Thursday Open Thread [4.14.16]
NATIONAL—YouGov/Economist–Clinton 49, Sanders 41
NATIONAL—YouGov/Economist–Trump 53, Cruz 25, Kasich 18
NEW YORK—Siena–Trump 50, Kasich 27, Cruz 17
NEW YORK—Siena–Clinton 52, Sanders 42
MARYLAND—Monmouth–Trump 47, Kasich 27, Cruz 19
MARYLAND—NBC 4/Marist–Clinton 63, Trump 27 | Sanders 65, Trump 26 | Clinton 60, Cruz 31 | Sanders 63, Cruz 28
NORTH CAROLINA–GOVERNOR—WRAL-TV/SurveyUSA—Cooper 47, McCrory 43
GEORGIA—Lake Research Partners–Clinton 50, Trump 37 | Clinton 47, Cruz 40
Pay special attention to that GEORGIA POLL!!!!!
Potential surrogates for the Clinton campaign—former President Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama, and First Lady Michelle Obama—are all assets to the campaign. Michelle Obama has the highest popularity (61% favorable, 27% unfavorable) while President Obama could be helpful in mobilizing Democratic voters (among Democrats: 94% favorable, 5% unfavorable; overall: 56% favorable, 41% unfavorable). Former President Bill Clinton can be helpful persuading independents (61% favorable, 29% unfavorable) as well as voters overall (53% favorable, 39% unfavorable).
Georgia voters are also highly supportive of a progressive economic issue agenda for the next president. More than seven-in-ten voters (72% rate ‘10’ on a scale from 0-10) believe protecting Social Security and Medicare benefits is extremely important for the next president. This crosses all party lines and is an extremely important priority for Democrats (78%), independents (69%), and Republicans (68%). Georgia voters also want the next president to focus on tough enforcement of equal pay for women (53% rate ‘10’) and closing corporate tax loopholes and making the wealthy, big corporations pay their fair share (48% rate ‘10’).
Georgia voters are also much more likely to vote for a candidate that supports the progressive economic agenda. Fully 75% of voters are more likely, including a near majority (47%) who are much more likely, to support a candidate for president who runs on this set of issues. Support also crosses party lines with a solid majority of Republicans (61%) more likely to support such a candidate and Democrats (93%) and independents (70%) being even more supportive. These issues can also help mobilize voters – fully 81% of African Americans want the next president to protect Social Security and Medicare benefits and 72% want tough enforcement of equal pay for women.
Rick Klein wonders if Paul Ryan doth protest too much: “One does not have to question Paul Ryan’s sincerity to question his ultimate veracity. The House speaker’s extraordinary news conference, held to reiterate his position that does not want and will not accept the Republican presidential nomination, will hush the Ryan buzz and mute some – though surely not all – of Donald Trump’s grievances against the RNC. But the fact is that if the convention heads where it looks like it might, not even Ryan can control where it goes. And if it comes for him, can he really balance the honest-broker chairman role at the convention with that of an organically drafted candidate?”
“There’s a plausible scenario where neither Trump nor Ted Cruz demonstrates an ability to lock down 1,237 delegate votes after two, three, four ballots. The what? ‘Count me out,’ is what Ryan said Tuesday. What happens when the GOP needs to deal someone new in, though?”
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that 31% of Americans have a favorable view of Donald Trump while 67% are unfavorable — nearly identical to an early March Post-ABC poll which found he would be the most disliked major-party nominee since at least 1984.
Ted Cruz fares better with 36% favorable and 53% unfavorable among the public at-large; his strongly unfavorable mark is 20 percentage-points below Trump’s level (33% for Cruz vs. 53% for Trump).
Both Trump and Cruz are less popular than Mitt Romney at this point in the 2012 campaign, a year in which the eventual Republican nominee was haunted by weak personal ratings.
