Bernie Sanders’ campaign has been nothing short of amazing. Whatever else happens, it has forced Clinton to the left, activated a new generation of activists, given a boost of power to progressive democrats in the senate and congress, and shown that this is not 1972 anymore, and a progressive candidate for president is perfectly viable. However, the results of the past few primaries show that a Clinton victory in the primaries is by far the most likely outcome.
The Clinton campaign’s recourse to dirty campaigning and tricks that border the illegal (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/03/01/bill-clinton-massachusetts-voting-laws/) does not seem consistent with the state of the campaign. I see it as an anachronism: voters today do not take kindly to these kinds of shenaninagans, but the Clinton machine seems stuck in a time before the internet.
I think the way in which Clinton can lose is through panic and overreach: if they get too negative against Sanders, or over-do their dirty, insidery, bullshit, this may turn voters off. If Sanders keeps the heat on Clinton, he may get her campaign to panic sufficiently to produce this result.
I really hope Clinton starts running a positive campaign. They really need to cut the crap
Yeah sure. The crap with the Clintons never stop. Hence, the taxpayer funded stunt that Bill played yesterday that effectively closed polling sites while he could bask in the glow of crowds and push a few more voters to Hillary.
videos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/2/1494728/-Bill-Clinton-Law-Breaking-at-Polling-Station-Beyond-
Doubt-Video-Shows-Loudspeaker-Campaigning
let’s hope. and I’d say, Sanders has forced Clinton campaign to employ left-type rhetoric, not actually forced them to the left.
The thing is, the more Clinton goes left rethorically, the harder it is to walk it back once elected. I think the greatest triumph in this regard is making her embrace the public option
Bollocks. Reference Clinton and Obama campaigns compared with what they did while in office.
I’d say politicians can walk back from campaign statements to a degree, but they can’t overdo it: for example, Poppy Bush’s “no new taxes”
Well, statements like “read my lips, no new taxes” are difficult to wiggle out of when taxes must be raised. Most politicians avoid such blanket statements of what they will and won’t do and many either naturally or learn to talk out of both sides of their mouths and not speak the truth out of either side. But as Ann Richards famously said, “Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”
I’m impressed with the general record of the President’s efforts to keep his many campaign promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/
A fair-minded summary would properly assign responsibility for the failures to close Guantanamo and pass EFCA, along with other campaign promises unkept.
Yes. I think Obama made an honest effort to deliver, and managed to deliver some big effin deals. I do think he should have had a more aggresive strategy the first two years, but I’m loving his not-at-all-duckitude
Hillary doesn’t need to “go left” She’s already there.
She’s certainly to the left of republicans. I’d say she’s at the right of the democratic party, but perhaps I’m wrong. What initiative as first lady, vote or bill in the senate, or action as SecState would you characterize as being “left”?
A summary of Hillary’s record based on her Senate voting record, public statements, and fundraising sources shows her to be solidly on the left side of the Democratic Party:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
Since this study was completed, she has come out against the TPP, the domestic issue many of us here at the Frog Pond care about most passionately.
To my eyes, her campaign planks sure scan on the very liberal and thoughtful side:
https:/www.hillaryclinton.com/issues
Keeping ourselves open to receiving new information is challenging in the middle of a tough primary election battle. I think it’s a good idea, though.
We know her instincts on foreign policy and the use of military is not as liberal as we would like. If people on the Frog Pond were to criticize her plan to implement a no-fly zone in Syria, for example, they would find me joining them unreservedly. She’s not joining Trump in demanding a massive Defense Department buildup and genocidal military action against ISIS and any other innocent person who might be in their vicinity.
Bernie’s voting record is to the left of Clinton’s, no doubt. But Hillary’s done much, much more than Sanders to help the campaigns of members of the Democratic Party Congressional Caucuses, Democratic Caucuses which are currently more liberal than it has been at any time this century. She was also much more valuable than Sanders as a supporter of President Obama’s 2008 general election campaign. These are important things as well.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment and the data-based approach. A quote from your link:
“There have been a few issues on which Hillary Clinton has taken more centrist positions. She, of course, voted for the Iraq War (she now says that was a mistake). Clinton has been mostly pro free trade (although she hasn’t said much of anything on the Trans-Pacific Partnership). And she has been against marijuana legalization, and seemingly remains so.
