Friday Open Thread [4.1.16]
New #Election2016 report on the issues that divide candidate supporters within both parties: https://t.co/yp9fnIWKvc pic.twitter.com/a5o1gTo0B8
— Alec Tyson (@alec_h_tyson) March 31, 2016
WISCONSIN—PPP–Cruz 38, Trump 37, Kasich 17
WISCONSIN—PPP–Sanders 49, Hillary 43
WISCONSIN—FOX Business–Cruz 42, Trump 32, Kasich 19
WISCONSIN—FOX Business–Sanders 48, Clinton 43
NATIONAL—Pew Research–Trump 41, Cruz 32, Kasich 20
NATIONAL—Pew Research–Clinton 49, Sanders 43
NATIONAL—PPP–Clinton 48, Trump 41 | Clinton 45, Cruz 42 | Sanders 48, Trump 40 | Sanders 48, Cruz 41
We're going to need new units of measurement for this gender gap. https://t.co/PPmhROnN6O
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) March 30, 2016
Keep the complete and total Republican obstruction to him in mind when reading Daniel Henninger’s piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Barack Obama will retire a happy man. He is now close to destroying his political enemies—the Republican Party, the American conservative movement and the public-policy legacy of Ronald Reagan.
Today, the last men standing amidst the debris of the Republican presidential competition are Donald Trump, a political independent who is using the Republican Party like an Uber car; Ted Cruz, who used the Republican Party as a footstool; and John Kasich, a remnant of the Reagan revolution, who is being told by Republicans to quit.
History may quibble, but this death-spiral began with Barack Obama’s health-care summit at Blair House on Feb. 25, 2010. For a day, Republicans gave detailed policy critiques of the proposed Affordable Care Act. When it was over, the Democrats, including Mr. Obama, said they had heard nothing new.
That meeting was the last good-faith event in the Obama presidency. Barack Obama killed politics in Washington that day because he had no use for it, and has said so many times.
History does quibble, because Barack Obama did not kill politics and Republicans did not offer detailed policy critiques at that February 2010 meeting, but you can read Martin Longman to learn the true history of that day. But I rather agree with the first two paragraphs. When you think about Obama’s rivals, his Republican ones are destroyed, will be destroyed, or are destroying themselves, and his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, has embraced him and is running to continue his legacy, to do his work, rather than her own.
Tensions are escalating. Bernie Sanders and his campaign have been lying all year long that Hillary Clinton takes money from the fossil fuel industry. So a Greenpeace activist repeated that lie on a ropeline at a Clinton event last night, and Hillary could take it no more:
“I do not have — I have money from people who work for fossil-fuel companies,” Clinton said. The environmentalist tried to follow up, but Clinton overrode her: “I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me,” she said, punctuating each word with a finger jab. “I’m sick of it.”
A spokesperson for Sanders backed the activist up, telling CNN that Clinton “has relied heavily on funds from lobbyists working for the oil and gas industry,” but a Clinton spokesperson maintained that the campaign “has not taken a dollar from oil and gas industry PACs or corporations.” He went on: “The simple fact is that the Sanders campaign is misleading voters with their attacks.”
Clinton hasn’t taken donations directly from oil and gas companies — that’s against election law — but she has reportedly accepted more than $300,000 from people who work for those companies. (By that math, Clinton’s rep said Sanders has taken $50,000.)
Earlier in the evening, Clinton took aim at Sanders for his response to Donald Trump’s questionable abortion remarks. “Last night Senator Sanders agreed that Donald Trump’s comments were shameful, but then he said they were a distraction from, and I quote, ‘a serious discussion about the serious issues facing America,'” she said. “To me, this is a serious issue. I have fought on this issue. And I know, given what’s happening in states across our country, we need a president who is passionate about this.”
Sanders is being dismissive regarding women’s rights with his comment. A distraction??? Clinton is correct to point this out. I wonder if a Break Up the Big Banks Act made it to a President Sander’s desk with a Criminalize Abortion Amendment attached to it, would President Sanders veto the whole thing as he should, or would he sign it.
Back to the original issue, Sanders supporters will now say this is a quibble, that if you work for a fossil fuel company it necessary means that you are the fossil fuel industry yourself, or are at the very least a lobbyist for it. This is also not true. In my real life, I am a lawyer and I defend various companies. I like to joke that I balance out my life by voting Democratic, but that is not really a joke, it is true. My work doesn’t reflect who I am nor my political leanings. And that is true for many people. And to say otherwise is a lie.
In his interview with Slate, former Rep. Barney Frank shares my estimation of progressives purists and Bernie Sanders:
Barney Frank: I am disappointed by the voters who say, “OK I’m just going to show you how angry I am!” And I’m particularly unimpressed with people who sat out the Congressional elections of 2010 and 2014 and then are angry at Democrats because we haven’t been able to produce public policies they like. They contributed to the public policy problems and now they are blaming other people for their own failure to vote, and then it’s like, “Oh look at this terrible system,” but it was their voting behavior that brought it about.
Isaac Chotiner: So it seems like you’re saying Bernie’s voters have a slightly unrealistic sense about the political process. […] I didn’t say slightly. […] Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years with little to show for it in terms of his accomplishments and that’s because of the role he stakes out. It is harder to get things done in the American political system than a lot of people realize, and what happens is they blame the people in office for the system. And that’s the same with the Tea Party. It’s “I voted for these Republicans, we have a Republican Congress, we voted for them, they took over Congress, they didn’t accomplish anything.” You gotta win at least two elections in a row.[…]
I think that part of the argument that people like Sanders would make is that, the financial system is corrupt fundamentally and that we don’t want to merely make it slightly more stable—. Well if that’s the case it’s even dumber than I thought. The financial system is people lending money to other people so they can do things. I do think that he overstates it when he says, “they’re all corrupt.” It’s simply not true. And by the way, when it comes to specifics, the only specific I have heard is Glass-Steagall, which makes very little change in the finance system. I think he gets a pass from the media. Other than Glass-Steagall, what did he propose in 2009 and 2010 when he was a senator when we were dealing with this? The answer is nothing. Why haven’t you looked at his record? […]
What do you make of Hillary’s campaign? I think it’s been good on the whole. I think she should have admitted earlier she made a mistake on the emails. I am struck by the fact that with all these emails of hers getting out, there hasn’t been a single really embarrassing one. I’m pleasantly surprised by that.
Do you think she should release her Wall Street speeches? Yeah, but I don’t think anybody is really against her because she won’t. By the way, I think Sanders has been outrageously McCarthyite on that.
McCarthyite? Yes, I saw one commercial that said the big companies weren’t punished. Why? Well, maybe it’s because Hillary is getting speaking fees. So the secretary of state should have been indicting people? I mean, yes, McCarthyite in the sense that it’s guilt by association. He complains about what she did with regards to all this money stuff. Where’s the beef of that? What Sanders basically says is, “They’re trying to bribe you.” Well what do they get for money? He shows nothing. There have been a couple of cases of Republican senators trying to weaken the Dodd-Frank Act. Elizabeth Warren has been a much more successful defender of that bill than Sen. Sanders has been. There was this complaint, “Oh she had contributions from Wall Street.” So did Barack Obama. So does almost every Democrat because you can’t unilaterally disarm.
Staking out the absolute progressive position in Congress is a good thing. Bernie Sanders was good at it. And he should continue doing it…. in the Senate. It helps out for the Overton Window and for fashioning actual legislative compromise. But you cannot govern as a purist President. No bill that comes to you from Congress will ever be 100% perfect. Not even when you have two thirds majorities in the House and Senate. You cannot elect a purist President.
Even if Bernie wins every state going forward 51-49, he will lose the nomination to Hillary:
Matt Yglesias says Bernie Sanders is making unrealistic promises about his free college plan.