Trump begins quest for Sorcerer's Stone in order to resurrect Joe Paterno pic.twitter.com/kSXw6wMVH6
— Ian McKenna (@Ian_McK_) April 13, 2016
How’s Joe Paterno? He’s dead. Before that, he was disgraced for allowing and ignoring child sexual abuse.
“We’re going to bring that back.” Bring what back? The dead? You are going to reanimate Joe Paterno to commence the Zombie Apocalypse? Or do you mean the child sexual abuse? Are you a fan of that Donald?
The Atlantic on the Future of Bernie Sanders’s Grassroots Army
Will fans of the Democratic presidential candidate succeed in creating an enduring political movement?
“There is definitely a danger that people that are excited will lose momentum when we either win, or we don’t win, so we need to start thinking about that now,” said Maria Svart, the national director for Democratic Socialists of America, an organization that backs Sanders and has spent thousands of dollars to support him. “There needs to be something long-lasting that comes out of this. We just don’t know what it will look like yet.”
It won’t be easy to keep people interested and engaged after the election. Laying the groundwork while the primary is still in full swing for political machinery that can push a progressive agenda might be the best way to capitalize on the success of the campaign.
Color me skeptical. Purist Progressives don’t do long lasting movements. If they did, Occupy would have lasted longer. Hell, Occupy couldn’t even agree on what that movement wanted to accomplish, other than just to protest. The first requirement of any long lasting movement is to accomplish at the very least a set goal, and really successful long lasting movements have benchmarks or accomplishable steps along the way to keep momentum and morale building. The requirement of the Bernie Sanders “movement” is not to get people like Bernie Sanders elected to Congress all over the country, but to only elect Bernie Sanders himself. Once that goal is not realized, the “movement” will fade away. And that is a shame. The goal should have always been the former, rather than the later, for then the “movement” would have made a real difference.
The Washington Post talks about Cruz’s strategy to win from behind: “Cruz’s decision to lavish attention on parochial power brokers 3,000 miles away from the next big contest underscored his novel approach to the final three months of the Republican presidential race: He is effectively creating his own primary calendar, map and electorate in hopes of cobbling together enough support to prevent front-runner Donald Trump from clinching the nomination outright.”
“It is a strategy born of necessity for the senator from Texas, who now acknowledges that his best path to the nomination is through a contested convention decided by thousands of little-known activists.”
Hillary Clinton spoke about her plans yesterday to fight for environmental and climate justice. The first of eight items in the plan prompted this from Kevin Drum.
Be still my heart! […] Clinton will establish a Presidential Commission on Childhood Lead Exposure and charge it with writing a national plan to eliminate the risk of lead exposure from paint, pipes, and soil within five years; align state, local and philanthropic resources with federal initiatives; implement best prevention practices based on current science; and leverage new financial resources such as lead safe tax credits. Clinton will direct every federal agency to adopt the Commission’s recommendations, make sure our public water systems are following appropriate lead safety guidelines, and leverage federal, state, local, and philanthropic resources, including up to $5 billion in federal dollars, to replace lead paint, windows, and doors in homes, schools, and child care centers and remediate lead-contaminated soil. […]
I’m especially happy to see Hillary acknowledge the importance of remediating lead in soil, which usually doesn’t get much attention. But that’s where all the lead from automobile emissions settled, and it’s worst in low-income urban neighborhoods that are dense with traffic.
Ed Kilgore is prompted by John Judis to wonder if all of Bernie’s voters really want him to win?
That thought arises from reading a column by the renowned liberal journalist John Judis at Talking Points Memo today:
“He’s not going to get the nomination, is he?” my wife asks anxiously as she gazes out of the kitchen window at the Bernie for President sign on our front lawn. No, I assure her, and he certainly won’t win Maryland on April 26. I’m voting for Bernie, and my wife may, too, but we’re doing so on the condition that we don’t think he will get the nomination. If he were poised to win, I don’t know whether I’d vote for him, because I fear he would be enormously vulnerable in a general election, even against Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, and I’m also not sure whether he is really ready for the job of president.
