Thursday Open Thread [3.10.16]
Florida—FOX News–Trump 43, Rubio 20, Cruz 16, Kasich 10
Ohio—FOX News–Kasich 34, Trump 29, Cruz 19, Rubio 7
Florida—UNF–Trump 36, Rubio 24, Cruz 16, Kasich 9
Florida—Quinnipiac–Trump 45, Rubio 22, Cruz 18, Kasich 8
Florida—Wash Post/Univision–Clinton 64, Sanders 26
North Carolina—WRAL-TV/SurveyUSA–Trump 41, Cruz 27, Rubio 14, Kasich 11
North Carolina—WRAL-TV/SurveyUSA–Clinton 57, Sanders 34
Ohio—Quinnipiac–Trump 38, Kasich 32, Cruz 16, Rubio 9
National—NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl–Clinton 51, Trump 38 | Sanders 55, Trump 37
Florida—CNN/ORC–Clinton 50, Trump 43
Ohio—CNN/ORC–Clinton 50, Trump 43
Amy Walter: “For many in Washington and the establishment class, being forced to choose between Trump and Cruz is like being forced to decide whether to chew glass or poke yourself in the eye with a needle. Both are painful and hard to imagine. But, that’s where we are. That said, as long as both Kasich and Rubio remain in the race, the anti-Trump vote remains splintered which gives Trump a real path to winning Ohio and Florida.”
“If Trump wins both of those winner-take-all states, denying Trump a majority of the 1,237 delegates is going to be very, very hard. Moreover, the idea that an insider, like Kasich or even Paul Ryan, could win a contested convention is hard to justify given the deep antipathy GOP voters have shown for traditional politicians.”
Jonathan Chait says the best attack against Trump is one his Republicans can’t and won’t deliver, but the Democrats will:
Ted Cruz, true to his paranoia, has charged that mainstream news outlets are sitting on a series of explosive reports about Donald Trump’s history, planning — as a nefarious plot to help Hillary Clinton — to unleash them only after Trump has secured the nomination. The accusation is almost certainly false. (“Almost” being a necessary qualifier, since one can’t prove a negative.) At the same time, Cruz’s charge reflects a broader truth. There are cutting charges that might sever Trump from his loyal base that have not seen the light of day. The thing is, Cruz and his fellow anti-Trump conservatives are perfectly aware of what they are. They have chosen to holster those attacks for reasons entirely their own. […]
There’s a devastating response to Trump’s message: He’s not planning to be greedy for us; he’s planning to be greedy for himself. The centerpiece of Trump’s domestic program is a massive tax cut that would mainly benefit fellow rich people:
The reason Republicans refuse to exploit this vulnerability is obvious — they all propose to do the same thing.
Not to mention that Trump will use his position to further enrich himself and his companies by pawning off all his wares on us. The official wine of the United States: Trump Wine. Public water? No. Trump Water. Steaks? Trump Steaks.
Nate Silver says Rubio never had a base of support: “Rubio… may be proving that there’s not all that large a market for what you might call an upscale or cosmopolitan conservative. Many voters in the near-in suburbs, Rubio’s best areas geographically, long ago left the Republican Party. Rubio might have the image to win them back — young, Hispanic, optimistic — but he doesn’t have the policies, being staunchly conservative on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Likewise, while Rubio appears to do well among nonwhite Republicans, there are very few of them voting in the primaries, and Rubio has turned away from the moderate immigration positions that once might have won him more Latino support.”
Lawmakers in West Virginia pass a bill to legalize raw milk. They celebrate by drinking raw milk. In a certainly unrelated coincidence, those same lawmakers are now suffering from severe stomach illnesses.
Joe Scarborough said the Republican Party has “shattered its brand,” Politico reports.
Said Scarborough: “Can we just stop for one minute and talk about how much the Republican Party has shattered its brand by comparing Democratic debates,” noting that the Democratic contests have been heavily focused on policy issues.
Republican debates, however, “focus on the size of hands, personal insults, the size of — suggestions about the size of body parts that we won’t even mention on this morning news show… The contrast is absolutely staggering, and as a Republican, I’ve got to tell you it’s extraordinarily depressing.”
In the Democratic debate last night, we finally saw the video that all us sane non-Bernie fanatics knew about. Josh Marshall:
That Cuba/Sanders video and that exchange is something that scares a lot of Democrats. You can talk about red-baiting and swift-boating type politics. And I’m sure there’d be no end of that. But Sanders comes out of what is a very counter-cultural strand of late 20th century American politics. I know because I sort of come out of it too, at least I grew up in it. There’s a lot that is very standard in that world that sounds very alien to a lot of American voters. This is a fact. Agree with it or not, it is a fact. I think many Democrats quite legitimately worry that by going through this history of statements Republicans would be able to disqualify Sanders with a significant number of voters.
That video is why Bernie Sanders can never, under any circumstances, be chosen as the Democratic nominee. He spoke glowingly and approvingly of communist regimes in Cuba and Central America. The Republicans will simply destroy him on it. And if you think it doesn’t matter, you’re incredibly dumb, with no experience with actually winning elections against Republicans.
The Washington Post poll reveals its internals to their poll yesterday showing Hillary beating Trump.
When Americans are asked who they believe would win if Clinton and Trump were the nominees, Clinton is the overwhelming choice, with 59 percent naming her compared with 36 percent choosing Trump. That is an increase of five points for Clinton since January.
About one-third of all Republicans (32 percent) doubt that Trump would defeat Clinton in November, up from 21 percent in January. Independent voters also are more bullish about Clinton’s chances against Trump than they were at the start of the year.
And look at 14% Republicans and the majority of Independents voting for Hillary. The lies that Hillary will be weak in a general as compared to Sanders is not supported by facts and reality.
Glenn Thrush with 5 good take-aways including:
Democrats don’t want the primary to end. Paradoxically, Clinton’s loss in Michigan in 2016 mirrors her big New Hampshire win in 2008. Obama, speaking to me during an “Off Message” podcast earlier this year, chalked up his defeat to buyer’s remorse: Voters, who had just handed him a campaign-changing victory in the 2008 Iowa caucuses, were in a hold-on-a-second, skeptical mood.
The difference is that Obama was viewed back then as the vanguard of his party’s ascendant progressive wing, and Clinton — who has adopted most of the left’s core positions — is seen as positioning herself as a prog. That may not be fair (especially on health care reform, where she was a pioneer), but it reflects the restive mood of the party’s base; there’s a sense among younger voters ignorant of Clinton’s long-haul history that she’s a me-too on issues of economic inequality and social justice compared to Sanders, an early adopter who languished in the wilderness because he was so, so brave and pure…
Momentum is important — so is money — and Michigan refills Sanders’ tank with both. But as Clinton’s campaign is reminding us by the minute, she actually gained delegates on Tuesday despite the shock-horror headlines. Sanders netted a modest nine pledged delegates in Michigan for his 1.5-percentage-point win, but she destroyed him in Mississippi, where she out-delegated Sanders by a whopping 32 to 5.
Lovin’ Bernie to death, but he cannot win and someplace in your heart you know it. Old farts like myself remember George McGovern, loved him too and he lost by a landslide. Hate Hilary? Great, compare her to Cruz or Trump and get back to me. In the end pragmatism will rule the day for the Dems, and after a hopefully brief period of sour grapes, we’ll come together and destroy Trump in November. Unless you’d really rather eat that “Trump Steak”.
Some administrator or contributor on this site should check the record, but I think bamboozer just won the prize for the 1,000th George McGovern reference re Sanders. Isn’t there a prize of some sort?
Nothing like election results from pre-Roe v Wade to prove a point. Nearly 45 years ago!
I suppose the continued lumping of conjecture upon conjecture and analyzing the minutiae of the minutiae really alters people’s conception of relevance. Old fart, indeed.
I watched the debate last night and, overall, I thought both candidates did well. That said, here is what bothers me: Sanders has to stop saying “political revolution” as an answer to specific policy questions. That is not an answer. It’s a bumper sticker. (Last night, when asked how he’d address, and implement his platform concerning climate change his answer was… political revolution.)
And, like DD, I was aware of Sanders’ Cuba/Latin America stuff. I’ve been calling for a vetting for months because he needs to have answers for these comments, but what do I know.
I’ll be the dumb guy with no experience against Republicans. Could it be that over 40+ years Bernie’s alignment with some socialistic ideals and principles has shifted? Or ‘evolved’ I believe is the hot word used to describe changing one’s mind in politics.
How do you defend a dictatorship? You don’t. If he still feels, after 40 years, that Castro’s overthrow of Batista’s Cuba helped usher in an era of enormous Cuban progress for working and poor people then yeah, that’s equivalent of letting a political hand grenade go off while you’re still holding it.
I don’t view Sanders as America’s Lenin, I don’t get that vibe from his words and actions today. If I were in my mid 30s in the 1980s, I’d probably feel much different hearing him talk that way about Castro, Nicaragua and other totalitarian socialist regimes. That word (socialism) still scares the pants off people in a country that implements and utilizes various socialist ideals and principles.
So yeah, let’s vet him. I wonder if, knowing what he’s learned over a few decades, he’s still a total Castro champion. I’d think not so much. But like pandora, what do I know?
“And if you think it doesn’t matter, you’re incredibly dumb, with no experience with actually winning elections against Republicans.”
Look, I really don’t mean to insult anybody. I sincerely don’t. But who the fuck are you to write a sentence like that? You compile snippets from the internet and post them to a free local blog in an open thread with some commentary. You aren’t fucking David Axlerod or James Carville. You know no more than I do. In point of fact…
Now, onto Pandora. I didn’t respond after your “endorsement” post, but now that you’ve reiterated your call for candidate vetting I just have to make the same point. We’re all just commentators on a local political blog. There’s no calling for anything or endorsing anyone on the national stage. Can you actually endorse a national candidate anonymously under a pseudonym? It makes no sense.