The bottom line is that electing Bernie Sanders president is not going to eliminate tuition for most American college students. Not because Sanders’s College for All bill probably wouldn’t pass even if he did win, but because even if it did pass the bill simply will not lead to the elimination of tuition in most cases. This isn’t Sanders’s fault, per se — it’s not sloppy legislative drafting — but it reflects the fact that the administration of public institutions of higher education in the United States is primarily a state matter. The federal government has a role, and it’s an important one, but it’s secondary. The fiscal cost of a total federal takeover of the system would be so prohibitive that Sanders doesn’t propose it, and that means his ideas can have only a limited impact on what happens on the ground.
That’s all fine, except Sanders’s rhetoric is raising expectations and mobilizing voters around promises of change that are completely at odds with what his policies and American institutions can actually deliver.
I’m telling you, if purist progressives thought they were disappointed by Obama, just you wait. They think the election of this one man will change everything, and everything Bernie has promised them will happen with the snap of his fingers. LOLz.
Trump nomination odds have fallen to 62% at Betfair. Really torn as to which side of that bet I'd take.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 31, 2016
At The American Prospect, Paul Starr’s “The Democrats as a Movement Party” offers several perceptive observations, including: “Sanders’s purism on campaign finance–no super PACs, no big financial donors–can work in states like Vermont with low-cost media markets and in congressional districts with lopsided Democratic majorities. It might even be enough to win a presidential nomination, thanks to all the free media coverage. But it is not feasible in most congressional and statewide elections. Candidates who follow that approach are likely to be outspent by a wide margin, and the difference will doom many of them. That’s why most Democrats who want to reverse Citizens United and see more public financing have nonetheless decided to work within the regime the Supreme Court has established.”
First Read: “Throughout the campaign, instances of Trump changing or amending a statement – or at least enduring withering criticism from within his own party for something he said — have become routine. On nearly a weekly basis now, downballot Republicans are facing maddening political choices as they’re asked to comment on Trump’s constantly-changing policy positions and shocking pronouncements. And the constant whiplash makes for a compelling case for those inside the party who say it’s worth risking the backlash with Trump voters by doing whatever it takes to stop him.”
“By the fall, can Republicans running downballot really afford to respond almost daily to something Trump said? It’s been tough enough this spring, and it’s only going to get more complicated.”
James Hohmann: “Increasingly, Trump is endangering Republicans down ballot. Even if he’s not the nominee, he’s damaging the GOP brand. Don’t think him retracting the statement about punishing women who get abortions will prevent Democrats from running negative ads featuring the clip. Or, for that matter, pressing any Republican incumbent who appears with him on whether they agree.”
Alabama’s Republican Governor, Robert Bentley, has got himself into a combination of some Clintonian and Nixonian trouble and could face impeachment. He has acknowledged “that he had sexually charged conversations with a top aide,” but said he has “no intentions of resigning,” the New York Times reports. That top aide “resigned Wednesday, a week after he publicly admitted making inappropriate remarks to her but denied the two ever had an affair,” the AP reports.
Meanwhile, it was revealed this week that Bentley “pressured law enforcement officers to use federal and state resources to target those critical of his relationship with senior advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason,” according to the Alabama Political Reporter.
Therefore, Alabama state Rep. Ed Henry (R) told a local TV station, WHNT, that he will seek the impeachment of the governor based on “incompetence and moral turpitude.”
From Talking Points Memo:
“From the beginning of his second term he has done nothing but lie and deceive the people of Alabama and now we are seeing basically the fruits of that,” Henry told the WTVM. “If we are going to do anything for the next two years as far as economic development, bringing in industry, being effective if you will, we will have to do it without Robert Bentley as the governor.” […]
Bentley later said in a bizarre news conference that he did not have a physical relationship with Mason. But the governor did apologize for “the things that I said” that were reported in the press, calling those statements “inappropriate.”
Henry said that if his resolution passes the House, it would go to the Senate for a vote. If it passes there, the governor would be impeached.
You have become to Bernie Sanders what Fox News is/was to Obama. Before I try to balance some of your propaganda and distortions, I first must point out one of your many false memes:
“I’m telling you, if purist progressives (sneer) thought they were disappointed by Obama, just you wait. They think the election of this one man will change everything, and everything Bernie has promised them will happen with the snap of his fingers. LOLz.”
Anyone who thinks that ‘purist progressives’ think that is an idiot. LOLz.
In the interest of some ‘fair and balanced’ reporting, I offer the following:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-is-giving-hillary-clinton-a-real-run-for-the-nomination/2016/03/31/2a4b122a-f77e-11e5-a3ce-f06b5ba21f33_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Those ‘lies’ about Sanders claiming that the fossil fuel industry is funding Hillary? It wasn’t the Sanders campaign and they aren’t lies:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/
More distortions from the person writing this column about Hillary’s allegation that Sanders called the abortion issue a distraction. First, what he quoted, then what he said:
“Earlier in the evening, Clinton took aim at Sanders for his response to Donald Trump’s questionable abortion remarks. “Last night Senator Sanders agreed that Donald Trump’s comments were shameful, but then he said they were a distraction from, and I quote, ‘a serious discussion about the serious issues facing America,’” she said. “To me, this is a serious issue. I have fought on this issue. And I know, given what’s happening in states across our country, we need a president who is passionate about this.”
What he said about this:
“Sanders is being dismissive regarding women’s rights with his comment. A distraction??? Clinton is correct to point this out.”
Uh, no he isn’t. Both he and Hillary like to take stuff out of context to distort and to make their points. So, this is to counteract their lies and the people who repeat them:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/31/hmm-thats-strange-why-would-clinton-use-trump-abortion-remarks-attack-sanders
I’ll just close by saying that I never thought our blog would turn into a propaganda machine against one of the leading progressives in the country. Stick to the facts, please. This bullshit is fast becoming unreadable.
“propaganda machine against one of the leading progressives in the country. ”
You mean any more than it has become a propaganda machine against Clinton.
Everyone touts their favorite horse, often by denigrating the other horses. It’s not nice but it is politics. It’s similar to criticizing the super delegate process except when it’s working for one’s chosen horse. Because if that was a problem, I’m sure it would have been a continuing topic here since 2009.
Propaganda and, yes, lies and distortions. On a liberal blog written by one of its contributors.
I think you have to differentiate between contributors and commenters. It’s possible that we as contributors have been running a long-standing series of lies and distortions about Hillary, but I don’t think so.
Yet, day after day, we’re ‘treated’ to propaganda masquerading as news from one of our own. Until now, I’ve been hesitant to call him on it. But I’ve just gotten sick of it. The relentless, never-ending, selective, manipulation of what’s out there.
This truthy distortion and baseless attack by the Clinton campaign is ample cause for Bernie to respond with negative ads. I don’t want to see that, but it is richly deserved. Tell the truth and they’ll think it’s hell.
“Even if Bernie wins every state going forward 51-49, he will lose the nomination to Hillary” I hope that isnt a boast…. it seems like more an argument as to how the DNC might be broken.
I understand the rules. I’m not trying to argue about the DNC’s rules. Imagine the optics. If this, or something like this happens, I would still hate anyone who protest-voted for Trump, or refused to vote… but I would be unable to blame anyone for voting 3rd party. I think it would also kinda shatter that “electability” myth.
I’m fine with taking the gloves off. Then again, I’ve been calling for vetting for months.
I will say this: My question yesterday about Sanders trading off some parts of reproductive rights in order to enact his economic agenda was triggered by Bernie’s response to Trump’s abortion comments. Agree or disagree, Bernie’s response to Trump bothered me. This is going to sound snarky, but every time Bernie pivots to his stump speech and away from the topic at hand I find myself thinking about Biden’s comment about Rudy G. I just rephrase it as: a noun, a verb and Wall Street. Sorry, but I can’t shake it.
Pandora: Read the link above, and you will see what really happened:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/31/hmm-thats-strange-why-would-clinton-use-trump-abortion-remarks-attack-sanders
He blistered Trump on abortion rights. He didn’t pivot and stay away from the topic at hand. The very idea that he would ‘trade off’ any narrowing of reproductive rights for anything is simply not true. If you read it, you will also see how Hillary completely distorted what he had said. Took it entirely out of context.