Why vote for him at all, then? For me, it’s entirely about the issues he is raising, which I believe are important for the country’s future.
This is a sentiment heard often in casual conversations with Democrats before and immediately prior to this year’s nomination contests. Before Bernie Sanders threw a genuine scare into Team Hillary, the formulation was often “We need Bernie [or before that, Elizabeth Warren] to run to keep Hillary honest.” By that it was inferred that without some pressure from the port side of the Democratic Party, Clinton might indulge the family habit of leaning a bit too far starboard to suit “the base” or the activists purporting to speak for said base. Left unsaid (though it is articulated by Judis) is the belief that Clinton is a far better bet to make sure Republicans don’t make away with the White House while Democrats are arguing over what to do with it.
Republicans control both houses of Congress, and they set a April 15 deadline to pass a budget. They are not going to make that deadline and it is highly unlikely they will be able to pass a budget at all. This is proof that all Republicans everywhere cannot govern and should be disqualified from participating in the electoral process at all. Let the true libertarians have a shot for once, if only for the comedy of seeing the budget that ideology would produce.
Jeet Heer on the burden of Bill Clinton:
In theory, Bill Clinton should be the perfect surrogate for Hillary Clinton. Only five living men have held the job she’s vying for, and of the select group of living presidents he is the most popular, enjoying a 64 percent favorability rating. Many Americans remember the 1990s under President Clinton as the last time the nation enjoyed peace and sustained prosperity. He put this popularity to good use campaigning for Barack Obama in 2012, when his convention speech and cross-country barnstorming were seen as major assets for the re-election campaign. And if Bill Clinton was such an effective advocate for Obama, shouldn’t he be an even better spokesman for the candidate who has, after all, been his political ally and life partner for more than four decades?
Yet the reality is that Bill Clinton has repeatedly sabotaged his wife’s presidential aspirations, both in 2008 and this year. In 2008, when race was already an incendiary topic given the rise of Barack Obama, the former president kept throwing lit matches onto the woodpile: He said Obama’s victory in South Carolina didn’t amount to much since Jesse Jackson also won there, called Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war “a fairy tale,” and complained that the “race card” was being used against him.
Last month he did it again, making what sounded—at best—like a gaffe about Obama by lamenting the “awful legacy” of the last eight years. The former president might have been trying to refer to Republican obstructionism, but it came across as an unfortunate slag against the sitting president, all the more damaging since Hillary Clinton is basing her campaign on a promise to preserve and extend Obama’s legacy.
Bill Clinton’s sabotage of his wife’s campaign is so recurring a problem that two estimable analysts, Michelle Goldberg at Slate and Rebecca Traister at the New Republic, have both suggested that he be sidelined. “Fire Bill Clinton,” says Goldberg. “Ditch Bill,” Traister advised last May.
The pattern of inadvertent subversion is so persistent that Goldberg speculates it might have psychological roots. “It is somehow only when he is working on his wife’s behalf that he veers into sabotage,” she writes. “What is needed here is probably a shrink, not a neurologist. Either he doesn’t want her to overtake him, or he doesn’t want her to repudiate him. Regardless, Hillary should shut him down. She can’t divorce him, but she can fire him.”
“Color me skeptical. Purist Progressives don’t do long lasting movements.”
Pffftt.. Reverse psychology. What are you my older brother?
Do progressives not get to be a part of the civil rights movement?
No. They were too busy voting for Ralph Nader, or some shit.
Once a progressive movement succeeds, it retroactively becomes a centrist movement.
The core “progressives” from the civil rights movement don’t vote for 3rd parties. They vote for Democrats even though they don’t get much in return for that.
FWIW, we are starting to see Sanders do what he should have been doing all along (apologies for the Politico link):
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-progressives-fundraising-221887
Purist Progressives don’t do long lasting movements.
Barack Obama had a very difficult time translating his landslide support into a long-term force to move political issues. They certainly tried, but the people who overwhelmingly want the system to work for them (rather than special interests) don’t seem to engage except at Presidentials.