I think you are all letting this TV show plot get away from you. You have an opinion and you make an argument and I’ll consider it, but fucking hell, get some perspective.
I’m fine with a candidate evolving, Brian. Perhaps we could apply that standard to all candidates? If Bernie is allowed to evolve, then so is Clinton and we should take both candidate’s evolution as valid. That said, Bernie will need to address his past words. There’s no escaping that. I don’t think that’s going to be easy, especially for a candidate that speaks in absolutes.
Serious question: Are you, and other Sanders’ supporters, okay with “political revolution” being his answer to specific policy questions? If so, why?
What Sanders means by revolution is that if he would be elected president it would be only one change among many changes. It would not simply be a “find and replace” slotting Sanders into the Obama role. Most likely many seats in Congress will change as well as some State governments, etc. So the entire political landscape would change as well. So criticizing what Sanders could or couldn’t do in the current political set-up is actually moot, because if he would win the entire climate would likely change with it.
I have no idea if this would actually happen, but that’s the argument.
” Sanders has to stop saying “political revolution”
He can’t. When it’s the only stick in your bag, it’s the one you have to use.
I get that Sanders supporters are interested in revolution, but we aren’t going to have one. At best we would have stalemate. At worse the right holds 3 branches of the government. Everyone acknowledges that Sanders’ policies have no better chance than a Hail Mary pass. So what they are playing the hand for and going all in for is to move the Overton Window left. The chips are any real progress that has been made over the last decade.
Hey, golf, football, and poker all in a single comment! But really, Sanders supporters are buying and selling a free lunch, knowing full well that there never has been a free lunch and cafeteria serving the lunch says that ketchup is a vegetable.
“Serious question: Are you, and other Sanders’ supporters, okay with “political revolution” being his answer to specific policy questions? If so, why?”
I like that answer better than “It doesn’t seem politically possible so let’s not put it in our platform at all, and let’s mock those who do.”
“Political revolution” means electing a more progressive Congress and abandoning failed policy goals. I think we can agree that will be necessary no matter which Dem you support. The ideas generated by Bernie’s campaign have the potential to elect more Dems downticket. That is not a guarantee at all but I like it better than the status quo.
Dorian, you know I love you (I really do!), but you really aren’t contributing to the discussion. Weren’t you the one who called us out on taking a Trump nomination seriously? I do believe so. What do you think about that now? Constantly dismissing critique doesn’t help your candidate.
I completely understand why college kids love Sanders. What I don’t understand is why older Sanders’ supporters refuse to address – and handle – obvious problems facing him. To me, that’s a stunning blind spot, especially since this group is 100% okay with vetting Clinton (which only makes her the stronger candidate, btw.) And I would think that Bernie speaking in absolutes would be a big issue for you.
It’s not a free lunch, moron. No one thinks that. It’s re-allocation of wasteful spending to something that will actually do good, coupled with higher taxes for people, whom those higher taxes will not affect. Just because you don’t bother to look into/understand things, doesn’t meant other people don’t.
It’s fine if you don’t think society should pull it’s resources to benefit everyone. It’s fine if you think the Walton’s shouldnt lose .000001% of their wealth, so families all over the country can have access to clean, safe water. What’s not fine is bear-hugging your own ignorance and continuing to make idiotic statements.
Again, maybe we won’t have one, but that the card he’s playing. If he were to be elected president there is reason to believe the political climate would change quite considerably. It would be revolutionary.
I actually don’t think that the United States being run more like say Denmark in 25-30 years is that unfathomable. Now I don’t think the chances are great, but it’s not that difficult to imagine.
People like Dave pretend that Sanders is talking about a “free lunch” that doesn’t exist, except most of the policies Sanders is talking about exist like everywhere else in the Democratic world (Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada).
Pandora, it was 30 years ago. If Clinton’s one-time resistance to marriage equality no longer matters, neither does Sander’s 30 year old opinions on Cuba. Will it be an over-played soundbite? yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyup. With Trump as the nominee, will Dems be able to answer back by playing his (MUCH more recent) campaign announcement speech? Or his repeated calls for murdering the children of suspect Daesh fighters?
That’s two replies saying, “Electing more progressives to Congress.” How does this happen when Bernie isn’t really contributing to down ticket Dems? Not kidding. How does he get the Congress he needs for his “revolution” without helping them get elected?
Every candidate has pros and cons. Every candidate has things to answer for. I have no problem arguing about them. I take exception with this idea that DD knows something we don’t or that you’ve been calling for some vetting and the national media and/or the Republican party have just come around to it.
So I’m not dismissing the criticism. I’m calling out your writing and the way you are positioning it. It’s amateurish and silly and it has this strange air about it. It’s always framed like the conventional media would do it. “Just wait till the Republicans get ahold of this commie shit!” I’m embarrassed for you. But if you and DD think this is a way to win an argument than by all means… Silly it up.
Im not sure I understand how Sanders is not contributing to down ticket dems… in fact, I’m sure I dont. would you please elaborate? (honest request, not snark 🙂
Because I don’t think it’s a big stretch to say that if the American electorate sends a socialist to the White House than other changes are afoot.
Everyone makes the same argument about Trump and everyone’s on board. A Trump presidency in a harbinger for a fascist state, a chain reaction that means we’re all headed to the camps, etc. etc.
But a Sanders victory happens in a vacuum and he’s in the same political environment Obama’s in.
Very strange logic. One candidate’s potential election (Trump’s) brings all manner of secondary sweeping changes we don’t like while another’s election (Sanders’) leaves us stuck in the same deadlocked status quo. The logic doesn’t work unless you watch too much cable news.
Can anyone reasonably argue that the peasants of Cuba and Central America are worse off because of communism? The only downside to the peasants is that you’ll be caught between the commies and the US-funded reactionaries who can’t stand the idea that something somewhere is not available for profit-seeking exploitation.
When push comes to shove, Democrats are no more ready for revolution than Republicans are. You’re still a bunch of entitled Americans as far as the world can see.
@Ben… Simple. The Sanders campaign is illuminating for middle and low income voters, perhaps for the first time, how they are screwed by the existing policies and institutions. Those are the voters who will be encouraged to replace Republicans with Democrats or to replace Democrats with better Democrats all up and down the ticket. There’s no guarantee this will happen but Bernie’s showing in these primaries makes it more likely. And the only way he is elected President is if there is a corresponding Dem wave including downticket. If America delivers a Sanders presidency it will also deliver a Democratic Senate and (less likely due to the cycle and gerrymandering) the House.
I like this comment from aaanonymous. I’m calling you Triple A.
I’m reading the Marlon James novel “A Brief History of Seven Killings” about politics in Jamaica in the 70s. CIA was sent down there to ensure money was concentrated and transferred to the proper groups of small interests. And how did they do this? I’ll give you a hint. Fill in the blank. G_NS.
But if you’re against that you’re a dirty Red with lots of questions to answer.
Also, what puck wrote. And like she/he said there’s no guarantee this will play out, but it’s a very logical, reasonable argument to make.
Can anyone reasonably argue that the peasants of Cuba and Central America are worse off because of communism? ”
What does “reason” have to do with a US presidential election?
I’m looking for more recent numbers, Ben, but as of Feb. 19th…
So, if Sanders is relying on a revolution, then he needs to change Congress. It really is that simple… and necessary. He can’t do it alone – on this thread his supporters admit that much.
Dorian, I’ve said repeatedly that a Trump presidency would unite Ds and Rs. It would be the one thing they agree on. I’ve said that Trump only thinks he’s dealt with “tough” people. He ain’t seen nothing yet.
No need to be embarrassed for me and think my concerns are silly – pretty insulting, btw, but I guess asking questions and pointing out concerns is a bridge too far. This is what I always encounter with Bernie supporters – Bernie’s positions and votes and past statements deserve nuance (and ungodly lengthy explanations), but no one else deserves the same treatment. Just answer the questions. Show me how Bernie addresses these very real problems.
You’ve missed the entire point, and I’m tired of trying to explain it. It’s incredibly boring.
N.B. Your concerns aren’t silly, the way you argue them makes no sense.
Again, what puck said. I suppose trying to argue about what irrational, misinformed people will do on one day in November gets very monotonous. The longer it goes on the more ridiculous is gets. After like 25 debates on the same shit over and over and over I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. And it’s only 10 March.
“Hillary Clinton has raised $26 million for the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties so far this campaign. And Sanders? $1,000.”
Democrats don’t need more money, they need more ideas.
Shorter Dorian: I can’t answer your questions so I’ll pretend I’m bored with trying “to explain” common sense to you.
Why would I want to see Bernie Sanders direct money to people like Coons and Carper? “Because they’re better than the Republicans” is not an acceptable answer. If people were exposed to the full awfulness of conservatism we might be able to kill it once and for all. Instead, Democrats have told big business that they can make the peasants swallow the shit sandwiches.
Y’all don’t seem to understand any of this — the Democratic Party is even more fucked than the Republican party, because it’s actually working for the enemies of the working people while pretending to represent the workers.
The Republicans like Coons and Carper have long since become Democrats. Now the rest of them will come over, unless the Trump supporters break off on their own and leave the GOP to the remnants. Even then, the Democratic Party will still have an organization, which the Coons/Carper types and their enablers will run.
Why the FUCK do I want to enable that, through Bernie Sanders or any other means?
Furthermore, you don’t seem to understand what money raised for other politicians represents — debts, that’s what. All those people she raised money for are now beholden to her and will vote the way she tells them. Again, that benefits me how?
Puck says, “Democrats don’t need more money, they need more ideas.”
Bernie needs more Democrats to enact his agenda. Up-thread puck actually admits this. I’m having trouble keeping up with the arguments – they keep changing.
Thank you for pointing that out, Pandora. I see why it is a problem, however, to me, it is consistent with how he has run his campaign. Clinton, as we all know, has large and deep-pocketed corporate backers (not a smear, a truth) that she can squeeze money out of for those contests. Sanders does not. Should he have an option to donate to other Dem candidates? yes. Should he be raising money for…. say, Carper types? not if he wants to stay true to his message (imho).