Here’s what he said, and here’s how it was taken out of context:
“”Shameful,” Sanders told Maddow during their exchange, “is probably understating [my] position. First of all, to me, and I think to most Americans, women have the right to control their own bodies and they have the right to make those personal decisions themselves. But to punish a woman for having an abortion is beyond comprehension.”
He continued, “So obviously, from my perspective, and if elected president, I will do everything that I can to allow women to make that choice and have access to clinics all over this country so that if they choose to have an abortion, they will be able to do so.”
Though MSNBC acknowledged in its online reporting that Sanders never used the word “distraction” to describe either the issue of abortion or Trump’s comments—and clarified that only later in their exchange did Sanders make the larger critique about how the media has consistently given too much attention to whatever absurdity comes out of the bombastic billionaire’s mouth—Clinton made no such distinction in her speech on Thursday.”
Nor did DD this morning.
We’re being fed propaganda here every morning.
He continued, “So obviously, from my perspective, and if elected president, I will do everything that I can to allow women to make that choice and have access to clinics all over this country so that if they choose to have an abortion, they will be able to do so.”
That isnt a trade off.
This illustrates perfectly what is so frustrating to Sanders’ supporters. There is a false narrative that he is RG. Noun Verb One Percent. If you only watch CNN, MSNBC, the 10 minutes per day of Sanders’ coverage will lead you buy into that narrative. You’re being lied to.
“I’ve been calling for vetting for months.”
How does attacking a pro-choice ally constitute “vetting?” Sounds like Hillary’s crew is operating a circular firing squad instead.
Honestly, I don’t make much of a distinction between commenters and contributors here because really most of you folks spend plenty of time doing both. But I’m thankful you are all so prolific whether you are doing the one “c” or the other “c” because you keep it interesting.
Are you guys serious? It becomes tiresome to constantly hear Sanders’ supporters tell me, and other groups, that we’re too stupid? Too uninformed? Only watch MSNBC? to know better.
I’m not comfortable with Sanders. I find his policies not well thought out and when I’ve asked for clarification I’m told about changing mindsets and Revolution. What we never have is actual policy discussion. Is that because we all know not one of anyone’s policies is going to happen – that there will be no revolution? I know that’s true, does everyone else?
If he somehow wins the nomination I’ll hold my nose and vote for him. If you have a problem with that comment then stop using it yourself.
Just a though….until the dust settles, why not post a Hillary news update / open thread and a Bernie update / open thread that someone else does. It’s an important discussion, and many of us are truly torn. I enjoy reading both sides, but the bias should be clearly labeled.
It becomes tiresome to constantly hear CLINTON’s supporters tell me, and other groups, that we’re too stupid? Too uninformed? Not to mention repetition of intentionally misleading hit-pieces.
“What we never have is actual policy discussion.”
Anybody want to discuss Hillary’s and Bernie’s actual campaign policies, instead of just arguing about stuff the surrogates say?
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/
Pandora, here’s what YOU said:
“My question yesterday about Sanders trading off some parts of reproductive rights in order to enact his economic agenda was triggered by Bernie’s response to Trump’s abortion comments. Agree or disagree, Bernie’s response to Trump bothered me.”
If, after having read what really happened, you feel no need to revise what you said, fine. But you said it, essentially repeated what Hillary Clinton and DD said despite the fact that the evidence and the tape now proves that he took the strongest stance possible against Trump on the abortion issue.
I’m not sure who you’re referencing when you write “Are you guys serious? It becomes tiresome to constantly hear Sanders’ supporters tell me, and other groups, that we’re too stupid?”
We’re (or at least I’m) not trying to convince you to vote for Bernie. I KNOW how smart you are and how smart other Hillary supporters here are. We know that you have reasons you support Hillary and reasons you don’t support Bernie.
But, the phony meme ginned up by the Clinton campaign on Bernie’s response to the abortion issue turns out to be a lie. Which, perhaps, is one reason I feel more comfortable with Bernie than with Hillary. Who I also will hold my nose and vote for if she’s the nominee.
“I’m telling you, if purist progressives (sneer) thought they were disappointed by Obama, just you wait. They think the election of this one man will change everything, and everything Bernie has promised them will happen with the snap of his fingers.”
”Anyone who thinks that ‘purist progressives’ think that is an idiot. “
As a pretty “constant reader” (Stephen King) of this blog since 2009, that’s exactly the impression I had from progressives on this blog about the President.
And there is plenty of evidence that many Sanders supporters do think that. They may not be progressives so I’m not going to categorize them as such but they are attracted by the thought of eliminating tuition.
Even progressive economists have significant reservations about issues like his health care plans (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=1) suggesting “they’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.”
That’s what he is selling. You are suggesting that progressives aren’t buying that. Well ok. If they aren’t, just what is they are buying? I’m thinking you are buying what he stands for, not what he can do.
What El Som said…. Vote for who you want… stop trying to win by destroying Sanders’ credibility. according to “conventional wisdom” Hillary has already won…. so whats the point of trying to wage an ugly war against Sanders? If it’s over, shouldnt the Clinton Campaign be focused on Trump?
I wouldn’t say “hold my nose” to vote for Hillary; more like resignation and trepidation.
If Hillary becomes President, I will have to constantly worry and work to keep her left of center, all while enduring the slings and arrows of those who would call me “purist.”
But if Bernie becomes President, I don’t have to worry about reining in his extremes on the left. I’ve got all the Republicans and a whole bunch of Democrats to do that for me.
I, for one, want to stop the continuing rightward drift of our Party. I want to diminish, not continue to enable, the corporate control that has been exercised over our Party.
I’d rather have someone forced to ‘compromise’ from a position on the left towards closer to the center than to have (what I view as) a corporate centrist making yet more concessions to people and corporations who bankroll the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons’ campaigns. For that reason, I feel about as uncomfortable with Hillary as I suspect Pandora does about Bernie. I like what Bernie aspires to do as opposed to what Hillary aspires to do.
I’ll also point out that Sanders has a reputation as working well with other Senators. Who is to say that Clinton can accomplish more legislatively than he can?
But that’s not what this thread is about, IMHO (well, it IS an Open Thread…). It’s about the daily propaganda spewed out of Clinton Central. It’s a good thread, though, Dave, your comment is a good comment, and I think we’ve already had a few of those threads this season, but one more wouldn’t hurt.
I see Sanders taking support for PP as a given. He doesnt consider it something that needs to be debated because, as a democrat, OF COURSE he supports access to safe health care. Does anyone really think he’d sell out women’s health? (if you do, I’m sorry… you are misinformed and have been lied to)
The policy differences between he and Clinton are not about that. They agree. That is why he talks about things like energy police (where they differ) or taxes (where they differ) or trade (where they differ). It isnt that those things are more or less important, they are the things that will be different about each candidate. It is also troubling to see how Clinton responds to real challenges to her run for President. How she reacts to Sanders makes me nervous about how she’ll react to Trump.
The policy differences between he and Clinton are not about that. They agree.
Yeah, but Hillary knows how to ring the bell for her supporters. She was counting on people reading the news summaries and jumping to conclusions Bernie without checking the verbatim Sanders quotes. How many people know that Sanders didn’t actually use the word “distraction, and how many people know that MSNBC issued a clarification to that effect? No, the meme is now that “Sanders thinks women’s rights are a distraction, because sexism” as Hillary intended.
How many people know that Sanders didn’t actually use the word “distraction, and how many people know that MSNB issued a clarification to that effect?
Clearly, not enough… even though the proof of your statement is available in this thread. And either they are ignoring the proof, or cant even concede they were mislead on this one point.