Exactly. Who are these “purist” Delaware Dem regards with such disdain? They are your fellow Democrats.
Are there 100,000 or so screwballs on the extreme lefty fringe who mix anti-social assholery and nihilism with their politics? Of course there are. So what?
I wonder how many people who want (or need) the system to work for them, simply cant afford to make activism their full time occupation. The majority of the people who most need socialistic policies work long hours for little pay and need dedicated advocates. I dont like the idea of blaming people for ‘not doing everything they can” when we dont know their reality. If a party wins based on promises, it is up to them to keep those promises.
It’s a privileged attitude to tell the disenfranchised they arent trying hard enough.
Oh Jesus. .Here we go again.
“Barack Obama had a very difficult time translating his landslide support into a long-term force to move political issues. They certainly tried,”
No they didn’t.
The people who “tried” were the ones looking to stop it. Your Carpers, your Liebermans, and the GOP. Obama’s failure was in not pushing back against that crap for 6 years. Hopefully Clinton wont make the mistake of ‘compromise’.
No they didn’t.
Sure they did. Obama for America became Organizing for America and it *still* exists and is still working at organizing Obama voters. The LOE is not as great as it was in the first 3 or 4 years it looks like, but that is what happens when people sit at their keyboards and complain about leadership.
people should quit their minimum wage jobs and go volunteer for political organizations that compromise away everything they fight for. great idea.
Okay. We’ll have to agree to disagree. I see Obama adopting Republican positions on Health Care, the budget, the stimulus, the fiscal cliff, the Bush tax breaks as things that undermined whatever movement that had been built up, and killed us in the first mid-term elections. You don’t.
“I wonder how many people who want (or need) the system to work for them, simply cant afford to make activism their full time occupation.”
Many, and they are given a 100% pass on volunteering – altho, many of them do. Also, activism/volunteering time doesn’t have to be a full time occupation. Volunteering is easy – you receive profuse thanks when you show up and complete understanding when you can’t. I would hope everyone commenting on this blog is actively involved (making calls, canvassing, stuffing envelopes, etc.) with a campaign. I mean… if we’re not doing these things, then who will?
I guess the point is, people didnt “do enough” to stop Obama from compromising?
Ya know who makes good on their promises to voters? Republicans. Look whats going on in Confed states all across the country.
Dem’s give in to fake “compromises” and republicans take hostages. Not that I think Obama had much choice. He was abandoned and betrayed by DINOs (we need to mention their names again) and had to take the best deal he could.
So what, I ask you, could “we” have done in 2009 to “do more”? Do elections not “have consequences?”
I agree 100% on that Pandora…. but the charge was made that people didnt do enough after the election… they sat at home complaining on their keyboards or whatever else. I want to know who those people are and what more they were expected to do.
I see Obama adopting Republican positions on Health Care, the budget, the stimulus, the fiscal cliff, the Bush tax breaks as things that undermined whatever movement that had been built up, and killed us in the first mid-term elections.
I believe that We the People doesn’t mean anything until the People show up. You, on the other hand, are looking for a President who will do all of the We the People work for you. If a majority of the people who showed up to vote for Obama responded to the organizing opportunities that OFA arranged, Obama might have had a stronger hand in negotiations. CERTAINLY if majorities of people who voted for Obama came out to just vote in midterms, some of the recent history would not have happened.
But if your commitment to any ideals extends to an every four year exercise in voting for magic, you just have to stop pretending that you have any ideals or vision for the country worth defending. The other side never stops bringing the heat — which is how abortion rights are under attack in Pennsylvania now — and somehow people on my side seem to think that if they want fairness and justice hard enough it will simply materialize.
Sheesh.
“Why vote for him at all, then? For me, it’s entirely about the issues he is raising, which I believe are important for the country’s future.”