Also, lets dispense with this myth, once and for all, (teehee) That Sanders only talks about banks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8am8KUieN3U
There is just one, of may videos i’ll gladly find and share, where he talks about racial inequality. Yes, it is also about income inequality (which is the main theme of his career), but that is also a very real problem. One thing those college kids do best, is put together videos dispelling the idea that Sanders has never had a position on anything other than END THE BANKS.
So if Trump wins, he will come in on a tide of fascism and hate. But if Bernie wins, he’ll come in on a tide of Dinos and Carper clones? The DNC also has a responsibility to recognize a LARGE part of it’s voters lean socialist and they need to start running people, in those districts, who will represent those leanings.
“Bernie needs more Democrats to enact his agenda.”
What you call Democrats would never enact his agenda.
“What you call Democrats would never enact his agenda.”
Then that’s a big problem, no?
Ben, one of the problems with being a “big tent” party is the fact that Dems differ. It’s a blessing and a curse. But the idea that we can elect Dems from red states that are truly progressive just doesn’t hold up. Yes, they are better than Republicans, but in order to win they can’t run on Bernie’s platform. So how do we merge those Dems with Bernie?
“Then that’s a big problem, no?”
For you, sure. Not for the peasants, most of whom will be just as happy to fuck up the shitshow with Trump as with Sanders.
Trump brings change. Clinton brings more of the same. Which do you prefer? And don’t say you want more of the same from a Democrat, but not more of the same from a Republican. Most white people — though shrinking, still 70% of the electorate — don’t give a crap about whether Hispanics can vote or poors can get an abortion.
Don’t be surprised to find that lots of people — economically speaking, something like 60% — have little or nothing to gain by continuing the status quo.
@aaanonymous. That’s not an answer.
“But the idea that we can elect Dems from red states that are truly progressive just doesn’t hold up.”
We don’t have to flip every Congressman to flip Congress.
Either those dems will see they are being exposed and change their tune, or they will find themselves out of a job. Isn’t changing or replacing people like Carney and Carper always been a pipe dream around here? THIS IS THE CHANCE. The political wonk class cant seem to see it, but there IS silent majority. This beg-tent democratic party nonsense only goes as far as the donor class allows it. I’m getting off topic. How i actually could see it go? Sanders wins the presidency (for the sake of my argument… he wont win the nomination) there is INSTANT obstruction from the GOP (as there will also be WHEN Hillary wins) Sanders (and Clinton) will have to then campaign hard for all congressional seats up for election in the Mid-terms. “these people are blocking the agenda you voted for by electing me just like they did with Obama.” I feel that message will work very well with either.
Pulled this quote from a Trump supporter on Super Tuesday, from Will Bunch’s column this morning on Philly.com:
“This isn’t about whether he’s going to do a better job or not,” said Ken Magno, 69, leaving his polling place in Everett, Mass., wearing a red Donald Trump winter hat. “More or less, it’s the statement: Listen, we’re sick and tired of what you people do. And we’re going to put somebody in there — now that it’s our choice, we’re going to put somebody in there that basically you don’t like.”
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/The-year-that-Ignoreland-rose-upFor-.html#pOsRmXkwbZxvDHZI.99
“Most white people — though shrinking, still 70% of the electorate — don’t give a crap about whether Hispanics can vote or poors can get an abortion.” speak for yourself.
“That’s not an answer.”
Sure it is. As I said, it’s a problem for you, but not the 60% of the public with virtually nothing to lose.
A lot of people will vote only for Sanders or Trump. If you don’t give them the choice of Sanders, don’t act shocked when lots of them go for Trump.
Funny how “big tent” Democrats in Congress can be counted on to provide the margin of victory for always-disastrous Republican initiatives.
@Ben: Are you unaware of the meaning of the word “most”? Outside of people who want to win elections as Democrats and the small number of bleeding hearts, what white person cares whether HIspanics can vote?
who are all these bigoted Sanders supporters? I’ve not seen one reputable poll or met one at the (admittedly only a few) events I’ve attended that can back up this claim. Only anecdotal evidence based on comment sections. Almost every fellow Sander’s supporter I’ve met is so repulsed by Trump, they would vote for Joe Leiberman first.
@Ben: That’s now. In the general, Hillary will be pushing the status quo in her inept way, and Trump will be thundering about tearing down the whole system. He will have long since abandoned the positions he took to win with Republicans and will instead embrace, at least enough to sow confusion, positions to Hillary’s left.
I’m not saying it will definitely work, but I think Hillary is even less electable now than she was in 2008. She has not improved as a campaigner, her campaign is even more barnacle-encrusted with Democratic Party apparatchiks than it was last time, and she represents a past that wasn’t all that great to begin with.
But you stick with that Democratic Party that you — and virtually nobody in the actual public — love so well.
As for the “bigoted” part — that’s what the press plays up. He spends most of his rallies railing against government and free trade. That, not the bigotry, is the story the press isn’t telling you.
Yeah, my constant yammering about how I like Sanders for bucking the DNC, talking about how they need to change to meet the demands of young voters, and snipes at “party loyalist types” is some pretty stone hard evidence that I love the party so much.
“Outside of people who want to win elections as Democrats and the small number of bleeding hearts, what white person cares whether HIspanics can vote?” not you, it would seem.
Sorry about the Democratic Party thing. That should have been directed to Pandora.
Actually, I come under the “bleeding hearts” heading. But I don’t kid myself about how widespread that is.
Would you be in favor of adding 11 millions Hispanic voters if the majority of them were Republican voters? If you say yes, I don’t think you’re being honest with yourself.
gotcha. misunderstanding.
I honestly would be in favor of that. It’s easy to say that, because it would never happen, but I would support any outcome that ends in more people voting.
Here we go again. Aaanonymous is another Bernie supporter that relates to, or admits, that Bernie supporters (not all) will go for Trump. Why is that not a concern? Love, love, love aaanonymous’ comment about “white” voters not caring about Hispanics. Bernie has some house cleaning to do.
I get it, Aaanon speaks for all Sanders supporters and the candidate himself…. yet everything I’ve said and expressed is an anomaly. you’re better than that. I asked for proof of those claims outside of blog comments and anecdotes and have gotten nothing.
so Some Bernie supporters, you assume, are good people. is that is?
Criticizing the messenger is the tactic of the weak, and the constant tactic of Pandora, who really can’t answer for Hillary, because there is no answer for Hillary. She’s a phony of the Marco Rubio order (Hillary, not Pandora).
Tell the truth yourself, Pandora. Would you be all for the immigration if these were likely right-wing voters? I seriously doubt it. It’s easy to be a bleeding heart when there’s no downside for it.
Jesus, Ben. I said “not all”. I even mentioned you as the exception yesterday. That’s obviously not enough. Whatever. Keep reading what you want to read instead of what I actually write.
pandora, political revolution, to me, is like the comment I made a few days ago about Sanders being a single-issue candidate, and that issue being “income inequality”. It’s the same type of thing with ‘political revolution’. He’s using that term to describe a systemic change in how we’re governed. Going back and looking at many of the posts on this blog we can read about how we don’t view Democrats in Delaware as being ‘real’ Democrats because of how they’re elected and how they vote once elected. That needs to change.
Sticking a “-D” behind your name shouldn’t all but guarantee you an electoral victory. Yet in Delaware, it does. Not being filthy rich shouldn’t disqualify you from running for office nationally. But it does. States shouldn’t be gerrymandered to ensure specific candidates are heavily favored to win elections, but they are (including Delaware). Revolution, to me, means a systemic change. Not just changing one or two things.
I never meant to suggest that we disallow other candidates to evolve their beliefs or understandings. I’m just saying the notion what someone believed 40 years ago must still be the same now, is absurd. When I was 5 I thought He-Man was real. 30 years later, even Dolph Lundgren can’t convince me He-Man is real.
I never claimed to speak for any Bernie supporters. That’s you people trying to fit the discussion into your pathetically tiny pigeonholes.
I’m speaking to the dopes on this board who think that “Democratic” and “progressive” are not the mutually exclusive terms that Hillary supporters prove they are every day.
Hillary Clinton will do nothing for the working classes economically, and will continue to prevent the Democratic Party from representing that class. In your electoral-season blindness, you seem to have forgotten that.
Pandora, i know you don’t think it’s “all”, but your comments lead me to believe you think it’s most. am I wrong?
or, if not most, a large enough portion to lead to a Trump win. if that were the case, national polls wouldnt have both Clinton and Sanders beating Trump by roughly the same margin.. So, in the interest of me understanding, how large a portion of Sander’s supporters do you think will go to Trump?
Don’t apply your obviously racial bias to me, aaa. You own that comment, so stop projecting.
I’ve been quite clear in my support of Hillary. You don’t have to agree, but not answering my questions doesn’t bode well for your candidate. It’s supporters like you (not YOU, Ben) that do Bernie (a candidate I like, btw, and would vote for – as I’ve SAID MANY TIMES) a disservice. But keep getting your white guy resentment on. You’re doing my work for me.
@Ben: You first. Prove your contention with numbers. Good luck, because you can’t prove any of this with numbers, which don’t exist. Or do you think the numbers we do have did a good job of proving Hillary’s strength in Michigan?
“I would support any outcome that ends in more people voting.”
If they were going to vote against you? That’s incredibly stupid. There are legitimate reasons to limit immigration. Republicans don’t want to do it because they like cheap labor; Democrats don’t want to do it because they’re counting votes.
I’m sorry for you if you really think welcoming Hispanics is about being nice.
It’s not racial bias, you self-righteous asshole. You play this game every time your limited intellect can’t handle an argument.
It’s reality. Ask around outside your kumbaya circle. And while you’re at it stop making charges about other peoples’ racial attitudes. You don’t have a clue, but you’re real good at leveling the charges when you’re desperate.
I’m not talking about Bernie, that’s over. I’m talking about the status quo. You should stay out of the arena if you don’t have the skills to compete.
