Robert Reich: How to like Clinton, for liberals who don’t
The esteemed Professor Robert Reich via Facebook:
“Last week I suggested Bernie supporters do three things: (1) fight like hell for Bernie until he either gets or loses the nomination, (2) if Hillary gets the nomination, fight like hell for her, and (3) regardless of who wins the nomination or the election, continue to build a powerful progressive movement.
Several of you disagree with (1), saying Bernie has no chance, and his continuing candidacy is just hurting Hillary, so he should bow out of the race. I’ll get back to this point in a subsequent post.
Here I want to address those of you who disagree with (2). As I understand your arguments, they fall into four categories:
1. Some of you say that by refusing to fight for Hillary (if she gets the nomination) you’ll show the political establishment you want the changes Bernie has been advocating. The problem with this logic is the “political establishment” is nothing but a bunch of people in comfortable and often privileged positions who will continue doing what they’re doing because they like the status quo, and won’t even be aware you’re not fighting for Hillary – unless, that is, Hillary loses to Trump. Which leads to the next argument.
2. Some of you say there’s no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The problem with this logic is it’s wrong. Regardless of what you may think of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump is a true menace to this nation and to the world. He’s a narcissistic, xenophobic, hatemonger who, if elected, would legitimize bigotry, appoint Supreme Court justices with terrible values, and have his finger on the nuclear bomb. Need I say more? Which brings us to the third argument.
3. Some of you say a Trump presidency would be so horrible it would galvanize a forceful progressive movement in response. The problem with this argument is twofold. First, Trump could do huge and unalterable damage to America and the world in the meantime. Second, rarely if ever in history has a sharp swing to the right moved the political pendulum further back in the opposite direction. Instead, it tends to move the “center” rightward, as did Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
4. Finally, some of you say that even if Hillary is better than Trump, you’re tired of choosing the “lesser of two evils,” and you’re going to vote your conscience by either writing Bernie’s name in, or voting for the Green Party candidate, or not voting at all. I can’t criticize you for voting your conscience, of course. But your conscience should know that a decision not to vote for Hillary is a de facto decision to help Donald Trump.”
Nice, but he really does miss the best argument:
If Hillary beats Trump 10 points or more then the Dems will also win the house and the senate.
If Hillary lose to Trump, the Dems will win neither the house nor the senate.
These are inextricably coupled. You cannot wish for one without wishing for the other. How much Hillary wins by matters, and it matters a lot.
And so advice step #1(fight like hell for Bernie until he either gets or loses the nomination) may be a serious mistake. Bernie’s antics are no longer helpful.
Frankly, I think Bernie is playing with fire with the down ballot candidates.
Go fuck yourself.
You don’t believe that Bernie is screwing the down ballot candidates?
I’ll post some stuff up supporting this, if you’d like.
Have a field day, but also go fuck yourself.
Here you go.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/coattails-and-correlation-examining-the-relationship-between-presidential-and-senate-results/
If you don’t want to bother reading it, it says that the correlation (aka coattails) have been increasing recently.
And therefore, the more success a presidential candidate has, the more success the same party has in the house and the senate races.
And so if Bernie keeps screwing around, the down ballot candidates are going to pay the price… (as well as the rest of us).
This is separate from whether Hillary actually wins or loses. It says that it how she wins (or loses) matters a lot.
Clapping for the misguided portions of Hillary’s agenda won’t help create a landslide.
Jason, you are acting like me now with the whole “Go Fuck Yourself.” LOL.
@p “Clapping for the misguided portions of Hillary’s agenda won’t help create a landslide.”
No, but fixing her approval rating just might.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2016/05/24/why-isnt-hillary-clinton-fun-and-trustworthy/
I don’t give a flying f**k what Hillary does for fun. I’m pretty confident my response to Hillary is based on policies, not on emotions/identity/affinity. I am dreading the onslaught of feel-good fuzzy ads showing the warm and compassionate side of Hillary.