This the part that I struggle with in constantly evaluating my candidate preference… The issues are monumentally important to the kind of future I want for my kids. My heart would say “take the leap” and vote for the candidate promising to focus on those issues I feel are most important for the future… My head is saying “protect what you have”, advance the ball incrementally, be pragmatic about this decision… “Three yards and a cloud of dust” to use a football analogy.
It may be that right before I walk into that voting booth, I hear the line of dialogue from The Shawshank Redemption: “Get busy livin’ or get busy dyin’.”
Well, they sure were here complaining about Obama (Obomba, Obummer, etc) early on.
I wonder how many people who want (or need) the system to work for them, simply cant afford to make activism their full time occupation.
Yeah, this is a silly question, really. Mainly because no one asks ANYONE to make activism their full time occupation.
Cassandra, you view ignores the reality that a movement that is continually and habitually sold out by their leadership isn’t one that is going to get a lot of traction.
Well, they sure were here complaining about Obama (Obomba, Obummer, etc) early on.
Indeed, while they continue to be represented by Senators and a Rep who aren’t committed to a progressive agenda worth a damn.
Jason: Somewhat oblique question here… But when the stage lights are off and it’s just you at the bar talking to your beer, do you think you will ever be happy with a Democratic president in your lifetime? I am honestly not trying to sound like a dick here. I’m genuinely curious, given your recriminations of Obama’s seemingly “Bob Beamon”-sized leap to the Right after his 2008 election.
“No. They were too busy voting for Ralph Nader, or some shit.”
That is kinda what progressives do. My take is that progressives are all about movements that remind me of old Soviet worker slogans like “Workers Of The World, Unite! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/26/communist-propaganda-post_n_6377336.html).
I don’t mean progressives are commies but the messaging is very similar, at least to me. When they want to assault the summit (Mount Everest), they go for it – The summit or bust! There is none of this boring crap of establishing base camps, hauling supplies, setting lines across dangerous ice flows. They get out there in their wind breakers, maybe a backpack containing some granola bars, a little bit of Red Bull or flavored water and up they go to plant that flag. You gotta give them credit though. Doesn’t matter how many times they fail to reach the summit, they’ll be back next season, still in windbreakers, ready to do it all over again.
“I wore a frock coat to Washington before The War. We wore them because we belonged to the five civilized tribes. We dressed ourselves up like Abraham Lincoln. We got to see the secretary of the interior. He said, “Boy, you boys sure look civilized.” He congratulated us and he gave us medals for looking so civilized. We told him about how our tribal lands had been stolen and how our humans were dying. When we finished he shook our hands and said “Endeavor to preserve!!”
They stood us in a line John Jumper, Chili McIntosh, Buffalo Hump, Jim Buckmark, and me, I am Lone Waite. The newspapers took our picture and said, “Indians vow to endeavor to preserve.””
Progressives endeavor to persevere
you view ignores the reality that a movement that is continually and habitually sold out by their leadership isn’t one that is going to get a lot of traction
And this view sells out the power of a *real* movement. If you have one, it is pretty damned hard to stop (see Civil Rights of all kinds). And it also continues to rationalize away why it is that you don’t have to do any work to sustain a movement.
Governing is completely different than campaigning.
Everyone loves the excitement of the campaign – they just don’t like the work of governing.
Pandora, They who? History shows that Democrats stayed home in droves as a reaction to Obama’s abjectly compromise-y first term.
Could he have turned out THRONGS of Democrats with a less “they’ll get tired of kicking me sooner or later” approach? Yes.
It certainly couldn’t have fared worse.
aww cassandra… that wasn’t a question. maybe someone needs to learn to read 🙂
C’mon now, it isn’t like you don’t use hyperbole to get a point across.
You said, basically, the people who voted Obama in didn’t do enough after the election.
My assertion is that many of them did all they could. Speaking from personal experience, I sacrificed a job and graduating “on time” to work for the campaign in 08. I feel my desire to re-focus on my life (things like paying bills) and expect some sort of victory was totally justified. What more was expected? Stop casting barbs at people you’ll never meet and making assumptions about who they are and what they do.