I don’t want to pick on you, Ben, because I think we agree more than we disagree, but I do want to revisit our exchange yesterday:
Me: “Question: If we could enact 100% of Bernie’s economic platform (including free college tuition and single payer) but, in order to do so, we’d have to agree to concede to longer waiting periods for abortion and a smaller window/time frame in which to have them (Roe v Wade stays) would you agree to that? Just curious.”
Ben: “yeah, it’s a toughie. I gotta say, taking personal feelings and my emotions out of it…. approaching it like a “pro-con list”, I gotta take 99% of Sanders’ agenda. I dont feel super great about that choice, but there it is…. now to shower and donate money to PP.”
I’m not angry with you for this response. I think you were painfully honest and took the question seriously and weighed what most mattered to you – and it killed you to admit it. I also think your answer is the way many? some? Sanders’ supporters feel. I think that’s why some? many? Bernie supporters pick Trump as their second choice or subscribe to the #Bernieorbust platform. I completely understand prioritizing, and don’t hold it against anyone, but the crossover from Bernie to Trump and Trump to Bernie exists – altho not with women over 30 and minorities. Why is that?
And that’s the undercurrent that has had me the most concerned during this primary. No one has to agree with me, but that’s what has always bothered me about Sanders – the feeling that issues other than the one he’s run his campaign primarily on could be on the chopping block. That doesn’t mean I think he’ll put women’s and minority issues on the chopping block. I don’t believe that at all. It’s that I think Republicans will and I’m just not sure if he’ll sacrifice the perfect in the name of the good – which, in essence, is the only choice a President ever has.
FYI: I watched the whole interview when it aired (because I was/am interested in our candidates’ responses) and I was left feeling the same way – long before this became an issue.
I dont mind talking about that answer.
I dont honestly think it’s a choice that will ever have to be made. You asked me a hypothetical, and I answered as painfully (you’re right, i didn’t like giving the answer..) honestly as a could.
But please consider …. Sanders has never said anything to indicate he will make that call. A lot of people who arent affiliated with his campaign have said that. All the talk that he *might do that is speculation from (what seems to me) pro-Clinton pundits who have an agenda. Now you can disagree with that, but you must know that I pay quite a bit of attention and try to give a lot of though to my opinions, and that’s what I see. So, asking for a hypothetical answer (which im always happy to do) cant be used as proof. I’m not going to use the term “Sophie’s choice”, but it was a lose/lose. Did you read the article El Som posted? If so, I would really like to know why it didn’t change your mind.
And please… stop saying Sanders only runs on one issue. It is so flatly false. Every time I (and others) talk about his platforms, I make sure to mention energy policy as well as tax policy (which are 2 separate issues), as well as trade, student debt… the list goes on. He does not talk about progressive social issues as much as he talks about monetary, trade, environmental policy. I will give you that…. But I think it is because that isnt what he and Clinton disagree on.
Del Dem just can’t help himself. He’s a team player to a fault.
It is not a “lie” that Hillary is taking money from fossil fuel industry employees — as you point out, that’s the only way any company can donate. Calling it a lie rests on this distinction without a difference. What you have failed to note is that lobbying firms for the petroleum industry have bundled multiple millions for Hillary.
This is the kind of half-true bullshit that was all know and a few love about the Clintons — you’ll get a lot of carefully constructed half-truths, endorsed by people who know better because victory means everything.
The entire premise of all of this is that we elect Democrats mainly to battle Republicans, not to carry forward an openly liberal program. We haven’t run an openly liberal candidate since Mondale, and that was the old, labor-dominated kind of liberal that sank the party in the first place.
We don’t need someone to fight the conservatives and Republicans. They’re doing that all by themselves.
I hoped I’d live a long time, but not to hear nostalgia for the early 1980’s.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/hillary-clinton-s-hack-supporters-have-skin-in-the-game-bernie-sanders-s-dreamers-not-so-much.html
Id like to pose a similar question to you.
If there was a law that would reverse all the red-state decisions restricting women’s rights to health care, and expand access.. one that could not be overturned (assuming it wasnt a part of a bigger, sweeping health care bill) Would you sacrifice laws that guard against wage theft and worker exploitation? I worry about what might be on Hillary’s chopping block.
pandora: i’ll respond to your made-up thought experiment — would it be ok for bernie “trade off some parts of reproductive rights” if it meant having his entire economic agenda enacted. apparently you would be against that. i would hate to have to make that call (and in the real world nobody would have to — we’re still talking thought experiment here). but i would theoretically be ok with it if the curtailing of reproductve rights was minimal (no overturning roe v. wade, for instance). reproductive rights are in pretty good shape by now. the (unequal) economy is not. the repercussions of the unequal economy are more harmful than small limits on reproductive rights would be. i hate the idea anybody would have to make this choice, but of the two . . . . you can’t have everthing you want all the time.
First of all, nobody is ever going to put reproductive rights “on the table.” It’s not up for horse-trading, because the Republicans who care about it want it banned, period, and no Democrat would ever agree. So your hypothetical reveals more in the asking than the answering.
Second, ever hear of the greatest good for the greatest number? The number of people affected by lowering the abortion limit to 20 weeks is nowhere near the number of people affected by the financial system. So if you’re going to apply logic, and if you care about that principle, your answer is flawed.
But of course that’s not the real situation anyway. The real situation is you think the needs of a limited number of people take precedence over the needs of a greater number.
I hope that clears things up for you.
@John Manifold: So you think those who have nothing to lose should vote as if they do? Interesting idea, but I don’t understand what’s in it for those with nothing to lose.
I hear ya, Ben, but I come at it a little differently. I don’t think Sanders speaks about social issues because he’s never really thought about them. And being senator from Vermont, he’s never really had to. To me it’s why his responses to these issues fall flat.
And I actually watched the Sanders’ interview when it aired. It’s always the pivot back to what he’s comfortable discussing – which is an issue I agree with. I just disagree that all roads lead to income inequality and some issues outside of that deserve their own consideration without his closing pivot.
I’m busy today, but I’m going to put up policy posts soon so we can discuss them, because, boy, do I have a lot of questions.
Here’s my confession: I ran our income through the candidates’ tax calculator. Under Sander’s plan I would be paying 18,000+ in additional taxes. That stopped me cold – even though I agree with the plan – because I kept trying to find that money in my household budget. Agree or disagree with Bernie’s plan, but there’s going to be an explosion when people see their new tax payments under Bernie. Do we have an answer for that? If so, could one of you guys post it? Because even if I take out what we now pay in health insurance it’s still a lot of money left to pay. And I’ll point out that we can’t even get progressives/liberals on this blog to support a gas tax.
All that said, I would gladly pay more for Bernie’s ideas, but 18,000+ is a hard sell. So… sell me?
“reproductive rights are in pretty good shape by now. the (unequal) economy is not. ”
“First of all, nobody is ever going to put reproductive rights “on the table.” ”
Neither one of those statements are true. They are very much “on the table” and indeed, under direct assault in many states. I am demanding those supporting Clinton stick to facts and not hyperbole about Sanders’ “single issue”…. Sanders supporters must be honest as well.
“Second, ever hear of the greatest good for the greatest number? The number of people affected by lowering the abortion limit to 20 weeks is nowhere near the number of people affected by the financial system. So if you’re going to apply logic, and if you care about that principle, your answer is flawed.
But of course that’s not the real situation anyway. The real situation is you think the needs of a limited number of people take precedence over the needs of a greater number.”
Yep, that clears it up. It also reinforces my concerns. Thanks.
That is a hard sell. I wont be so forward as to ask what chunk of your income that would be, but unless you’re a secret multi-millionaire, it’s quite a hit for anyone. You’d either need to be very fortunate, or far more altruistic than most (certainly more than me) to be ok with that. One would hope that after ‘negotiation” that would drop significantly, while still being effective.
A, AAA, the rest. you do realize we are 1 SCOTUS nomination away form Row v Wade being overturned, right? A republican President/congress/SCOTUS would outlaw abortion so fast, your head would spin.
But the same goes for marriage equality, ACA, labor unions, and voting rights.