“No, but fixing her approval rating just might.”
Pretty hilarious. Now I’m responsible for Clinton’s approval rating.
@J “Now I’m responsible for Clinton’s approval rating.”
Perhaps not, but there’s a great argument that Sanders is responsible…
@p “I’m pretty confident my response to Hillary is based on policies”
Then you should look at the whole big picture and not at just one candidate. Focusing on a small part leads to unintended consequences.
Oh great… Now Sanders is going to debate Trump.
Isn’t that just wonderful… more down ballot screwing.
I fully intend to ignore any and all presidential ads, including the shaking of hands and the kissing of babies.
I am never going to like Clinton and she is never going to like me. Our relationship is based simply on need.
Thus, I will vote for her (and GOTV elsewhere since my vote in DE doesn’t matter). She will graciously accept my support and as a reward fill my mailbox with recyclable material. I don’t even expect an invitation to the inauguration. All I expect is for her to do her job once she is in office.
Reich seems to think that liking Clinton is necessary or even essential. That’s probably because he believes that the electorate makes decisions based on passion. I hope he isn’t right. I am afraid he is though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-debate.html?_r=0
If it happens, Trump will have his ass handed to him.
Trump already backtracked. LOL. He says something flippantly on Kimmel. Sanders accepts. Trump backs out. Bernie did a good job there making Trump look like a fool.
BUT, if the debate actually happened on Fox News, it would either be a complete disaster for us or a good thing for us, I can’t decide. Disaster if Bernie joins forces with Trump to criticize Hillary. Good thing if Bernie defends Hillary against Trump. I can’t decide because I don’t trust Bernie right now.
@LE: There you go into the deep end again. Correlation is not causation, no matter how much wanking political scientists and journalists pretend it is.
People create a landslide election because they like the candidate. Pretending to like the candidate won’t work.
What kind of fucked-up person pretends to like someone out of a sense of obligation to “the big picture”? I’ll tell you: The kind of person who demands people become followers.
You want to know how to create followers? Lead. Hillary has never done it in her life, and it’s kind of late to learn how now, and guess what — she hasn’t and won’t.
Just because I wouldn’t follow her to the Wawa doesn’t mean I’m voting for Trump or want Trump to win.
Don’t. Piss. Down. My. Back. And. Tell. Me. It’s. Raining.
These down-ballot Democrats — would they include the Delaware Congressional delegation? Because I wouldn’t piss on any of them if they were on fire.
Do you really think a majority-Democratic Senate would toe the line on Clinton’s agenda, whatever it turns out to be? Do you think Joe Manchin will be on board with it? Heidi Heitkamp? Any of the blue Senators from red states? No, it will be the usual situation, a couple of blue dog types using their swing votes to force concessions.
Hillary will win this election, but sunshine and balloons will not follow. If I’m going to fight, it’s going to be to build support for liberal/progressive policies, NOT to elect people because they’re wearing the correct team colors.
@a “Correlation is not causation, no matter how much wanking political scientists and journalists pretend it is.”
Only if you refuse to consider other data (or if you are too stupid to realize that there is more data).
It’s well known that the presidential race drives turnout. THAT is the race that usually brings voters to the polls. And you can see it by contrasting those with mid-term elections turnout. And that really is cause and effect since only one variable is dependent.
I’ve never heard anyone advocate 2. No doubt some have and they have fundamental problems processing reality. Your analysis of 3 is spot on in my view. I’d quibble a bit with 4 for I think that a case can be made for a safe state voting strategy. There is no virtue in giving a candidate the illusion of an enthusiastic mandate that they don’t in fact possess. How would you convey to the new President that their proposed policies are not up to snuff? I don’t understand how 1 gives a person incentive to actively fight for a candidate over a sustained period of time on the grounds that your inactivity would just be ignored anyhow. Maybe the solution then is to do something else with your time that you believe in like volunteer at a local homeless shelter.