“Everyone loves the excitement of the campaign – they just don’t like the work of governing.”
that’s why we have elections…. to hire people to do the governing.
“The core “progressives” from the civil rights movement don’t vote for 3rd parties. They vote for Democrats even though they don’t get much in return for that.”
OK, I’ll color them stupid.
“that is what happens when people sit at their keyboards and complain about leadership.”
It’s otherwise known as “living their lives.” We elect Democrats to do this work, except they do the work of the 1% instead. Duh. Stop pretending to be dumb.
they vote D because all the conservatives vote in lock step. You can go ahead and cast a feel-good third party vote for the Greens…. enjoy president Trump.
It’ll be interesting if the GOP totally falls apart this year… Im talking beyond repair and stays that way through the mid-terms… we, for a time, become a 3 party nation.
It would give progressives a once-in-a-century chance to primary out a sitting Dem president and not risk handing it all to the conservatives.
The formulation of “I wonder if” is the prelude to a question.
You said, basically, the people who voted Obama in didn’t do enough after the election.
My assertion is that many of them did all they could.
I wish you would get the clue that if you don’t understand what I am talking about to ask a question. What this stupidly binary interpretation gets you is a presumption that you have no idea what you are talking about. Doing enough is not about full time organizing. How do you let politicians know you are watching and you care about what they do? If you care about abortion rights — for example — you have myriad pathways to make sure that your views are added to those who think like you who are communicating that to politicians.
The problem is that too many people want to make claims for a movement who have no idea how a movement is powered over the long term. I lived with people who were clearly a part of the Civil Rights movement and they worked, went to grad school, kept up a house, raised kids and did everything they needed to get done. As with everything, you pick how you can participate and you go.
Progressives work with the Democrats because this is a two-party system. The Democrats suck, the Republicans suck worse. Great choice. “Would you rather be a paraplegic or a quadriplegic? Well, neither, but since that’s not an option, paraplegic I guess.”
Is this really that hard to understand?
To the idiot who wants to know if Jason will ever be satisfied with a Democratic president: It would be nice if one were running this year. Unfortunately all we’ve got is a Dominionist on the right and a pandering klutz in the center. We don’t get a third choice.
Y’all want to eat a shit sandwich and claim it’s salami. Eat up.
It’s otherwise known as “living their lives.” We elect Democrats to do this work
Good luck with that *movement* of yours, then. Because with this attitude, you are killing it in its cradle.
I asked what more you expect the movement to do. Do you think they did enough? I think elected Democrats need to do a better job at making good on what got them elected without constant hand holding from those that voted for them. do we disagree?
“You can go ahead and cast a feel-good third party vote for the Greens…. enjoy president Trump.”
Really? You think a single vote for the Greens in a state that will vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat will hand the election to Trump, who won’t even be the Republican nominee? Yeah, I don’t want you arguing my position, because you don’t understand it.
I don’t have a movement. I don’t care which of them wins. I’m just point out the shit sandwich thing. Y’all have shit on your lips and are telling me about the wonderful new salami you’ve tasted.
You just don’t seem to understand that this party you have decided to support doesn’t share your goals, and will listen to you only up to the point at which you threaten their financial well-being. Which is why they’ll let you gay up the place but won’t raise the minimum wage.
These people, these so-called “Democrats,” won’t lift a fucking finger to help people. Matt Denn, supposed liberal, still won’t release a word about the McDole shooting. You want to spend the bulk of your free time hectoring people into doing the right thing — something they should be doing in the first place — well, it’s your life.
I don’t have to volunteer to smell the shit sandwiches they’re cooking.
This all day –> Which is why they’ll let you gay up the place but won’t raise the minimum wage.
Im arguing my position, not yours. I want the Democratic party to be better and I dont think the blame for them not being better should go to their voters.
We shall overcome
” Which is why they’ll let you gay up the place but won’t raise the minimum wage.”