FWIW, voting rights is probably the single most important issue to me. We can debate whether or no all roads lead to economic equality…. but all roads DO lead to voting rights. You cant vote to ensure the rights to your own body if you cant vote. you cant vote to tax the rich if you cant vote… etc. Id say
“stop saying Sanders only runs on one issue.”
He doesn’t run on one issue. However, he has not really been running as Commander In Chief and Leader of the Free World (is that still a thing?) which is kinda one of the chief jobs of the President. I haven’t seen much depth from his side on foreign policy or national security. Maybe because there isn’t much daylight between Clinton and Sanders in regards to those areas. But what I have seen lack specifics. The title of his issue area “War and Peace” evoked images of a novel, but when you click through it’s more like an abbreviated outline. So I share Pandora’s trepidation about his relatively singular focus, which is widely popular with some demographics.
LOL! Not a secret multi-millionaire. In the middle of upper middle class.
And consider this… I know and have read enough to know what the benefits received for that tax increase would be. How many other voters will look past the number? That’s a problem that needs an answer.
“Under Sander’s plan I would be paying 18,000+ in additional taxes.”
Compared to how much under Hillary’s plan?
150.00, puck – which should be way more because I’ve always wanted more for my taxes.
I don’t really understand why these tax increases aren’t receiving more attention and answers aren’t being developed. I know Republicans are salivating to use these numbers – because bumper sticker politics work with us. Ugh.
FYI: A married couple with two children earning 60,000.00 would pay 7,500.00 more in taxes under Sanders’ plan (40.00 more under Clinton). How do you think that’s gonna fly?
.
And how much are you paying for health care and college now? (don’t answer that – it’s a rhetorical question).
I’d have to check for an accurate figure, puck, but I think it’s around 4,000.00 a year.
As far as college… both my kids received full 4 year academic scholarships. My youngest received full academic plus some, so we paid for the dorm room (for my son) and food plan (for both).
Who do you think is paying for those scholarships? I know, probably some endowed fund at the college, funded by some wealthy individuals. Bernie wants that for everyone.
Okay, so you don’t want to talk about Bernie’s plan and how it increases taxes. Personally, I’d like an answer and Bernie is going to need one.
Keep in mind that I’m a person who’s fine with paying more for Bernie’s agenda. Think the rest of the voting public agrees with me? I don’t, and I only need to look at the complaining about a gas tax and school referendums in Delaware (a blue state) to see the problem on the horizon.
They most certainly do not agree with you.
But isn’t a common refrain “none of Sander’s plans will get through congress anyway”? I have no misconceptions how how he would need to govern. Executive order, after executive order. Kinda like TR for a new era.
Is that what he’ll run on if he gets the nomination? Ignore my tax increases the Republicans keep running ads about since I won’t be able to accomplish anything?
Come on. We need an answer for this. It’s a problem.
It’s a problem? Why, because you insist it is?
Your health care does not cost $4,000. That might be what you’re currently paying out of your own pocket, but that’s not what health insurance costs. Counting employer subsidies, if you still have the family on a plan, its total cost is about $25,000 a year.
Also, too, you can’t have it both ways. If his program is dead on arrival, what difference does it make how much you would pay? If it’s going to be debated in Congress at all, then his proposal is just a starting point. You can’t attack him both ways — or, rather, you can’t logically attack him both ways.
“It reinforces my concerns.”
About what? Making decisions on a rational basis instead of an emotional one? Continuing to pretend that nibbling around on the edges of abortion is a bigger issue than the financial swindle they’ve been running on you your entire life?
And I see this among most of Hillary’s fervent supporters (not necessarily you): Her election is a way of empowering women. Good luck with that. How did a black president do at empowering blacks?
Also, just as a point of reference, how much more did you get when Bush cut taxes? How about during the ’90s, when Carper was playing Republican as governor by giving tax cuts instead of improving, oh, say, mental health treatment in the state?
One last also: You weren’t by any chance using this tax calculator, were you?:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/30/ezra-klein-and-terrible-horrible-no-good-tax-calculator
I dont actually think he’ll get the nomination. If he does though, he would be wise to focus on how bad Trump will be, (also, that will be Clinton’s plan) and to focus on what could actually be accomplished. (student debt reform, energy investments, infrastructure)
My gripe through all of this is how his supporters are being dismissed, disrespected, and written off as some kind of strategy to bolster Clinton. (not by you, but in general)
Now let’s talk about that oh-so-presidential response to the climate activist yesterday: This is why so many people hate her. She’s a diva. She works hard, but her judgment is awful; she has been wrong about most of the major, non-feminist issues of her time. And when you call her on it, she stands tall on her privilege and goes for the bullying posture.
It’s not impossible for an unlikable person to be elected president, and it looks like she’ll get lucky and run against Cruz. But that strikes me as a much more immediate problem in a general election than tax rates.
@Ben: Belittling her opponents is her strongest strategy, because if you’re going to run on her record there isn’t much to impress people with.
@pandora: You must have a really vivid imagination. You keep producing campaign ads in your head, and you’re convinced they’ll work. How did all Jeb’s campaign ads work for him? How about Rubio’s? Walker’s? All of them had boatloads of cash and produced lots of ads.
One of the great underreported stories of this cycle is panic among the professional campaign class because ads aren’t working anymore, because people don’t watch TV without skipping through the ads anymore.
AAA, before you keep trying to claim that reproductive rights are only “being nibbled away”.. read this http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/abortion-and-the-decline-of-clinics
There is an outright assault on those rights. You’re likely a man… and probably live in a blue-ish state. Those comments smack of privilege.
I may, if forced to choose, favor policies that address economic inequality over those that focus on access to safe reproductive care but that doenst mean I’m going to let BS talking points from “my own side’ sneak by. Be honest. everyone please… just be friggin honest. Leave the vilification and bumper-sticker politics to the GOP.
Admitting that those rights are under attack doesnt make you any less of a Sanders supporter (sorry, in your case, Sanders’ agenda supporter) You insistence that it isnt a problem actually reinforces the false claim that Sanders’ and by extension his supporters, dont care about the issue.
No national-level politician has been unfairly belittled and attacked more in the past 20 years than Hillary Clinton…. with the possible exception of Obama (but thats only the last 8) I cant wait to see her unleash hellfire on Trump or Cruz. I have some very serious concerns about her loyalties as it pertains to Wall-Street, Oil companies, and Israel.. ( think she would continue our dumb policy of supporting their war-hawk leaders)…. But she’s also done quite a bit of good.
Also this
“And I see this among most of Hillary’s fervent supporters (not necessarily you): Her election is a way of empowering women. Good luck with that. How did a black president do at empowering blacks?” ….. you’re definitely a white man. check your privilege, bro.
@Ben “No national-level politician has been unfairly belittled and attacked more in the past 20 years than Hillary Clinton…. ”
And she’s still standing ahead of the rest. She’s now immune to their attempts.
Do you think that Sanders will still be standing after the GOP sleaze and slime patrol get a chance at him? They would LOVE that… and frankly, I don’t think he’d survive.
think both Sanders and Clinton will destroy Trump.
Based on what? What will be the effect of them painting Sanders as a card carrying communist and “proving” it with his past subversive utterances?
Do you really think he will be immune to that?
No… I don’t think he will be immune from attacks based on utterances he made 30 years ago. I just think Trump would be far more vulnerable to things he bellowed 3 days ago. And why are you grilling me on this anyway. I already told you I don’t expect Sanders to be the nominee……
I just think that our wonderful electorate has more tolerance for a blatantly racist bigot than it does for a purported communist.
I really like Sanders, but my largest fear is that he would actually lose. In fact, I think he would lose to Trump.
With Hillary… no such worries.
I feel like if that is true, John McCain would be our president right now.
Yeah, I think he would lose to Trump as well, which is part of what scares me. I’m not worried about my taxes going up, there really isn’t anyway he’ll get those things through Congress.