For the record, and for what must be the 1000th time, many (including yours truly) have no particular issue with HRC. She could be the most affable, charismatic person who has ever spoken a word. She could have interesting hobbies and be a good listener. Irrelevant. The problem is the history and the policy…
As Taibbi wrote yesterday
“I spent most of the last eight years poring through disgusting stories like this, reporting on the dreary question of what caused the 2008 crash. All of that work was done before Hillary Clinton announced she would run for president. This isn’t about Hillary Clinton for me. It’s about the continuing influence of these companies.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/hillary-clintons-new-anti-trump-ad-misses-the-mark-20160525?page=3
You all are making it far too complicated. Perhaps that’s why you’re so confused.
@LE: f Hillary beats Trump 10 points or more then the Dems will also win the house and the senate.
If Hillary lose to Trump, the Dems will win neither the house nor the senate.
These are inextricably coupled.”
Proof they are inextricably coupled? You offer only bald assertions. Moreover, you simply assume that a big win for Hillary would necessarily mean enthusiasm for Hillary and other Democrats. It could just mean extreme revulsion of Trump.
@LE: If that’s the basis of your argument, you’ll have to explain why the greater turnout will vote for the Democrat only if all those who vote Democrat say they like or love the person at the top of the ticket.
You still haven’t shown causality, only correlation.
The simplest explanation is the one we’ve used for many years now — most people are only interested in the presidential race. You’ll have to work much harder to show that a weak top-of-the-ticket candidate leads to more down-ballot losses.
The biggest flaw in your argument: 2012. Obama won by a similar margin to his 2008 victory, but there were far fewer down-ballot gains because of the 2010 wipeout (thanks, Debbie!) and the resulting pro-GOP gerrymandering. If your theory were correct, Romney’s weakness should have doomed down-ballot GOP candidates. It did not.
The only hope for a wave here is a massive rejection of Trump. A massive embrace of Hillary is not going to happen unless she switches from playing defense to playing offense.
Hillary is going to jail.
@a “You’ll have to work much harder to show that a weak top-of-the-ticket candidate leads to more down-ballot losses.”
This is the well know ‘coattail’ effect. Here’s a place to start for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coattail_effect
There’s a whole lot more on this should you decide to educate yourself. The conventional wisdom is that Hillary’s level of success is HIGHLY correlated with the total number of excess Democratic votes in congress… and that the party will win or lose as a whole.
@DG “Moreover, you simply assume that a big win for Hillary would necessarily mean enthusiasm for Hillary and other Democrats. It could just mean extreme revulsion of Trump.”
No such assumption. I’ll stand by the assertion that the party will win or lose as a whole
Oh. And the same holds true for the GOP. Why do you think that the GOP party elite went nuts?? Fear of Trump of fear of down ballot loses???
.
You condescending asshat. Your conventional wisdom isn’t backed up by anything other than its status as conventional wisdom. That’s not causality. Show me. Use statistics. Do you know how?
Even your understanding of the conventional wisdom is flawed. Popular candidates attract more voters. You can’t fake it by pretending people like a candidate that they don’t. Jesus H. Christ on a hanging chad, you don’t know a fucking thing.
“I’ll stand by the assertion that the party will win or lose as a whole”
And forcing people to say nice things about Hillary will really move the needle in your opinion? Prove it.
You should just stop embarrassing yourself. Your ignorance shows more with every comment you make. You make assertions and apparently don’t even understand how to back them up, let alone actually doing the work of backing them up.
More votes for Hillary in Delaware does nothing to change Congress. Nothing.
There is a lot real estate down ballot. In a lot of other states, a big Democratic turnout could help a lot at the state and local level.
The registration advantage Dems enjoy didn’t help Mayrack or Barney. If the main event doesn’t draw, there is no progress.
@a “You condescending asshat.”
…rather lame vitriol.