That’s because the Dem ruling glass allows it to be framed as a choice between the 2. There is no reason to have to chose between equal rights and equal pay… it’s a construct of the Third Way types who feel like they have to compromise with truly evil jack-asses just for the sake of compromise.
From Steve Almond:
“The modern Democratic Party, in other words, has chosen to enable — and in many cases sponsor—policies that have allowed capitalism to act like a giant centrifuge, concentrating wealth and power in the hands of the few to the detriment of the many. … The reason Sanders appeals to so many young voters is precisely because they have not been exposed to this Orwellian miasma of misinformation. They are not victims of the Stockholm Syndrome that afflicts so many so-called “pragmatists.” What young voters see is one party hell-bent on ravaging government so that plutocrats can run the show, and another devoted to a pattern of moral acquiescence.”
I spent most of my 60 years preaching pragmatism and incremental change. It doesn’t work.
Let’s try this again. One of the main talking point of Bernie’s, and his supporters, is momentum. That needs to apply after winning an election. It has to keep building, moving forward. If we stop pushing after our candidate gets in office we have dropped the ball. If our candidate does something we don’t agree with with can’t keep taking to the fainting couch and say, “All is lost.”
Know why we’re talking about expanding health care today? Because we moved the ball and the debate further down the field with the ACA.
@Ben: No, they don’t frame it as a choice between the two. They simply buy into Republican framing on the finances. Ask your next governor if you don’t believe me.
“Socialists don’t do anything long lasting……” hmmmm
Ever heard of Social Security?
Oh thats right, it’s on the way out. How silly of me.
How about MediCare?
Maybe the 5 Day Work Week? How about The Child Labor Laws?
Minimum Wage?
The Civil Rights Act?
Oh wait that’s already gone.
Triple Bottom Line!!!
Stop the Oligarchy!!!!!
If not now, then when?
You will not be warned again. The video once was fine. Twice pushing it. Three times, spam. Take part in the conversation or don’t, but don’t spam these thread.
@pandora: That’s incrementalism, all right. The Republicans proposed the health plan in 1993, and here, just 23 years later, we’ve almost gotten them to accept that it’s the law now!
Jeez, at this rate, we should have single-payer in — oh, about 80 more years! Yippee!
@aaanonymous: “To the idiot who wants to know if Jason will ever be satisfied with a Democratic president”
Don’t recall insulting you in this thread…
Can’t say I’m terribly interested in a juvenile back and forth with you, but I suppose it could be fun for awhile.
people died for all those things. Progressives die for their causes (civil rights, labor rights) and get killed for conservative causes (abortion, voter suppression) Is it too much to ask to live in a country where blood isn’t required to gain justice… of it it has to be, why does it have to be so one sided?
Nah, not really. We actually pretty much agree.
I considered that an insult to Jason, so I jumped bad.
I’ve said this many times, but not sure you were reading back then: I accept that she’s going to be president, but I’m not going to work for her, or even be happy about it.
I consider her and her family a criminal enterprise, and I’m not eager to embrace their return to power.
Why criminal? Because she and her husband have been peddling political influence at such inflated rates that, 16 years after being broke (her own claim), the family is worth $100 million. I don’t know of anything they actually sold for the money, do you? Except their influence, that is.
They’re shit, both of them, and likely their daughter, too. Ironic that his people talked about dragging a $100 bill through a trailer park, because that seems to be exactly why he entered politics. That and the tail.
“They’re shit, both of them, and likely their daughter, too.”
Yep, I’m out. I already raised children.
@aaanonymous: I was genuinely not trying to sound like a dick in posing that question, but I can easily see how it comes off as being insulting. I ask myself the same question all the time, but the wording sure sucks…
I don’t have quite as strident an opinion about the Clinton family… What consistently drives me nuts about the recent presidential elections is that it seems media, regular voters, blogs and their commenters, etc., often take on some sort of Quixote-esque quest to shove everything they feel is great about their candidate down the throats of the people who disagree with them, as if it’s some bastardized version of the scene from Oliver… “Please sir, can I have some more?” becoming “HE/SHE IS THE GREATEST CANDIDATE EVER AND GODDAMIT YOU’RE GOING TO AGREE WITH ME OR ELSE I’M GOING TO BURN THIS WHOLE FUCKING THING TO THE GROUND!”
that’s why you dont get to be an Avenger, AAA.