But I am worried about the next terrorist attack or other calamity in the world and who is going to be deciding what the appropriate response is. I have no clue what Trump would come up with, which scares me, but I also have no idea what Sanders would do, which worries me almost as much.
So, the argument is that Clinton is more ‘fully-vetted’, hence less likely to be vulnerable to attack lines?
Here’s what she said yesterday: “‘I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me’.
I’ve been around a long time. I can’t ever recall a candidate having had it so easy from an opposing candidate as Clinton has had from Sanders. If she can’t handle whatever ‘lies’ she thinks the Sanders campaign may have spread (I’d like to know what they are), how can she withstand the REAL lies that come her way during a general election?
As to the ‘…no national-level politician has been unfairly belittled and attacked more in the past 20 years than Hillary Clinton….’, I give you Barack Hussein Obama, our Kenyan president. Seriously, there’s no comparison.
As to her being ‘immune’ to attacks, all the bleeping corporate cash that that family has taken and the corporate ties, especially from Goldman Sachs, I think she’s plenty vulnerable. Frankly, I think Bernie should be doing MORE to let people know just who the Clintons are beholden to.
To believe Hillary this time around requires a leap of faith that she’ll turn her back on her longtime political (and personal) financiers for the first time. No such leap of faith is required with Sanders.
Finally, to believe that Hillary is more electable than Sanders belies the current polls. Maybe they’ll change once Bernie’s alleged Communist dossier is unearthed, but you can make at least as strong a case that Sanders would have an easier time in the general than Hillary.
Really? You don’t have any idea based on Trump’s rhetoric what he would do? No personality ques? No statements about how he would treat those against us? Really?
Fact: Bernie Sanders says he will raise taxes – on almost everyone.
Putting aside how most of us (except for those that were against the DE gas tax) are okay with that, no one has explained how Sanders will answer that charge in the general.
Do you really think this won’t be part of the Republican attack? Do you really think, no matter which looney tune the GOP puts forth, that they won’t unite to beat the Dem, if only for the SCOTUS and Congress? You don’t see Harry and Louise commercials coming?
This is a political blog. We should be discussing this. Give me an answer, because I really don’t have one.
Fact: Republicans will accuse any and all democrats of wanting to raise your taxes. Including Hillary. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or her plan is to cut taxes while increasing spending (like the R’s did in the 00’s). It’s how the game is played.
Do you really see Trump or Cruz defeating Sanders or Clinton?
Give me an answer b/c I really don’t have one.
And Sanders’ proposal is balanced by CUTS in costs for health insurance and education, to name just two. Did you bother to figure in those savings when you came up with that number? After all, if his package were adopted, both health care and college would be much LESS expensive for virtually everyone. I think Sanders is well-equipped to shine a light on the bottom feeders who would try to raise these issues.
Reading all the responses, I’m going to go with… we have no answer to this question.
no one is giving answer to anyone on anything.
Pandora, sanders will not be the nominee. There’s no point in discussing hypothetical situations. If it DID happen, yes it would be a major vulnerablilty and if I (or anyone) had a good answer on how to combat it, Id probably be a campaign adviser making a lot of money. Hillary has vulnerabilities too (donors like Goldman Sachs and Donald Trump) and since she will be the nominee, discussing how she deals with that is a more realistic discussion.
I don’t expect either candidate to raise Hillary’s or Cruz’s copious ties to Goldman Sachs as an issue.
Pandora, these threads are littered with questions addressed to you that you have not answered. Most of them shouldn’t have been asked. It’s a cheap way to score debating points. If you don’t get an answer, do what the rest of us do – refine your argument so that it is not stated in the form of a question, and move forward.
I did answer your question. “Do you really think this won’t be part of the Republican attack? Bernie will be attacked. So will Hillary. Every democrat gets attacked for this. Every election.
And when a D cuts taxes on the middle class? No credit. Then gets blamed for the deficit. You know, like Obama did.
This statement by Hillary today “concerns” me:
Right on, El Som! DelDem I think you ought to be writing for DailyKos. Both of you are firmly in the HRC camp. But, if you do write for them your pen name has to change. Anything you’d like as long as it doesn’t have “Del” or “Dem” in it cause I live in Delaware, I’m a Democrat, and I haven’t agreed with much of what you’ve written during this campaign season.
hah I think DelDem DID write for Kos.
I thought we wanted to discuss policy?
Okay…
Free tuition at public colleges:
I’ve read Bernie’s and Hillary’s plan for this. Needless to say, Hillary’s is not as amazing as Bernie’s. The point is are they attainable?
I’ll dig into these policies more later, here’s a quick rundown:
Both are in agreement when it comes to debt, interest rates on loans and some sort of work study.
Paying for their plans:
Hillary – “This plan will cost around $350 billion over 10 years—and will be fully paid for by limiting certain tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers.”
Bernie – “The cost of this $75 billion a year plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago.”
Hillary offers free tuition at Community Colleges. She also applies this plan to not borrowing for an individual’s state college – which wouldn’t have worked for us because neither of my kids wanted to attend UD. She says states will have to step up and invest in higher education – which, imo, is doubtful. They’ve been cutting money to higher ed.
Bernie’s require states to fund his plan along with the federal government. Like I said above, are these the same states that are cutting higher education funding now? It sounds like this is a state-by-state opt in plan that will need support of Governors and State reps/senators? Sorta like the Medicaid expansion in the ACA (Don’t even get me started). This will probably play out as free tuition in extremely liberal states – like California – but not in most others.
In the end, I’m 100% on board for free community college, not so much for public colleges/universities. I do think they should increase the amount of Pell Grants issued and be held responsible for lowering tuition.
(Sorry, for the questions, but, damn it, I have questions!)
“The Sanders campaign needs to stop feeding the right-wing disinformation machine. Engaging in innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt is, at this point, basically campaigning on behalf of the RNC.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/
“Sorry, for the questions, but, damn it, I have questions!)”
And I think they are legitimate questions, which without answers I think many of the proposals amount to little more than “magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.”
There is some beef in his proposals, such as closing the carried interest loophole (high on my interest list), but much of what is discussed is broad thematic concepts that cannot be verified, nor can they can be attacked (cuts in cost for health insurance – really?!).
Regardless, the delegate math this time around is in Clintons favor. The last time it around it was in Obama’s favor. I assuming the ones troubled by the delegate math this go around were equally troubled the last go around right?
The general will not be a walk in the park regardless of who the GOP comes up with. It is about time to for the Democrats to begin coalescing around their champion, even if they all didn’t have a chance to express themselves at the ballot box. Such is the influence of chronological voting on the principle of one person one vote. It’s ok to grumble, but you best be pivoting while you grumble, unless you think the risk is worth it.
“You insistence that it isnt a problem actually reinforces the false claim that Sanders’ and by extension his supporters, dont care about the issue.”
My statements were quite clear: One issue affects more people than the other, and does so by definition. Not having to get an abortion does not influence my decision in the least about that, nor does it prevent me from donating to Planned Parenthood. Caring less about an issue is not the same as not caring at all, or opposing, the issue.
As for the phrase “nibbling away,” I think that’s a fair description of the forced-birth side’s strategy over the past decade. Even with five justices they couldn’t overturn Roe v. Wade, and now that they’re going to lose this election they’re very unlikely to get the chance again.
So they have nibbled away at state laws in the states they control, which as a resident of Delaware I cannot control. The fact that I live in Delaware vastly colors my statement about not knowing anyone who has been negatively affected, as does a middle-class lifestyle that makes affordability a moot point for most people I know.
None of that affects my judgment of women’s reproductive rights as a political issue. On economic issues I can explain to GOP voters that they’re voting against their own best interests. I can’t tell them that on abortion. Hence it is of no utility as a political issue.
@John: So you want the Sanders campaign to produce evidence that she’s corrupt? I don’t think you understand the concept. The issue isn’t what she said to Goldman Sachs. It’s that she took money to speak there in the first place. I’m sure you don’t think that’s corrupt, which is why you don’t understand Sanders supporters in the first place.