This is politics 101. It’s as basic as it gets. It’s all about turnout. That’s it…
Q: What will drive the voters to the polls in large numbers?
A: Support for a candidate in one or more races
Q: Which race brings out the most voters?
A: The Presidential race.
Sure… I could go lookup a few dozen websites supporting these answers, but let me turn this around on you. In what political universe are these not true?
Where in hell did you get your crazy political ideas?
“You should just stop embarrassing yourself.”
…
“Q: What will drive the voters to the polls in large numbers?
A: Support for a candidate in one or more races”
Yes, I know that. Now explain why those of us who are unenthusiastic about Hillary are ruining the turnout. Show me any evidence anywhere that people who are holding their noses to vote for Clinton are doing less than those who are. Nothing in your conventional wisdom makes that case.
You are just making circular arguments. The more people vote, the better the Democrats will do (only true if those people vote for Democrats). Why will more people vote? Because they like the candidate. Therefore, we must like the candidate. If that’s not what you’re saying, you’re not making yourself clear.
You have not demonstrated causality. There is no other way for me to explain this. You are saying that we must be enthusiastic so that turnout will be high.
That makes no sense.
I’m not talking about politics 101. This is graduate school, sport. Either demonstrate the truth of your assertion — and as I understand it, that assertion is that we must be enthusiastic to boost turnout — or stick the bullshit back in the bull.
You just don’t get approval ratings, perhaps. Here’s how it works: You do things people approve of, and your approval rating goes up. If you want her approval rating to go up, get her to do things people to her left approve of. Otherwise, tough shit.
You won’t lift her approval ratings by hectoring people that they must like her. That tone is what many people dislike about her in the first place, and, like Bernie backers who piss you off, all you HIllary asshats piss us off.
The first thing I told you was to use statistics, not to provide links to a bunch of sources that will make the same unsupported assertions you keep making.
I even gave you a counter-example — the GOP did just fine in 2012 Congressional races with no coattails at all. If you prefer to look at it from the other side, Obama’s coattails were very short. Address that.
“The first thing I told you was to use statistics, not to provide links to a bunch of sources that will make the same unsupported assertions you keep making.”
Establishment shills don’t have to provide cogent arguments and evidence. They are only about mouthing the party line. Repetition has long replaced cognition.
@a “I even gave you a counter-example — the GOP did just fine in 2012 Congressional races with no coattails at all.”
Fail. Look at the total of number of congressional votes in 2012. The vote totals matched Obama’s winning percentage quite closely. This is actually an argument supporting my assertion. It’s quite clear that if Obama had won by 2 or 3 more percentage points, we would have won the house.
The fact that the GOP has been successful at gerrymandering does not make my assertion wrong.
It’s all about turnout.
“”Here’s how it works: You do things people approve of, and your approval rating goes up.”
So naive…
“…and as I understand it, that assertion is that we must be enthusiastic to boost turnout…”
Actually, I was just hoping for the arrows aimed at her back to stop flying from the left… (and I pretty much blame Sanders).
Reread this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/opinion/why-is-clinton-disliked.html
Again, you have mistaken a correlate with a cause. The way to increase turnout is to give people a candidate they have a reason to vote for. Hillary has chosen her reason — women have gotten screwed throughout history. This reason leaves many people cold. You’re going to have to come up with something else if you want higher approval ratings, which will lead to higher turnout.
The vote total, you will note, did NOT increase Democratic representation in Congress to any appreciable degree. When urban districts around the country vote 95+% Democratic, more representatives are not elected.
The only places this will matter is in districts close enough for turnout to swing the winner, which rules out all but a handful of House seats, which is why most analyses I have read say the Democrats must win by at least 7 points to have any chance of tilting the House.