And while you’re at it, answer the question: Would you favor making 11 million HIspanics citizens if they were likely to vote against progressive policies?
Honestly, Ben, I’m not sure, but given the comments on this blog I think it’s larger than I imagined. 10%? 20%? 30%? I have no idea, but when I read comments like aaa’s and mouse’s and SussexAnon’s and some of puck’s it causes me concern – concern that white “progressive” men writing on a liberal blog entertain the idea of Trump (mainly due to a D emphasis on social issues.)
I do not include you, Jason, Dorian or El Som in that group. Like me, I believe you have a preferred candidate but will vote D, no matter what, in the general.
@Pandora: What are your questions? Why are they about Bernie when I’ve said almost nothing about him?
Hillary sucks whether she’s running against Bernie, Trump or anyone else, and it has nothing to do with her gender. She’s a Republican pretending to be a Democrat, just like her husband, who at least had the excuse that back in his day he would not have been elected as a Republican to govern a still-Democratic-then Arkansas.
Head-to-head polls are mostly worthless before the conventions, but it is telling that more people say they would vote for Bernie against Trump than for Hillary against Trump, since they’re asking both questions at the same time.
I never said I would vote for Trump. I said a large number of people with nothing to lose will. For someone who constantly whines about being misquoted, your own reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
“It’s not a free lunch, moron.”
@Ben et al,
I will not return the favor and call you moron, although you should understand a bit more about economics before you become so dismissive. There is a cost to everything. The cost of the Canadian model is rationing. The cost for Denmark’s system is very high tax rates on the middle class, not just the 1%. Plus Denmark has less than 6 million people in a country half the size of South Carolina. That you have some notion that direct scalability of a small country model to a place like the US with 300+ million people without turmoil is really pretty silly.
As far as the Waltons go, most of you shop at WalMart. You promote the very thing you rail against, because if you can get it cheaper you’ll take it . It’s the height of hypocrisy to rail against a corporation while providing the means by which they prosper. The Waltons don’t get my dollars, why are they getting yours?
You claim that a redistributive system is more efficient and that the middle income workers will be happy to be taxed a lot more to pay for the free stuff. However, you offer no evidence of that. Additionally, analysis has already shown that the cost of Sander’s free stuff policy is greater than the revenues from all sources somewhere around 15 trillion over 10 years, which in simple economic terms that we can’t pay those plans.
That’s not free, it cost the individual, the nation, and society. It’s disingenuous to pretend there is no opportunity or dollar cost to proposals that have real and significant impacts to both.
Okay, let’s back this up, aaa. Who are you supporting?
aaa, I’m done. Really not sure what you’re going for here, but you cant seem to grasp that someone can be for the rule of law above their own political leanings. Sure, my desire to see everyone vote also has the added benefit that, if everyone votes, elections are more likely to go toward the more humanist candidate. A world does not exist where more votes = conservative wins….. But if it did, my principle wins out. I also don’t have to prove my principles to you, so there is no point in continuing this discussion.
“As far as the Waltons go, most of you shop at WalMart. You promote the very thing you rail against, because if you can get it cheaper you’ll take it . It’s the height of hypocrisy to rail against a corporation while providing the means by which they prosper. The Waltons don’t get my dollars, why are they getting yours?”
Ive spent 67 dollars at walmart in the bast 10 years, to get a thing for my broken down car that wasnt available for another 60 miles in that part of Georgia. Yet another reason the oligarchy.. and the Waltons specifically, need to be taken down. So….. I guess you continue the moronic claims.
“analysis has already shown that the cost of Sander’s free stuff policy is greater than the revenues from all sources somewhere around 15 trillion over 10 years”
Absurdly biased “analysis,” you mean.
The “cost” of college and health care isn’t the dollar figure a profit-oriented system puts on it. College cost far less 30 years ago, and the professors are getting any more money now (there are even fewer of them anyway). It costs more because of all the administration required to keep track of the “free money” the government sends their way.
The cost of providing health care bears little relationship to what is charged for health care. I have not seen a single analysis of any of this by a reputable economist who is not working for the Republicans or the mainstream Democrats. If you have, could you provide a link?
AAA, you make a claim, cant back it up… then when there is actual proof to contradict your claim, you say the proof doesnt matter. Based on that, you are climate change denying Republican who will happily vote for Trump and gleefully kick out the Hispanics you seem to think are so hated.
“Okay, let’s back this up, aaa. Who are you supporting?”
Nobody. Not everyone pays attention just because they’re fluffing some candidate or other.
Proof? WTF? You make Pandora sound like Einstein.
As for your claims to noble intentions, sorry, prove it. Oops, you can’t.
By the way, the rule of law is that the immigrants shouldn’t be here. You really should learn what you’re talking about before typing.
Dave, you are stumbling over your own argument.
your claim… “its free stuff! you cant have free stuff”
my claim “not it isnt free, no one is saying it’s free, here’s why”
you “you cant have free stuff” then I assume you stuck your tongue out at the screen.
I dont have to prove what goes on in my own had. But you makes claims about what is going on in the minds of millions of Americans without one shred of proof.
From a Democratic Party stand point, what SHOULD we be willing to pay for with taxes in this country? I support a single payer healthcare system and I would pay taxes to support that. But a lot of what I’m reading here is “it’s too costly”. A Dem gets the White House in November: What DO we want our taxes to support?
Since the peabrains here can’t handle an observation without trying to guess the motivations behind it, I’ll make this simple:
I first commented because some Hillary supporter leveled the hoary charge that Americans just won’t vote for someone who said something nice about communism. I pointed out that, for poor people, communism often offerns more than capitalism does. That’s it. That’s all I said.
All the Hillary supporters took that as support of Bernie, which isn’t how I meant it. I meant what I said: Communism does more for poor people than capitalism does.
AS for the rest, Hillary represents the status quo. Trump represents change. That’s a dangerous dynamic to set up for November.
“By the way, the rule of law is that the immigrants shouldn’t be here. ” Oh? we have laws barring all immigrants? k. I think you meant to say “illegal immigrants”.
I agree we should try to address illegal immigration. We should do it by honoring our laws about how to treat people, and by living up to our founding principle about welcoming people, and fulfilling the dream that everyone can be an American. We can make it so easy to become an American, the only reason anyone would try to get here illegally, is if they are the minuscule percentage that actually want to engage in violent crime.
@pandora – Look at it this way. Suppose you had just found out that a large number of Democratic elected officials were secretly anti-abortion, and had been gaming their Congressional votes to make sure no pro-choice measures were passed, but still campaigned on a pro-choice platform. Wouldn’t you then seek out and support those who were truly pro-choice?
That’s where I am at with Democrats and the economy. I suspect a lot of Bernie supporters feel the same way.
“I dont have to prove what goes on in my own had.”
Good thing, because you don’t have much of a clue about that, either.
“you makes claims about what is going on in the minds of millions of Americans without one shred of proof.”
We all do, you included, every day on this board. At some point, hundreds of quoted anecdotes do indeed become data.
And if you’re really for open borders, you’re beyond my help. If you want to be outvoted, why not just move to a country in which whites are the minority?
If you’re not supporting anyone then what is your point? That you hate Hillary? Me? Ben? Not Bernie? Not Trump? Your comments are a complete mess. No one, and I mean no one, gets where you’re coming from.
I really don’t care if you “get” where I’m coming from, though it says a lot that you can’t grapple with what I write until you run it through your Hillary-Bernie filter.
My point was that communism is better for poor people than capitalism. Try to show it’s not.
it’s honestly so confusing, im not sure what Im supposed to be arguing at this point.
I’m gonna ignore.
Pandora, AAA is not a Bernie supporter. We dont know what he his. People who really support Sanders for his ideas, and not just purely on a “toss em out” impulse, could NEVER go to Trump. Can we agree on that? That’s my main point in all this blathering and confusion…. However, them staying home, rather than voting for Hillary is a VERY real concern. I agree 100% on that. There will need to be a push to convince/scare/shame them into showing up. Whatever it takes. Just as Sanders has a responsibility to appeal beyond his base, Clinton, has a responsibility to show she can work for “us”. I honestly dont care that she changes positions to fit the times. It’s what politicians do. I want her to realize the times are changing…. To her credit, she seems to be at least willing to say things to that effect.
I get that, Puck. What I don’t get is why, when we have two candidates that agree on 98%, we paint one as horrible and the other as having “evolved” from his damaging statements and positions. All I have ever asked is that we vet Bernie, that we discuss and counter his weak spots. It’s frustrating to me – a person who likes both candidates – to have this ignored when it most definitely won’t be ignored in the general. I’ve pointed out that Obama addressing Rev. Wright in the primary was a good thing. I hated it at the time, but there’s no denying that dealing with that issue in the primary was beneficial.
We are in complete agreement, Ben – with motivating Bernie supporters and aaa’s confusing statements.
“My point was that communism is better for poor people than capitalism. Try to show it’s not”
THAT was your point?
well, 1, communism a stupid way to run a country. It has never worked (though pure communism has never actually been tried) and it cannot work. It still leads to exploitation and a ruling class (see, human nature). what COULD work, (and indeed, does in many countries) is a socialistic approach to needs (education, health care, food, water, housing, environmental protection) and a competitive/capitalistic approach to wants (smart phones, sports cars, home brewing kits, recreational drugs, kama sutra books, etc) Sticking to one rigidly defined form of government is dumb.
“My point was that communism is better for poor people than capitalism. Try to show it’s not”
THAT was your point?
well, 1, communism a stupid way to run a country. It has never worked (though pure communism has never actually been tried) and it cannot work. It still leads to exploitation and a ruling class (see, human nature). what COULD work, (and indeed, does in many countries) is a socialistic approach to needs (education, health care, food, water, housing, environmental protection) and a competitive/capitalistic approach to wants (smart phones, sports cars, home brewing kits, recreational drugs, kama sutra books, etc) Sticking to one rigidly defined form of government is dumb.