@pandora: Whether or not a few people on a blog have answers for your questions shouldn’t be the deciding factor in making your decision. I think you’ve already made your decision and are looking more for reasons to not feel bad about having to reject one of them.
The parallels between a lot of the commenters here and a fantasy football league are obvious: You’re play-acting campaign managers. You’re worried about what the opponent will spring on your candidate. You know what statements will become targets of ads, and you even purport to know exactly what effect those ads will have on the public. Many of you suggest the correct course of action, just like football fans arguing about what plays should be called next. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I think it can’t help but color your judgment.
I get the sense pandora and Dave are just nervous about losing the election, but you’re not helping yourself by telling everyone else what they should or shouldn’t say. There’s nothing any Sanders supporter can say that hasn’t already been said about Hillary; there is no more damage to be done except what she might inflict on herself.
Many of you yap about democracy, but it’s clear you think a good chunk of the public — enough to win elections for the GOP — aren’t merely misinformed but are incredibly gullible and susceptible only to emotional persuasion (which they might be, but it’s not smart to broadcast it). How you miss the disdain inherent in that position baffles me.
@ben: Yeah, I checked my privilege. It’s fine, thanks for asking.
Last time I checked, this was not your safe space. White men are allowed to express opinions, too, and I spelled out exactly what my privilege is. I’m well aware of it, and I’m not going to apologize for it. I was born a white man and I’ll be one until I die. Deal with it.
Well said … and funny too!
And yeah I’m very nervous about losing the election because any minute Trump will crash and burn. Except up to now he hasn’t…
As Joe Biden explained during the Bork hearings, a woman’s reproductive freedom affects more than just the 50.1 percent of the population who will become pregnant during their lives. This right to privacy affects all of us.
When the Public Defender appeals a pretrial ruling, it is fighting not just for the indigent accused client, but for all of us.
The unfocused baying about “corruption” mimics GOP talking points against Obama. Reminds me of the McCarthy people who wailed similarly against RFK.
@John: Yes, it does, but it still doesn’t affect as many as the economic issues do.
Nice words, but I’ve never gotten the sense from anything he’s done (as opposed to said) that Joe Biden puts a concern for privacy above empowering law enforcement. Plus, given Hillary’s hawkishness, it’s odd to hear one of her supporters citing privacy as a concern, as I have I have no doubt that she will continue our surveillance state.
I appreciate your point, and I’m not saying this isn’t important. But I don’t feel great urgency to fight over something that’s going to disappear as an issue as religious influence on politics wanes. I do feel that urgency about economic issues, because I believe the Democrats have assumed the mantle of American imperialism, leaving those of us not in thrall to that system with nowhere to turn.
The talking points about Obama turned out to be true, if by “corrupt” one means “captive to Wall Street.” He did not prosecute malefactors, and I see no way to rationally argue that their funding of his campaigns had nothing to do with any of that. It’s one thing to rescue them; it’s another to let them off as lightly as they got off.
There are serious structural advantages for the rich and corporately connected in this country. Those benefitting from it have little reason to seek alternatives. That’s why I asked earlier about those people Michael Tomasky wrote about, the ones who don’t have a lot to lose. Why is it they should be careful what they break again?
If you buy the proposition that WE are smart enough to understand that Sanders isn’t Trotsky but that voters aren’t, then you’re going to think the way you’re thinking. If you’re determined to think that way, you’re going to reach the conclusion you have.
I, on the other hand, think that if people really are as stupid as you’re afraid they are, we’re screwed in the not-too-long run no matter who wins the election.
AAA, I’m trying to follow your reasoning. Because you live in Delaware you don’t need to be concerned about reproductive rights? Given that standard you should not be concerned, or comment on, fracking, LGTB state laws or voter ID laws. I mean… if that’s your standard I’ll expect you to stick with it.
I get voting on issues that impact you. I really do. I don’t admire it or think the “every man for himself” motto is particularly inspiring, but I get it. Personally, as a straight, white woman I can’t imagine not fighting for gay rights, immigration or BLM, but maybe that’s because my being a women lessens my straightness and whiteness. Not completely (I have a ton of privilege), but it does place me in a different position.
And may I also point out that my policy comment about the candiates’ college plans – something many people insist should be the focus of discussion – has not been addressed, except by Dave. Why is that?
“I mean… if that’s your standard I’ll expect you to stick with it.”
In that none of those things is actually up for grabs in this election, I’m perfectly willing to stick with it. But really, you don’t get to make rules for other people. You can point out when I’m hypocritical, but that’s about it.
I am hugely pro-BLM, but it is not a federal issue — it’s about state and local police. Abortion — not a federal issue. Immigration is, but there’s no difference between the Democratic candidates there, and it’s not an important issue except to those immediately affected, none of whom are citizens. Gay rights, no longer an issue at the federal level. And on and on. The problem for Delaware voters is that they have no statewide candidates — in an overwhelmingly Democratic state — who will attack those issues the way progressives would like. They were happy to let Democrats win on the LGBT issues because it didn’t cost any Delaware insider a cent.
So if those are your issues, you don’t even have to bother with the federal elections. But you might want to see if you can find a local/state candidate who reflects your concerns.
Now let’s clear up your perpetual inability to understand what I’m on about:
Every issue you name is a special-interest issue. Yeah, I know we don’t like to call them special interests when they’re on our side, but that’s what they are. Economics affects everyone, even people like you who don’t think of it as a priority. The tax thing — did you check out the link I provided? — is a bogus piece of propaganda from the Clinton campaign. But you illustrated perfectly that your priorities certainly do come into play when they are threatened — you don’t want to pay taxes at that rate, no matter what services come with it.
You answer only what you want to in these discussions. I have no opinion about Bernie’s college tuition proposal except to point out that people would still have to pay room and board and other associated costs of attending a residential college, so it’s not “free” in the sense that some people are thinking. Again, it’s a special-interest issue, and while I don’t oppose the idea I’m not in favor of it, either. I’m neutral.
I’m really not interested in any candidate’s specific proposals, because it’s all applesauce (that word is Justice Scalia’s lone positive contribution to American discourse). It’s their goals. Hillary is just fine with the status quo provided we tweak it so women and minorities have better shots at the good life — raising their ceiling, as it were. Sanders, and social democrats in general, are more interested in raising the floor.
Hillary’s position, it should be noted, is exactly the same as many Republicans, who insist that impediments like structural sexism and racism are not factors in a person’s success, that’s it’s all up to the individual. Since y’all are so fucking sensitive to your privilege, let’s point out that Hillary was raised middle- to upper-middle class, where that fiction is widely believed.
I am not at all “every man for himself.” As I have repeatedly pointed out, “less important” does not equal “unimportant.” I’m not interested in giving people opportunity, because lifting everyone that way is beyond the limits of what government can do. I’m interested in giving them money to get them out of poverty.
This article might help explain (ignore the headline, it’s not really about Paul Ryan):
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/02/paul_ryan_is_an_absolute_joke_the_facts_and_numbers_make_it_clear_gop_economic_plans_are_an_absolute_fantasy/
@pandora: “Personally, as a straight, white woman I can’t imagine not fighting for gay rights, immigration or BLM”
Fine, just make sure your fight is focused on people who are actually on the other side of those issues. Friendly fire is not helping.
@aaa: “Gay rights, no longer an issue at the federal level”
Not exactly. With the gay marriage ruling the tide has turned, but there is plenty more to do, just like on Roe v. Wade and voting rights. The right has lost the culture wars, but they can stlll do damage. I think ultimately just about every social issue will have to be (and should be) resolved before the Supreme Court. Neither Bernie or Hillary has any particular advantage on those topics, but somehow they keep coming up in the discussion.
“Abortion — not a federal issue. ”
Yes it is, as long as Roe v. Wade stands.
