford health care. There should be affordable, dignified, and humane health care for every American citizen.”
He talks about how excited he was that in President Clinton’s first inaugural address the proposed Universal Health Care and stated that he would not sign any bill that left anyone uncovered. He then talked of his disappointment of the how all progress seem to stop after it was assigned to Hillary and the back door meeting.
The rest of his book is about mental health, education for our youth, economic justice, and campaign finance reform. It is an interesting read that I recommend to all.
Hillary Clinton, in my view, is an establishment liberal or a neo-liberal. A neo-liberal is much like the neo-conservatives of the Bush Administration who were hawkish on National Defense to maintain world superiority and market solutions oriented (corporate), but differed in their approach to social issues which the conservatives used as wedge issues.
Progressives or Liberals, and Conservatives for that matter, in my view are about a more democratic and shared responsibility than are Neo-Liberals or the Neo-Conservatives.
They say it is not over till the “Fat Lady Sings”. Here’s hope against hope that our new president is Bernie Sanders.
Did he get an envelope of anthrax before his plane crashed?
Hillary better start inspiring more Democrats to give a shit about elections this year. Maybe Trump will do the heavy lifting (of shifting sane Independents to the Democratic column) for all of us, but to realize the gains needed to retake the Senate, she’s got to start putting up a bigger tent; one that will hold not just the past of the Democratic Party but its future.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrat-turnout-south-carolina_us_56d2e392e4b03260bf77247f?utm_
hp_ref=politics
h/t Juan Cole’s Informed Comment
○ The entrance polls said Nevada’s Latinos voted for Bernie Sanders. [‘That’s unlikely’]
○ Yvanna Cancela, political director at the Culinary Workers Union Local 226, about Hillary Clinton’s return to Nevada on the campaign trail | MSNBC |
Culinary Workers Union Local 226 (PAC)
Barack Obama (D) D $1,188,567
Harry Reid (D) D $1,014,666
Posted in my diary – Robert Reich Endorses Bernie Sanders .. and More.
It would seem to me that even the most passionate Sanders advocate would agree that he needs to win Massachusetts among other states on Super Tuesday. Win it convincingly, in fact.
Given that, what does one make of the recent polling trends?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ma/massachusetts_democratic_presidential_prim
ary-3891.html
PPP: 2/14 – 2/16, m/e 4.2, C: 42% S: 49%
Emerson: 2/19 – 2/21, m/e 4.8, C: 46% S: 46%
WBUR: 2/21 – 2/23, m/e 4.9, C: 49% S: 44%
Suffolk U: 2/25 – 2/27, m/e 4.4, C: 50% S: 42%
What exactly counts as “respecting” their “decision”?
What would count as “respecting” the “decision” of voters in New Hampshire?
I guess we should cancel all the other primaries?
What’s disrespect?
Saying college students are foolish idealists?
Suggesting that John Lewis and Jim Clyburn are idiots or corporate sellouts?
Yes.
Yes.
Oh ok, it just seemed you were suggesting the South Carolina electorate is somehow uniquely qualified to deliver a “decision” or to define what is “progressive,” perhaps because of its racial make-up?
It’s complicated.
It’s not that South Carolina is unique. If the numbers there were less overwhelming, we might talk about unique factors that make blacks in South Carolina different from blacks in other parts of the country. It’s true, there are differences.
But, the numbers were 87-13.
That’s about what Dukakis got over Poppy with blacks.
So, yes, I’m talking about blacks in a general sense here that’s not specific to South Carolina.
In some ways, no voter is any different from any other voter, and the youth vote is our future and as important as the loyalty of the black vote.
However, for me at least, progressivism is a political force that creates a governing coalition. Obama fulfilled the progressive vision first articulated with Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.
It’s a vision of a majority made up of people with a pluralistic view and pluralistic ambitions. It’s specifically anti-racial, and aspires to be post-racial (although it’s much more anti-racism in the real world).
A candidate who wins with this coalition will be more responsive to it than a candidate who panders to this coalition but actually wins with a quite different one.
It’s how I view the world, basically. If Clinton has Obama’s coalition, and she basically does, then she’s going to push forward the interests of that coalition.
I’m from the Bernie Sanders wing of the party, at least more than from the Clinton/DLC/Blue Dog wing. But I don’t see myself as more progressive than John Lewis or the black community writ large.
I’m to the right of hardline trade unionists that flirt with communism, but I don’t see them as more progressive than me.
I see us all as key components, some larger, some smaller, some more key, some less, in an overall progressive movement.
The goal is to form a majority that can beat the right and isn’t too reliant on groups who lack our pluralistic vision. Democrats who are willing to stomp on any of our key groups to pander are trying to build a different kind of majority.
For a long time, we asked people not to do this, but we couldn’t supply the needed votes. We’ve now proved in two successive elections that we can put together the votes.
That’s one reason Hillary is running a much different campaign than she did in 2008 and that her husband did in 1992 and 1996.
Ok thanks for the explanation, that makes more sense.
…the Sanders campaign today said they have collected $36 Million in small donations this month alone, hoping that today they will make it to $40 Million.