Why is it important to “know what I am”? Can’t you deal with the actual statements instead?
It really isn’t that confusing. Hillary is the status quo. Both Bernie and Trump are change agents.
Two months ago we were told by just about everybody that 33% was Trump’s ceiling. He’ll above that now. If you think you know what Trump will do after the conventions, you’re kidding yourself.
But let’s suppose Hillary wins the nomination and election, as now appears most likely. Do you think she’ll impede free trade in the form of the TPP? Do you think she’ll veto it when it gets to her desk?
She is not a progressive. Think of her as the lesser evil if you like, but she will do nothing for the working classes and we will get four more years, or eight, of the same failed economic policies we now work under.
@Ben: Wow. Shockingly dumb.
I said it in the context of Bernie defending communist revolutions in Latin America. Your fact-free, opinion-laden answer ignores that.
Show me in real terms how the poor of Cuba are worse off now than they were under Batista. I’ll give you a hint — you can’t, except by capitalist standards of material possessions. Life expectancy, literacy rate, educational levels — are are far higher now than they were under capitalism.
Unless you’ve lived for any time in a third-world situation, you have no idea what it’s like to be an exploited peon.
Perhaps most Americans would, as Delaware Dem suggests, react with the ignorant bullshit they’ve been fed about communism all their lives. Anyone who looked at it objectively — I’m not going to link to the numbers because fixing your ignorance is not my responsibility — will have to acknowledge that Cubans, and most other Latin Americans as well, have had a better quality of life under communism.
One other point about communism: The wealthy of the world have done their utmost to precipitate its failures at every turn, because they don’t want to give up their riches.
The lower down the economic scale you live, the more this is true, which is the real downside of pushing so many people down the economic scale.
“Sticking to one rigidly defined form of government is dumb.”
Yes, it is. And we’ve seen the gradual pushing of this country’s gov’t towards capitalism and away from socialism over the last couple decades. We keep trying to dismantle socialized aspects of this country and that’s not exactly helpful to the middle, working and lower classes
There’s nothing confusing about the question, “Would you be in favor of making 11 million immigrants citizens if it meant they would vote conservative?” I mean, I don’t expect you can be honest with yourself about it, but you didn’t even try, while somehow categorizing your confusion as my fault.
I think you’re in over your head.
I’ll try again to make this even more plain: You are demanding that Bernie account somehow for making a true statement that you’re afraid other people will hate him for. I was just pointing out that, your consternation aside, his statements were true. But somehow I’M the one who’s making baseless claims because you like Hillary and think I’m a Bernie backer.
You folks are good parodies of liberals.
And I think your head is a scary place. I’m all for letting everyone vote, no matter who they vote for. Then again, I believe my ideas appeal to the masses – especially black and brown people. If I can’t promote my ideas then I deserve to lose… and look in a mirror.
“You folks are good parodies of liberals.”
Oh… I get it now. You’re a troll. Shame on me for engaging you. You don’t want a discussion. That’s obvious.
See, I knew you’d kid yourself about your motivations. And I am not a troll. I have been as plain as I could be about what I was saying about Bernie’s supposedly unAmerican statements, which you have chosen to ignore. I have made a lot of points about Hillary representing a lack of change, which you have chosen to ignore. I have pointed out that lots of people don’t think like you, which you have chosen to pin on me instead of addressing.
And I’m the one who doesn’t want a discussion? When every time you answered me it was by talking about Bernie? I’m a troll, but you’re allowed to call me a racist?
Whatever mirror you’re looking into doesn’t work very well.
I answered your question, troll. Yes, Any outcome that reflects the will of 100% of the voters is preferable to me, than one that happens as a cause of voter suppression/disenfranchisement. You cant accept that answer, it’s not my fault. Pandora, we agree again. AAA is a troll, just here to troll. I hope he enjoys his Trump rally.
Christ, but you people are unbelievable thick. THEY AREN’T VOTERS!
So you would change the laws to allow in 11 million non-Americans to vote so that you would lose elections. Sorry, but I don’t for one second believe that self-congratulatory answer.
Let’s say the 11 million illegal immigrants were, oh, Ukrainians who wanted a government by Trump-style strong man. You would be fighting for a policy that would allow those people to become citizens so they put him over the top? I strongly doubt it.
And again, I’m not a troll. If anything, I’m well to the left of you. You just can’t face reality.
You know why you can’t understand Trump? Because you can’t understand politics from any perspective but your own.
If the GOP were talking about allowing 11 million illegal workers who supported the GOP to become citizens, any rational Democrat would be talking about the rule of law, etc., just as the (few remaining) rational Republicans do today. And the Democrats would find plenty of support from people with their own reasons not to want to compete with 11 million desperate people who would work for less than Americans.
This is simply fact, and if you can’t wrap your heads around it, you should get out of the commentary game.
The fact that you use the term “illegals” gives you away.
Pandora, you are the first and only person to use “illegals” in this thread. Even so, “illegals” is a perfectly valid term.
I called them illegal immigrants, which they are. I also called them desperate people.
Seriously, your own reading comprehension is reprehensible.
Beyond that, is that why you write here? So you can play “gotcha, you’re not a real liberal” or something? Perhaps that accounts for the pitiful content of your posts.
It’s really obvious you don’t want to examine your own feelings. I said you’re a parody of a liberal because you’re so fucking smug with so little to back it up beyond your self-asserted purity of soul.
The smugness, by the way, is the precise reason I was able to identify the Clintons as the scum they are way back in ’92. Politely liberal Democrats, as opposed to true liberals, are all condescending that way.
Really, Puck? Then what’s this? Why are you lying?
Ah, now you’re changing the terms of your question. You said “immigrants” originally. Now it’s “Illegal immigrants”. unless you consider all immigrants to be illegals (wouldnt be too surprising, given you think the whole country hates them anyway)
Well that’s much different. My answer is the same. I want all eligible voters to vote. Illegal immigrants arent eligible to vote, so my answer stays the same. If we gave all those people citizenship, and they all voted, I would be happy they did so.
Pandora – use your browser to search this thread for “illegals” and then tell me who’s lying.
The question up during the election is whether to make the 11 million legal. Are you playing dumb or just dumb?
I used “illegal” as an adjective, but so what if I hadn’t?
She can’t see the serve to return it, so she’s calling it out.
In less metaphorical terms, she doesn’t want to deal with the text, so she’s searching desperately for and responding to what she thinks is the subtext.
but all of this is insane. you might as well be asking if I would still eat spinach if it was made of 100% cancer. I dont understand what you’re trying to prove by asking me if I want non-american citizens to vote in our elections… also, i dont really care, so feel free not to answer.
pandora and Ben,
AAA isn’t a troll; s/he is simply a zealot who’s gotten a lot of eclectic ideological perspectives mixed up, then added a dollop of really bad history to mix, and styled to try to imitate (more or less) Geezer when he’s being dismissive (but without Geezer’s actual substance).
To wit:
(1) Demand that other people prove his/her points without having to prove them himself/herself: i.e. we are supposed to “prove” that capitalism is better for poor people than communism; AAA gets to set all the terms of the debate and never actually present a shred of proof
(2) The Cuba example–this one’s great–poor people in Cuba under “Communism” are better off than poor people were under Batista, which was somehow “Capitalism” and not a typical Latin-American neocolonial “strong man” proto-state. I’d call this a “straw man” argument, but straw is stronger than AAA’s grasp of history.
(3) An inability to distinguish between traditional hierarchical, military-dominated Latin American governments that selectively employ some elements of socialism with “communism.” You see, in the fact-free world of AAA, s/he gets to define all the terms and exclude self from necessity of proving claims except by categorizing other people as unable to understand the arguments.
(4) The 11 million “illegals” argument; this is a fascinating argument from a would-be Communist–that people fleeing poverty and political persecution should in fact be restricted from freedom of movement via political borders established by ruling hierarchies. So much for “the state will wither away” and the “rights of the workers”–that’s not AAA’s brand of leftism/communism; AAA wants all those poor folks to thrive under Communism … someplace else.
(5) In one of the few things AAA has a clue about–undoubtedly both Bernie and Trump have portrayed themselves as change agents. And that’s been said here and elsewhere something like a bazillion times–which is why some people are willing to vote for either–“Change” is what they want; they aren’t particularly concerned with the direction. What AAA misses (and this is hardly a surprise) is that this is a pretty small demographic, and that (rightly or wrongly) most Democratic and left-leaning Independents don’t view the past four years as failures based on Obama/Hillary defending the status quo. Most of them see the past four years as scoring some victories (ACA, marriage equality, treaty with Iran, etc.) in the face of the most “massive resistance” since the 1950s.
Ironically, I do personally agree with AAA about Obama/Hillary as being dangerously wedded to the corporatist status quo, and under almost any other circumstances I wouldn’t consider voting for Hillary. But, as I’ve said before, I will go out and campaign for her if the alternative is Trump or Cruz, who both represent existential threats to any concept of American democracy.
AAA suffers from the delusion that s/he is the smartest person in the room–always!–and that any resistance to his/her arguments stems from the inability of the readers to understand great wit and intelligence when they read it. It’s never about conversation or testing ideas, it’s about lecturing folks from the basement, and demonstrates a pretty thorough failure to understand what’s actually going on. The tragedy of the AAAs of the world is that they’ll never quite figure out why nobody recognizes (and defers to) their twisted, angry genius.
Do I want to extend citizenship to people who want to be Americans? Including the eleventy billion conservative Hispanics you hate so much? Yes
Once they become citizens do I want them to vote, regardless of who for? Yes.
next question.
The point here is to try to get you to understand the thinking of Trump supporters. Except for the racists/Southerners, they are pissed off about mostly the same things Bernie supporters are — they have simply been given (and, sadly, readily accepted) the false, handy scapegoats Trump has provided. Neither Muslims nor immigrants are causing those problems, and indeed are even more victimized by capitalism than we are.