When Clinton has shifted left, she has usually done so with her party and — on the issues she’s highlighted in the 2016 campaign so far — the country. “
To me, this is kind of like saying “he’s a great boxer, except for the weak left, the glass jaw, and the lack of stamina”. I’d say as a Senator Clinton votes are good most of the time, but she hasn’t lead in any important progressive issue, and tends to remain quiet or even push to the right on important issues like drug legalization.
I don’t think electing Clinton will be the end of the world; at the very least it will be a continuation of Obama’s policies (except in foreign policy; I think she is more hawkish, but I hope institutional inertia keeps things going in the saner direction that Obama/Kerry have set forth). She may move the ball forward on some issues, and her plans seem progressive and well thought out. But I have a hard time believing Clinton is some progressive champion
I agree. Getting a better Senate would help produce the best result on the budget and legislative side (but then again, that would be true for any President, eh?). If we’ve got Congressional Democrats pushing her that would help.
I expect that she will appoint/nominate people who will help run the Federal agencies very well and will make good SCOTUS nominations. I’m happy about the Tulsi Gabbard kerfluffle. It helps put Hillary in a better place on DoD issues, since Gabbard is laser-focused on Clinton’s record of supporting flawed plans to implement the military as the reason she is supporting Sanders. Gabbard’s resignation as co-Chair of the DNC reminds Hillary that the problems caused by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’ leadership of the Committee are real and have real consequences. Debbie’s corrupt, tone-deaf leadership on the payday lender bill is well-timed, in a way; it enrages active Democrats at a time when people’s attentions are heightened.
Bernie hasn’t “pushed Hillary to the left.” Why any liberal/Democrat has yet to figure out that a Clinton says whatever is needed for that moment with whatever audience and then will proceed to do exactly as they please to further their strongly held belief in neoliberalism and neoconservatism.
Sanders accomplishment — assuming that he can’t quickly break through into the consciousness of the vast majority that have yet to vote — will be to have informed a larger percentage of the population why they have been and will continue to get the shorter end of the stick. Then everybody will go to sleep for another four years.
Anyone seen Colorado exit polls? This is all I got…
I’m a Colorado Native. And a Latino.
In colorado Bernie won the top 10 of the 15 Latino/Hispanic counties by huge margins. Adams by 23%, Weld by 22%, and Denver by 10%. Adams has 34% Latino, Weld is 25%. and Denver us 19% Latino. Those 3 counties make up 43% of the Latino Democratic population.
Do you have a link? CO progressives did come through for Bernie, only 8,000 short of what Obama got in ’08. Unlike many other states, Clinton didn’t get a boost from ’08 Obama supporters in CO. Only added 10,000 to her ’08 total. In GA she added 210 thousand votes.
There’s an important PR reason why team Clinton got out there and claimed to have won the Latino vote in NV. Their claims notwithstanding, this demo isn’t splitting like the AA demo for her. Appears to be indistinguishable from that of white voters, but the data is limited at this point.
Very hard to find. Can’t locate the original link, but BBC just put up the county map…http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35701249
http://www.dailycamera.com/local-election-news/ci_29582657/huge-crowds-reported-at-boulder-countys-d
emocratic-caucus
It’s down in the comments on this blog post…http://coreyrobin.com/2016/03/02/super-tuesday-march-theses/
Thank you very much. Corey Robin’s FP post is excellent as well. The shape of the DEM primary has now solidified into exactly what it was in IA and NH. The machine against the young and still young at heart. We know the limits of what the machine can deliver by looking at 2004 and 2008. With an uninspiring candidate the machines can’t do better than they have done so far. The youngs can do better.
Her unfavorables among indies might slay her. As a group, they tend to be more clued in, imo, these days.
By next November, not likely that any of the possible GOP candidates will be better position on the fav/unfav ratings.
The “I like Bernie but he can’t win” crowd (prevalent among DEMs) can’t seem to wrap their minds around either a) a positive fav rating is an advantage for a candidate in the general election or b) that Sanders’ fav rating will hold through the general election. On that last point, they may be over-reading the 2004 election. Kerry wasn’t a strong candidate throughout the early going of his campaign. He was flat-footed, boring, and arrogant. Meh — should be viewed as 50/50 fav/unfav. Most critically, he wasn’t subjected to any attacks. His vote on the IWR was the same as the others except for Dean. If that didn’t carry Dean through to the nomination, then it was irrelevant in the general (expect as a point of hypocrisy on Kerry’s part). Team Clinton has been “swiftboating” Sanders for some time. More so than what her team did in ’08 to Obama.
well, there’s this now.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/5/1496802/-WAPO-104-Classified-Emails-on-Hillary-s-Server-Wri
tten-By-Her