“Hillary’s position, it should be noted, is exactly the same as many Republicans, who insist that impediments like structural sexism and racism are not factors in a person’s success, that’s it’s all up to the individual.”
AAA seems like a sweet guy, but I think we have a disconnect from reality.
Or maybe he’s talking about Hillary Swank, or Hillary Hahn, or Hillary Mantel, or Sir Edmund Hillary.
You’re right, that was poorly worded. My point is that equalizing opportunity for women and minorities is not an answer. Delaware for decades has had equalization formulas to give more state aid to poor school districts, so that every student has the same amount spent on him or her. It has not been enough, because students from poor households need more spent on them. Removing barriers — barriers that don’t consist of laws, and so are difficult to address through laws — is not enough. But if your fight is only for those people, and not the rest of us, you must think it IS enough, or else you’d fight for everyone. In that, I think it reflects an attitude of “it’s up to the individual” that mimics Republican talking points.
If you still don’t get what I’m saying, I’ll try again.
I also wanted to revisit your claim of “unfocused baying about corruption.” You must be a lawyer, because there are plenty of specific claims about ethically dodgy decisions made by Hillary and her senior partner in Clinton World that you clearly don’t feel like acknowledging. Or do they have to be printed here before you acknowledge them? Whatever, it’s your decision, but don’t pretend that your blinders give you 360-degree vision.
” Hillary is just fine with the status quo provided we tweak it so women and minorities have better shots at the good life — raising their ceiling, as it were. Sanders, and social democrats in general, are more interested in raising the floor.”
That’s one of the best analogies I’ve seen about the differences between the candidates. I think it would be worthy of separate thread, not to contrast and compare the candidates and their positions but to argue the merits of one philosophy versus the other.
Unlike AAA I tend towards raising the ceiling so that those who aspire can reach the greater heights. Raising the floor is a nice utopian fantasy, but the reality is that if you raise the floor the ceiling moves along with it. The outcome is compression within the taxonomy of classes. You must raise the ceiling by reducing barriers, breaking the ceilings, increasing the ladders to those ceilings.
A rising tide lifts all boats, including yachts. Raising the floor doesn’t get someone a better boat, it just keeps their boat from sinking. Why can’t they have a better boat? I like the concept of increasing opportunities for everyone because it seems to offer the greatest chances for people to reach for things that have been historically out of reach for them. Raising the floor doesn’t get them closer to the ceiling because the ceiling raises along with the floor.
That said, we must always be cognizant and caring of those for whom the floor is the best they can hope for. For the rest though, I don’t want to condemn them to the floor by limiting their opportunity. Feed the poor but for God sakes, we shouldn’t condemn them to being poor for the rest of their lives.
So yeah, that and I’m nervous about losing the election is why I support Clinton.
“My point is that equalizing opportunity for women and minorities is not an answer.”
Also known as “fighting over the crumbs.” Equal opportunity of course, but with a bigger pie and bigger slices.
“Abortion — not a federal issue. ”
Yes it is, as long as Roe v. Wade stands.”
Wrong. The federal position nullifies many of the restrictive laws Republican state legislators have passed, but presidential elections have no effect on it. The issue was decided by the courts, not the legislature. Other than striking down the laws as they are adopted, there is nothing the feds can do to expand the right unless Congress suddenly starts to agree about such matters, which won’t happen until the Reagan kids of the ’80s start dying off (I have noticed that people born in the ’60s, who reached political maturity during the Reagan years, are unnaturally predisposed to conservatism). And then, once they do start dying off, the issue will evaporate, because the only people left who believe in the pre-birth control “natural order” anymore are so out of step that reality show producers hire them for the novelty value.
“Raising the floor is a nice utopian fantasy, but the reality is that if you raise the floor the ceiling moves along with it.”
That’s not what has happened in the social democracies of Europe which, despite what you’ve heard from conservatives who’ve never been there, is not a hellhole. Read that link I included.
Upward mobility in this country is lower than in most of Europe. That doesn’t speak well of our “raise the ceiling one house at a time” approach.
@puck: Ask any woman or minority. Almost all will tell you they had to work twice as hard to be perceived as equal.
@Dave: I’m for raising the floor because when you’re on the floor, our society makes it hard to even make it to your feet. One of the unreported (by mainstream media) stories that shocks middle-class people is how many hoops the poor must jump through to obtain all those “free” things they get. The stress of poverty is difficult to measure quantitatively, so it’s underreported and underappreciated.
As for your worries about Bernie being less electable than Hillary, I’m not so sanguine about her. Yes, she’s been through this all before, multiple times, but that little lash-out on the rope line the other day has me worried about the pressure she’s put on herself. She’s trying to be all things to all people, which is impossible. This goes to my point about having a candidate whose positions fit with my own before the tailors take over. She is overly managed, possibly because her husband has told her for years that her judgment is inferior to his.
Too many plans to “increase opportunity” don’t put dollars in the hands of the people who need them. When people can participate in the consumer economy and make real buying decisions perhaps for the first time, that is opportunity.
Sending people to college is a good thing, but it doesn’t increase opportunity overall. When decent-paying jobs are readily available, people will send themselves to college.
@aaa: “Wrong… The issue was decided by the courts, not the legislature. ”
Last I checked, the Supreme Court was part of the federal government.
“Other than striking down the laws as they are adopted, there is nothing the feds can do to expand the right ”
Given proper test cases, the Supreme Court could strike down a lot of the state anti-choice provisions as violating Roe v. Wade, especially given a solid Dem-appointed majority. Congress is a lost cause on choice.
“Last I checked, the Supreme Court was part of the federal government.”
Lame response. We’re talking about elections. It’s not a federal ISSUE, because it’s not being discussed by the parts of the federal government that voters elect.
You know what I meant. Are we playing split-the-hair here, or having a discussion?
“Given proper test cases, the Supreme Court could strike down a lot of the state anti-choice provisions as violating Roe v. Wade”
That already happens. The only way to undo it is a new decision by a conservative Supreme Court, which we’re unlikely to ever have again, or legislative action, which as you note won’t happen.
Andrew O’Hehir at Salon puts this in what I think is the proper perspective:
“I’m going to suggest, for about the 75th time, that the outcome of the 2016 presidential election is not the only important political question of the moment, and probably isn’t the most important question. Hillary Clinton was never the fundamental problem, and Bernie Sanders almost certainly isn’t the solution, and the endgame of their primary confrontation isn’t going to settle anything.
If Democrats believe that Clinton’s likely nomination and election — presumably in a fall campaign against an incoherent sociopath — means that order has been restored to the political universe, and means that their party can march happily into the future, free of the chaos and darkness that has consumed the opposition party, they are deliberately ignoring the obvious. Milder mirror images of the internal contradictions and divisions found among Republicans can also be found among Democrats. …In the current campaign, those divisions have been papered over with forced and frayed politeness, or with the official fiction that Clinton and Sanders hold generally similar positions, although it has become increasingly clear that they represent different generations, different worldviews and profoundly different attitudes toward political and economic power….Hillary Clinton embodies all the Democratic Party’s contradictions in one person, having held every possible position on every possible issue at one time or another, to go with her various accents and uncomfortable personas.”
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/02/bernies_endgame_no_he_cant_win_now_but_his_campaign_has_exposed_hillary_as_a_weak_frontrunner_in_a_divided_party/
O’Hehir’s conclusion: “I can only see one scenario in which Sanders becomes the 2016 Democratic nominee: the total implosion or self-immolation or indictment of Hillary Clinton. Similarly, there is only one scenario in which Donald Trump is elected president. Unfortunately, it’s the same scenario. Sure, that would be a bizarre and outlandish turn of events, more like a plot twist on a bad TV show than reality. Have you been paying attention?”
Great discussion. I can’t believe Pandora and Ben haven’t figured out who aaanonymous is. Or perhaps they’re just playing dumb?
I’m pretty sure they know. Besides, it’s not about the identity. It’s about the ideas.