The task for progressives is to pry those people away from conservative media and easy answers. But I guess it’s easier to holler that some people aren’t real liberals and others don’t care if they hand the election to the Other Side.
Puck, I’ve read through the comments on this thread and don’t see what you’re accusing me of. Am I missing it?
@Steve: You will notice I did not capitalize Communism because, other than Ben’s vague statement about how it never works, I don’t think we’re talking about that. We’re talking about the horror all Americans supposedly feel when told Bernie Sanders made comments in 1963 supportive of Cuban and Latin American revolutions.
By the standard you invoked, by the way, no Communist government has ever existed, as none has ever been installed without an armed revolution, backing from the Soviets or Chinese, or both. Other than that technicality, do you dispute that the poor people of Cuba are better off under Castro than under Batista — keeping in mind that the vast majority of poor people don’t care whether they are free to voice themselves politically? That’s a bourgeois value, one that most poor people would (I can’t prove this, but you can’t disprove it, either) trade for education and a longer life?
I did not expect Ben to prove his point. If you go back and read, you’ll see that I said it was unproveable. This was a response to his request that I “prove” that a lot of people were voting for change, which to my knowledge has never been polled directly.
I am not a would-be communist, so your “point” about my arguing the anti-immigrant position is off-point. It’s a defensible position, and you, too, make the mistake of trying to figure out my launching point instead of what’s on the missile.
As for your point about how many people want change, all we have in the way of numbers is the indirect measure of Trump’s and Bernie’s voters added together. If I’m not mistaken, it comes pretty close to 50% of those voting in primaries.
The tragedy of you, college boy, is trying to suss out motivations instead of paying attention to the subject at hand. And no, I’m not going to footnote the word “communist” every time I use it just so you can follow along more easily.
Jesus, you people! Feel free to argue with what I actually say instead of how I say it, if you can.
@pandora: I used illegals as an adjective, not a noun.
Ignoring people truly is the last refuge of the pathetic.
Now he’s going after people for going to college.
Speaking of polling… you know what HAS been polled? Why people are voting for Trump. Know what wins? bigotry. 60% support banning all Muslims. over 60% support rounding up all those would-be republican voters and tossing them over the boarder.
any FTR, what IM doing… continuing this “discussion” is FAR more pathetic than ignoring you. I just dont have the discipline to stop.
@Ben: Please try to learn to leave your all-too-excitable emotions at the door. Also, too, try to learn how to address a debate point instead of making assumptions about the person raising them.
The way I described 11 million illegal immigrants, which is a straightforward description of their status, contained none of the hatefulness that you have ascribed to it. So who brought it into the discussion, me or you? Same with pandora, who is attacking what she thinks are my positions instead of grappling with a belief system held by millions of Americans.
Steve is the only one who has addressed those points, mostly to insult me rather than disagree openly with the positions. He doesn’t want to debate whether Cubans in 1962, who had a life expectancy of 63.9 years, would trade the ability to insult their leaders for the 16 extra years they now live.
@Ben: Steve is a college professor and, as such, resents anyone else he thinks is pretending to be the smartest guy in the room.
Check out those Muslim/immigrant numbers for the other Republicans. They’re no different — well, 5 or 6 points, except for the few people backing Kasich. And I specifically ruled out the Southerners, Trump’s strongest base of support, which accounts for those 5 or 6 points. And they aren’t 0 among Democrats.
He won Michigan, dude. Just like Bernie.
I suppose that, for those who have not downloaded John Oliver’s widget, I should be spelling it Drumpf.
“Also, too, try to learn how to address a debate point instead of making assumptions about the person raising them.”
“@Ben: Steve is a college professor and, as such, resents anyone else he thinks is pretending to be the smartest guy in the room.”
anyone else see how funny that is?
pandora,
For about two weeks you’ve been asking for the numbers that support the idea that Trump could in fact beat Hillary in the General. I’ve been working on that. Note that I don’t claim Trump will beat Hillary, but that there is a plausible case that under the right circumstances he could beat her, and that those circumstances are not as rare as most Democrats would like to believe.
I’ll take most national polls as as showing roughly a 51-38 Hillary advantage over Trump as the starting point. That’s a 13-point lead with 11% of voters apparently still undecided. Assuming those voters break along the same percentage lines (and Trump has been losing late-breaking voters), then we could assign them as at least 6 for Hillary and 5 for Trump–which brings our “worst case” for the Donald to a 57-43 lead seven months before election day. That means that Trump has to score at least an 8-point shift in a zero-sum gap to beat Hillary in the popular vote. But it’s really not that bad for The Donald.
First, note that this particular split is only a little worse than it was against McCain in 2008, who ended up losing 53-46, and who still managed to score 157 electoral votes. Within that total there were significantly close races that could have gone GOP including Indiana (Obama 50-49; 11 electoral votes); North Carolina (50-49; 15 electoral votes); Florida (51-48; 27 electoral votes); just those three states shifted would bring the Trump total up to 210 and the Hillary total down to 302–now we are in a race that pretty much comes down to 92 electoral votes that Trump would have to find (really 47, it’s zero-sum).
Where would he find them?
I’m not suggesting it is easy, but I am suggesting it’s possible that he could find them in Michigan (17 electoral votes) which is much more volatile and up for grabs than previously; Ohio (20 electoral votes) possible with a populist protectionist message; and Virginia (13 electoral votes) which is far more volatile and far less Democratic than most people assume (I’m a native).
So this is what Trump would have to do: hold all the states that McCain won against Obama and manage to score victories in Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Virginia. About the only state in the original McCain list he’d have to do significant defending would be Missouri. So we’re talking a campaign in which he has to focus primarily on eight states, the toughest of which would probably be Michigan, Virginia, Missouri, and Florida. Tough do: Michigan hasn’t voted GOP since 1988; Missouri flip-flops on a dime; Florida also goes either way on a 50-50 basis going back eight elections; and Virginia has been consistently leaning more liberal since the 2008 election. But it’s not impossible, for three reasons–
1) There is a real lack of enthusiasm for Hillary–whatever else AAA has got wrong, this is correct–Hillary is perceived as status quo/continuance of Obama’s legacy and not as a change agent. She is essentially trying to claim the mantle of VP running to succeed her boss in Biden’s absence. This is, as Al Gore, Walter Mondale, and even George H. W. Bush could tell you, not an easy assignment.
2) If Trump runs protectionist in those states he can shove the TPP and NAFTA fairly hard up Hillary’s nose. Hillary is a policy wonk and will argue nuances; Trump will shout that we’re all being screwed and it happened on her various watches. It will have some resonance.
3) Jason is right–the GOP will ultimately unite behind Trump or Cruz (and if it’s Cruz I have to send jason $10 damnit), because it can afford to lose the Presidency but not the Congress, and Trump has them in a no-win collar. They cannot hold the Congress by running away from their own presidential nominee; they have to take the risk and run with him. So if they do turn out the 46% GOP voter base, a combination of Hillary disenchantment and new voters could put Ivana sleeping in the White House next January.
Understand, again, I am not saying this will happen, or even that it is likely to happen. I personally put the likelihood as about 35-40%–which is way too high for my sense of comfort, as it presumes no unexpected events (never a safe bet), and the stakes are high: I honestly think 4 years of Donald could do far more damage to the country than 8 years of Dubya.
@AAA: Steve is a college professor and, as such, resents anyone else he thinks is pretending to be the smartest guy in the room.
For the record I generally concede here that I think cassandra is pretty much the smartest person in the room, but I have been handed my ass in various arguments by Dorian Gray, Delaware Dem, jason, and pandora from time to time.
By you … not bloody likely.
@Steve: Put it to the test. Why were the Cuban poor better off before communism? Not “why would it be best with libertarianism” or some other system.
Do you deny that impoverished third-world places like Cuba and Latin America are a feature of global capitalism? Do you blame the continuation of such practices by communist regimes on something intrinsic in communism, or is it just the continuation of colonialist practices?
if you are looking for agreement that Cuba, regardless of it’s government, has suffered as a result of the United States, I’ll agree to that. now what?
It was simply a point I was making about the dismissal of Sanders’ chances because of a statement made in 1963 about revolutions in Latin America.
The ensuing discussion proves me wrong. My point was that you’re assuming people will penalize him for a statement that, objectively, can be defended as true (unless, apparently, you’re a libertarian).
Honestly, when has the truth ever mattered to the American public? A more damning narrative can be crafted against an alleged Communist than one can about a loud N proud racist.
“Understand, again, I am not saying this will happen, or even that it is likely to happen. I personally put the likelihood as about 35-40%”
Oh it’s much higher than that. I’m not sure you have sufficiently incorporated the bandwagon effect and the impact of split Democratic party who are likely to be disgruntled regardless of what candidate gets the nomination.
Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a lot of data about what the Independents are thinking. Neither party wins anything by themselves.
AAA I love you mono-causal ideologues with your “do you deny” questions that are intended to score points and not hold a conversation. I’ll ignore for the moment that the only response you gave to my earlier answer was an ad hominem attack on my employment. When you’re sitting in the basement I suppose that seems like a stinging rebuke.
So let’s take your ridiculous questions seriatem for the benefit of anybody here with some real curiosity.
1) Why were the Cuban poor better off before communism? Non-sequitur. I certainly never asserted this, and you in fact asserted its opposite in earlier comments. Nor does it have any probative value to the question at hand. Your gratuitous shot at “libertarianism” is another desperate ad hominem that has nothing to do with the discussion, and is especially funny from an anonymous commenter. Strike one.