For the record, I don’t think Bernie would make a good president. I have no doubt that she can do the job at least as well as Obama has. But I don’t want another 4-8 years of supply-side economics stifling the country’s economy, which is likely what we’ll get.
If, on the other hand, her husband drops dead tomorrow, my support for her would likely go up.
Do you remember the next line after “Indians Vow to Endeavor to Persevere”?
“We thought about it for a long time, “Endeavor to persevere.” And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union.”
@pandora: Did any of your kids marry for money? That’s why I say she’s likely shit herself. Apples and trees.
@Ben: Thank the Lord for that. I hate spandex.
I’m so over this misogynistic BS, AAA. Nice to know you tie women to who they marry. I’m sure your kids married homeless people, right?
Here’s what I don’t get about your views of people like me who won’t support Hillary: What difference does it make? Do you really think Trump or Cruz would a general election against a centrist?
I don’t think she’ll even have to campaign — and given her problems with it, that’s a good thing. It won’t be a 45-state sweep, because The South, but I don’t think it’s going to be close, except for the voting suppression. That, not agreement among the masses, is what Democrats should be worried about: How do you convince people to stand in line for 4 hours to vote?
I won’t donate to Hillary, but if someone starts a fund to buy pizzas for all those people standing in lines in cities in red states, I’ll donate.
AAA…. do you think the Clintons are the Underwoods?
@pandora: How sexist of you. I hold both men and women responsible for who they marry.
In my case, none of them married someone from Wall Street, and I’d disown them if they did.
Why don’t you, just once, address the main point: Is 25 years a reasonable time to wait for an incremental change in health care? You are the one who cited this as evidence of the value of incrementalism. Please explain.
@Ben: I’ve never watched. But I have no doubt who the inspiration was.
Sigh. When Howard Dean had his moment in the sun there were people that stepped into the fray. Some of them stuck around and started blogs (DL is one), joined committees, started progressive clubs, etc. Today, there are a bunch of Deaniacs and other progressives that have roles in the Delaware Democratic party. Some are elected officials.
If Bernie Sanders makes you want to make the Democratic party more like him, you need only give one evening a month to a local committee or club. There are whole RD committees that are progressives. Some day, they might be looking for someone to run for an office, and you might be the best person for the job. In the meantime, you can chat with candidates and ask them hard questions about the economy, Social Security, criminal justice reform, whatever.
Here’s where to start:
http://www.deldems.org/about/local-party
If the only people that show up to build the party are ConservaDems, the party won’t change.
I WANT Sanders people to show up, be involved, run for office, make some noise. THAT’s how you move the needle.
^^^^THIS ALL DAY.
You can take over a good deal of the local Democratic Party by just going to your District meeting once a month — and getting people who think like you to do the same.
Bravo, LG! This is how it’s done.
Did anyone hear this GOP delegate this AM?
His claim is that once the convention convenes, that the delegates are not bound to vote for any particular candidate. I expect that his interpretation of the rules is an outlier, but it does highlight the need to be pretty fluent in the rules. Whether he is right or wrong, this guy has presented a pretty compelling case for people who might need a compelling case to get to where they want to be.
Judge tells families of Sandy Hook shooting victims that their lawsuit against gun manufacturers can continue in spite of the Federal law.
“Do you remember the next line after “Indians Vow to Endeavor to Persevere”?”d
LOL. I deliberately omitted that line because, well I think for progressives a war would be just another movement. Besides the Indians lost and I wasn’t trying to be a defeatist.
I’d marry a homeless woman if she was hot
@mouse: Why should she have to settle? [said in jest]