2) Do you deny that impoverished third-world places like Cuba and Latin America are a feature of global capitalism? First, not all Latin American countries are, in your quaint phrase, “third-world.” Brazil is quite the emerging economy. But the reality (and here your historical ignorance compounded by your ideological blinders) is that Cuba and other poor areas of Central America and South America are the result, initially, of mercantilism and the drive to establish colonies. Cuba remained as a laggard among colonial acquisitions until the Spanish-American War, and all that war did was to transfer the possession to another master, and subtly move from straight-out colonialism under Spain to neo-colonialism under the US with a caudillo propped up by–yes–Capitalist dollars. However, Cuba’s post-revolutionary status and the ensuing embargo had more to do with the realpolitik of the mid-term Cold War era, wherein Cuba functioned for the USSR in much the same way that the dictatorship propped up in Iran functioned for the US–a client state on edge of your enemy’s castle. Moreover, if you are trying to tie neo-colonialism purely to capitalist exploitation, you’ve run into another failure, as both the USSR and China have consciously pursued neo-colonialist strategies across the globe as fervently as the capitalist countries. Strike two.
3) Do you blame the continuation of such practices by communist regimes on something intrinsic in communism, or is it just the continuation of colonialist practices? It’s actually amazing that the same person could have written all three questions. Are the meds working today? Lacking a definition of “such practices” it is difficult to tell what you are talking about; likewise your use of “communism” is facile, shifting, and utterly misleading when applied to genocidal states likes the Cold War USSR and PRC; you seem to have only the vaguest notion of the distinction between Stalinism/Maoism and Marxism, and a complete lack of understanding of the nationalist imperialist roots of Sino-Soviet foreign policy. To you there is apparently only “global capitalism” and “communism,” which would explain–thinking in such a rigidly dichotomous fashion–why you see Trump and Sanders the way you do. You are already pre-disposed to buy into the framing structure (with apologies to George Lakoff) of their rhetoric. Strike three. You’re out.
Here’s a recommendation from a college professor, elitist and insufferable and all that: try doing some reading of real books, not just gleaning arguments off the Net. If you really want to understand Capitalism, start with Immanuel Wallerstein–perhaps read his “Historical Capitalism” first for an overview, and then tackle his multi-volume history of “World Economies.” Try Fernand Braudel’s “Civilization and Capitalism”–all three volumes. Since Wallerstein is significantly Marxist in his approach and Braudel was one of the founders of the Annales School, you could learn something. This will get you ready for Thomas Picketty’s more-recent “Capital.”
At that point maybe you will be able to put some substance behind your ideas rather than consistently falling prey to the undergraduate fallacy that the ability to ask questions is somehow the equivalent of offering proof.
@D “Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a lot of data about what the Independents are thinking.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/
Looks like a lot of data to me.
Yesterday’s poll has her up by 13% over Trump… that’s not all Democrats.
@Steve: I’m sorry, I thought you were interested in a discussion. Pretty hostile, aren’t you?
Your point 1) was intended as a discussion question. It was my original comment: Can anyone reasonably argue that the peasants of Cuba and Central America are worse off because of communism? This in response to Bernie’s original statement.
All these comments later, nobody has accepted that challenge. It can be done by, I think most persuasively, by arguing that peasants probably have borne the brunt of the food rationing, but of course that implicates the US trade embargo more than Castroism. Will you accept that term, since I don’t have an academic labeling device?
My comment was intended as illustration of the idea that support for revolution in Latin America — and no, I did not use precise terms, because I didn’t realize the hostility this would prompt — not only was defensible at the time, it is defensible (in the case of Cuba, at least) today.
My position is that Delaware Dem is as much a part of the current social/economic status quo as Hillary Clinton is, and he shows it by accepting the dominant frame of the right.
ON point 2, you didn’t read what I wrote, or misunderstood it. “These practices” referred to the practice of Marxist countries to continue the mercantilist-cum-capitalist exploitation they found in place. I specifically asked if you thought this was intrinsic to communism. It was a sincere question, not an attempt at cleverness.
On point 3, I understand all that, though not in the depth you do. (I have read Braudel, in translation, but not Wallerstein). It’s not really relevant to what I originally asked, though: Can you make a reasonable argument that the peasants of Cuba were better off before the revolucion?
Since we haven’t even referenced the actual comments, which came in a local 1985 TV interview as mayor of Burlington, here are the damning quotes which make him unelectable:
“In 1961, [America] invaded Cuba, and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world. All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society.”
If stating that simple truth makes him unelectable, then I was foolish to ask for a reasonable argument.
But at any rate, proof of what? The rest of the discussion was about my not wanting to help conservacrats.
Sorry, I timed out on the edit.
The rest of what ensued was about my distaste for helping “down-ticket” Democrats — you can read elsewhere on this blog what that entails, and it isn’t pretty. From there I was attacked as pro-Bernie, anti-Hillary, and — by a guy who grades a lot of papers and apparently thinks I should put just as much thought and research into a blog comment disagreeing with the blog’s conventional wisdom — a scatterbrain.
Discussion. Yah. Lots of that here.
@Liberal E: Same link shows Sanders up 18 on Trump. The 5-point difference is mostly more people voting for Bernie (4 points), not switching from Trump (1 point). No idea what it means, except maybe the excitement factor.
Thanks, Steve. That voter breakdown is interesting.
Aaa says, “It was simply a point I was making about the dismissal of Sanders’ chances because of a statement made in 1963 about revolutions in Latin America.
The ensuing discussion proves me wrong. My point was that you’re assuming people will penalize him for a statement that, objectively, can be defended as true (unless, apparently, you’re a libertarian).”
If you think your defense put this issue to bed for Sanders you don’t know the American public. Trade will hurt Clinton. This will hurt Sanders. The ads write themselves.
Take a break from Bernie, Hillary, and Trump and see what Markell is up to now:
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/education/2016/03/10/markell-redistricting/81582788/
He really, really wants redistricting. Remember that the funding at issue is just temporary transitional funding for the redistricting. The topic of permanent weighted funding for students with greater need isn’t even on the table yet.
I truly love AAA arguing that other people (specifically me) are full of “hostility.”
Let’s take a run through AAA’s greatest hits in this thread:
what white person cares whether HIspanics can vote?
Criticizing the messenger is the tactic of the weak In other words, “Don’t criticize me because I’m obviously right!”
I’m speaking to the dopes on this board …
It’s not racial bias, you self-righteous asshole.
You should stay out of the arena if you don’t have the skills to compete. That, I think, is my personal favorite. Pot, meet brown-hating kettle.
Proof? WTF? You make Pandora sound like Einstein.
By the way, the rule of law is that the immigrants shouldn’t be here. Somebody either has a problem with brown people or has never actually heard of the Bracero program.
the peabrains here can’t handle an observation without trying to guess the motivations behind it
This one isn’t AAA being vituperative, but I just couldn’t resist because it’s so revealing: At some point, hundreds of quoted anecdotes do indeed become data. Really? In what universe?
So back to AAA as racist now out of the closet: If you want to be outvoted, why not just move to a country in which whites are the minority?
@Ben: Wow. Shockingly dumb.
I don’t expect you can be honest with yourself about it, but you didn’t even try, while somehow categorizing your confusion as my fault. I think you’re in over your head.
You folks are good parodies of liberals. … because, you know, all true liberals are so worried about white people being outvoted by conservative brown people that they obsess about it. Again. And again. And again. [See above.]
I’m a troll, but you’re allowed to call me a racist? Yep, actually we are. Because free speech. Oh, and because you keep talking about brown people outvoting white people and how all those brown people coming here is, ya know, a very bad illegal thing.
Christ, but you people are unbelievable thick.
This is simply fact, and if you can’t wrap your heads around it, you should get out of the commentary game. This from an individual who requires everyone else to prove their points, but when asked to do the same says, Proof? WTF?
I said you’re a parody of a liberal because you’re so fucking smug with so little to back it up beyond your self-asserted purity of soul.
Are you playing dumb or just dumb?
That’s all, uh, before I made a comment. Then we find out what a troll you really are, because you’ve obviously been lurking here for quite some time, given how quick you are to refer to me as college boy or make what you think are cute comments about libertarianism (about which you have no clue) rather than deal with any arguments. You see, your comments should always be dealt with only at face value, but YOU are empowered (as we clearly see above) to impute any motives to other people in order to “analyze” (with an emphasis on the first four letters) their motivations.
This is where you turds become amusing. You twaddle in here to deliver wisdom to the benighted masses. You have obviously been reading here for awhile (can be determined from your references) so you should know this is not a place for people with tender egos. But when your received wisdom is not immediately embraced without criticism or demands for proof, you fall back to the tried and true of the whining wannabe: “You people are stupid!” OR “You people are mean!”
So if college professor doesn’t do it for you, AAA, let’s try retired US Army First Sergeant: you’re a pretentious asshole with a thin skin and far too high an opinion of your own brilliance. You try to dish out but you can’t take it for shit. Your fear of non-white people shines through like Freud smoking a cigar, you know less history than just about anybody commenting regularly on this site, and most of what you think you do know is either wrong or viewed through a lens that is batshit crazy.
Is that non-academic enough for you?
Go back under your goddamn bridge; I won’t be feeding you again.
Still no answer to original question. Asshat.
And no proof of any of your allegations, either. Thin-skinned? Look in the mirror, SIR.
@pandora: Really? What do the ads say? Bernie likes commies, so vote for Trump?
Here’s the question: Do you agree with what Bernie said, and you just think it’s political suicide to say it? Or do you really think it’s horrible to have said it in the first place?
Steve Newton, I doff my cap to you, SIR. That’s the kind of takedown I would love to have seen in person.
First, I’ve said quite often that I know I’m in the minority opinion on many issues. I had zero problems with Rev. Wright’s words, but I knew they were going to be a political problem. So, if you want to use my views as a barometer for how the American public would feel that would be a Yuuge mistake.
Here’s the answer to your question (you didn’t include this choice): I agree with some of what Bernie said, not all, and do think some of his statements will hurt him. And this is 100% about politics and how Sanders will handle what’s coming at him – mostly his own words.
For example:
“Vermont could set an example to the rest of the nation similar to the type of example Nicaragua is setting for the rest of Latin America.”
“I have my own feelings about what causes cancer, and the psychosomatic aspects of cancer,” he said. “One wonders if the war didn’t claim another victim; a person who couldn’t deal with the tremendous grief and suffering in her own country.”
“When challenged on the Sandinistas’ incessant censorship, Sanders had a disturbing stock answer: Nicaragua was at war with counterrevolutionary forces, funded by the United States, and wartime occasionally necessitated undemocratic measures.”
“It’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is, that people are lining up for food. That is a good thing! In other countries people don’t line up for food: the rich get the food and the poor starve to death.”
I won’t add all the Castro quotes. I will say Sanders loves revolution, and has for a long time. The word has peppered his speeches/comments since the beginning.
Are his positions and words a big deal for me? Yes and no. I’d be lying if I didn’t admit he sounds a bit nutty sometimes and a little bit scary to me. But if I’m feeling this way how do you think the average voter will feel about Sanders’ comments?
Go ahead. Have at me.
I think you’re right that all those statements could hurt him. And I am livid beyond my ability to express it in this format at how Trump’s words (which are far more misguided, recent, and dangerous) will matter less.
I do think it is nice to see how he has retained his socialist spirit. Remember Chris Coons, the “Bearded Marxist”? …. boy, did THAT guy sell out.
FWIW, because you all know how important anecdotes are….. A Sanders’ supporter friend of mine, based on Trump’s terrifying debate answers has switched from “never Hillary” to “fine, if it keeps Trump out”.
But if I’m feeling this way how do you think the average voter will feel about Sanders’ comments?
Much like Rev. Wright’s comments, it won’t take much skill to spin up the scary stories and imagery for Bernie’s comments. And like the effort to delegitimatize Obama via Rev. Wright, that work is specifically pointed at a certain type of voter. The kind of voter for whom the *other* is still a thing to be against. So whether it is a black man going to a fairly run-of-the-mill black church or a young man from the 60’s who seems to want to justify communism (for this purpose it doesn’t matter if it has a Big C or little c), there are buttons to push with voters of a certain age who vote regularly. I’ve said before that whether or not it works isn’t the question to focus on — it is whether Bernie (and the Dem infrastructure) can effectively counter. We already know it is coming — it won’t matter who the nominee is — and we know the Dem infrastructure simply doesn’t value building the kind of communication infrastructure to counter the BS thrown at its candidates.
Very true… see Swiftboating. I will say, If there is one politician alive who is perfectly trained and experienced in dealing with right wing BS, it’s Hillary Clinton.
@little ben: Takedown? He didn’t even do the most basic thing in this thread, which is answer the question I asked at the beginning. At root, you’re a potential Trump voter. Remember, by September he’s going to be saying all positive things about Mexicans, so dismissing everything else he says because he’s BIGOTED won’t work anymore.
Leaving aside the pathetic argument by authority: Steve’s a COLLEGE PROFESSOR! so what he says has AUTHORITY! (and when that didn’t work, he’s a VETERAN!), didn’t you notice that amid all his knowledge about totalitarian systems of government, he doesn’t have a clue about whether the peasants’ lot improved or not — or that if he did, he has nothing to say about it? Don’t you wonder why that is?
I don’t. People here aren’t interested in “discussion,” because that’s specifically what I asked for. It was presumed to be a leading question, or a criticism of Hillary, or the work of a troll — everything but a subject for discussion.
You people aren’t interested in discussion. You’re rooting for your favorite teams. You should take up sports fandom. Everyone on the team (except the goalie) wears the same laundry, so it’s easier to see who’s on your team.
this is Donald Trump speaking, isnt it?
“If there is one politician alive who is perfectly trained and experienced in dealing with right wing BS, it’s Hillary Clinton.”
If that’s your standard, then you’ll get four years of her fighting off right-wing BS instead of fighting for a progressive agenda.
And she won’t be running against right-wing BS. She’s running against Trump.
Ha ha. Run it through your grade-level app and compare.
What do you want, Mr. Trump? Talk about how Cuba was in bad shape in the 50’s and didn’t get worse under Castro? (aside from being economically cut-off from the world after the USSR fell). I’m all for starting over and having a discussion. What’s on your mind?
I think we’re well beyond that now.
I’m wondering why so much pushback against the idea that people are yearning for change, and to my contention that Hillary, who is openly embracing Obama in the primaries to solidify her minority support, does not represent change, even if black women (per John Lewis) think “it’s her time.”
I think people who worry about countering the GOP smear machine are fighting the last war. She will be running against a person who will say anything, not one demanding litmus tests. He will insult her personally, and she doesn’t seem to have very thick skin about that stuff. Her supporters certainly don’t, and they don’t seem to understand that their outraged reactions are what the Trump followers feed on.
There is a serious chance she could lose this election, and I don’t see where defensively surrounding her helps in any way.
Hey, so those are some excellent points Hashbrown realtalk. I mentioned (either here or somewhere else) that I hope part of her day is her friends and staff insulting her to her face. Not because I want her to feel insulted, but she needs to be able to deal with, in a National Presidential debate, Trump bringing up Vince Foster or Monica. I still have faith that Americas will elect the adult. Even people yearning for new blood in politics (me). Even people who are suspicious of Hillary Clinton (me). At some point, you realize that change for change’s sake is not always a good idea. And the more Trump talks about “all muslims hate us”, and keeps condoning, even encouraging violence at his rallies, the more people will put aside their issues with Clinton in favor of protecting the nation against Trump.
But countering the GOP smear machine, while certainly not the only thing that we should worry about, IS something to worry about. Pandora is right that Bernie would be attacked over his 30 year old comments. There is a double standard, where Republicans can say anything they want with no consequence, but Democrats must never make any potentially controversial comments ever. We might not like it, we might not agree with it, but ignoring the cold hard reality will get us no where good.
I’m not worried about Monica talk — that will help her, and even Trump might realize that.
I’m worried about the talk that progressives assume — unrealistically, I think — will turn people off. He will mock her looks, her wardrobe, he will imitate her voice. He will act like a child, or a standup comedian, and people will laugh. And I think Trump has shown so far that the public can’t get enough of mockery of the pompous and powerful. The more pompous the target, the easier the takedown — at least that’s how it has appeared to me.
He is running as the court jester, she as the dauphin. I can point only to Minnesota electing Jesse Ventura, just to see what would happen. Your faith in the American people far exceeds mine.
The Perfesser’s numbers should worry you whether or not you dismiss my ramblings. There are lots of yahoos in those eight states. I am very worried about resting the future of American democracy on the level of civic responsibility felt by those states’ voters, because I’ve seen the people they have elected to their state offices. Seriously, check that out.
I know you already have a cassandra, but I fear you are still vastly underestimating his chances.
It would seem then, that it is your patriotic duty to support Hillary if she is the nominee, and encourage as many people as you can to vote for her to stop Trump. Understand this. I am not a Hillary supporter. But I can also see that she may be our best chance at avoiding catastrophe, so I will set some of my principles aside, in order to follow stronger ones.
I disagree entirely about the smear machine. It’s a party organ, and Trump doesn’t need it.
The things the smear machine says are predictable and known, and I agree Clinton can parry all of that. But that’s not how Trump works. He’s like HIV — he uses people’s own images — the very fact that they are not authentic — against them.
Politicians spend years building up a glossy public image of themselves, and Trump glories in stripping off the varnish and mocking what’s underneath. I think Hillary will be AT LEAST as vulnerable to this treatment as the Republicans have been.
And I don’t think she’s well-positioned to criticize him, because she solicited donations from him. Anything critical she says about him he will counter with, “Then why did she want my money?” He has already previewed this angle with the wedding-invitation talk.
So I think Trump is more dangerous that you do, because I think people are more susceptible to appeals to their base instincts than you do. Preaching faith in the common sense of the American people is not going to get me down off that ledge.
PS: I reject the notion of having a patriotic duty. I do not owe allegiance to a “nation” because I was born in it, and while realpolitik demands I acknowledge my situation, it does not demand I change how I think about it.
PSS: The lesser evil is still evil. Trump may be the purging fire our rotted system needs. I would never vote for either one, which doesn’t matter anyway because the popular vote doesn’t count.
If Trump hadn’t gone on record as pro-war crime, i’d be inclined to agree. Just remember, people become republicans now because the party welcomes racists. Most Americans are not in favor of targeting ethnicity. The country DID elect Obama. While Clinton doesn’t have the enthusiastic SUPPORT, there will be equal enthusiasm for not marching toward genocide (which i believe could happen under Trump)
hold on…. the ‘purging fire”? the only thing he is talking about purging are Hispanic immigrants and all Muslims. Is that the same evil as not going after bankers?
If you look around more deeply, you will find that Trump does not talk mostly about immigrants or Muslims at all. Most of his rally talk is against free trade and the way politics screws the little people. The media is confining its coverage to the scary parts. I believe that after his nomination, Trump will toss out that stuff and talk even more about inequality. No, it doesn’t make sense for Trump to talk about inequality, but he’s actually doing it now, and it’s the reason you heard so many people interviewed in New Hampshire say their final choice was between Bernie and Trump.
As we have seen, Trump will lie about what he said yesterday. In a fractured media landscape, that gets him positive coverage for one day no matter what side is reporting on it. The goal is not to present a coherent message, but to sow confusion and then to talk loudest amid the din.
I think electing Trump would lead to the fastest impeachment in history, and I still think his chances are below 50%.
“Purging fire” is a Biblical term the Catholics call purgatory.
There are people, it could be a large number, on the right who just want to burn the country down. They have an apocalyptic worldview and literally think this corrupt age needs to brought to a close and the world needs to be cleansed by fire.
When you hear people speaking about the salutary effects of the great depression, you are getting a glimpse of this.
dont forget, Jason.. their narrative is always ‘THEY will get burned away, so WE can remake the world anew”
“But if I’m feeling this way how do you think the average voter will feel about Sanders’ comments?”
That he is a bit nutty and would be much happier in a country that reflected more of his views, like Nicaragua or Venezuela. Boy, I hope I am not faced with choosing between two nuts in November! I might just stay home if I can’t decide who would do the least harm.