In the Senate, it’s all about a few states with vulnerable incumbents; what happens elsewhere doesn’t matter. So turnout could increase across the country (highly doubtful, given the huge negatives for both candidates) but unless lots of people overcome their disenfranchisement by voter ID law in places like North Carolina and Wisconsin,
You can call me naive all you want; it has as much impact as Trump’s constant use of the word “sad” in tweets. You can blame Sanders all you want; I don’t even listen to the guy, and neither do most of the people making these points about Hillary. You want to place the blame for the weakness of your candidate on everything but her weakness. This is what is annoying the Bernie backers.
It’s not just you, and it’s not just here. The comment section of every liberal web site I visit hosts dozens of people like you — people who blame Hillary’s problems on Bernie; people who insist that, despite our constant harping on HIllary’s positions on issues, we actually dislike her because we’re misogynists; that, though we say we like Elizabeth Warren, we are only saying that because she’s not running. Seriously, I see this shit-for-brains commentary EVERY SINGLE DAY, and not just here.
As I said, the only hope for a wave election (7 point victory) — unless Hillary goes left, which she won’t — is if Trump disgusts enough voters to goose the anti-Trump turnout. Even then, the voter ID laws will affect the totals. Studies have shown drops in turnout of up to 12% for Hispanics in states with photo ID laws.
If you want to be useful, figure out how many votes will be suppressed in key states. Those are the places to work on increasing turnout, and it would be useful to know how many extra voters will be needed.
In sum, your “analysis” of voter turnout is too shallow to be called shallow. At this point, Hillary needs Bernie votes, and she will have to earn them. People like you not only think we owe her our allegiance, you’re willing to attack us — people you admittedly need — simply because we refuse to pretend she’s wonderful.
PS: I couldn’t care less why David Brooks thinks Hillary is unlikeable. I don’t like her because of her policies. Same with Dana. Same with Jason. Same with Dorian. Same with Ben.
But no, it must be misogyny. Because if it is, you don’t have to change anything, plus you get to act self-righteous in the bargain.
And, as usual, your dismissal of my example is as shallow as the rest of your “thinking.”
To go back to the origin of this thread, my objection, and the objection of (I think) all the people here who don’t care for Clinton, is the demand that I “fight hard” for her.
No. I will not give her a mandate, because I don’t agree with her. I’ll vote for her, and that’s it. I will not lie to other people to manipulate them into voting for her. That’s really what you’re asking us to do here — to fake enthusiasm so that other people, folks who otherwise would not vote, vote for Hillary instead.
In short, fuck you and everyone who thinks like you. If she wants to be liked, she should do things we like. You want us to like her without having to do the work of giving us a reason to like her.
Here’s a link to a useful voter-suppression study that I forgot to include in the last comment:
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf
“people who insist that, despite our constant harping on HIllary’s positions on issues, we actually dislike her because we’re misogynists;”
Yes, I get that a lot as well. And the dishonesty of it is actually deeper and, as it turns out, ironic. When I have asked the list of questions I also asked here if the supporters of Hillary actually preferred the policy proposals that happened to be advocated by Bernie and were rejected by Hillary, they have all without exception claimed that they personally preferred those positions advocated by Bernie. So why didn’t they support him? I’m sure that there can be a few reasons like the so-called “realism” factor on what’s legislatively actionable (although it turns out that’s a strategically weak position) and the tacit “go along to get along” with the party establishment calculation. But I suspect, although no one ever admits it, that quite a few people support Hillary primarily because she is a woman and a Democrat. And here’s the thing about that. Why don’t they simply say something like “Look, yes Hillary is a conservative on military matters and a moderate on economic matters and a liberal on social matters, but if the USA is ever going to shatter the glass ceiling that keeps women in their thrall, one of the things that needs to happen is that a woman needs to be elected President?” Why don’t they just come out and admit this because this argument has credibility. I agree with it. It’s not finally persuasive to me because I think, and have long thought, that best possible milestone for the American people that can be achieved in the short term is to move to a social democratic form of government. But why do I and others like me have to be saddled as misogynist by people who actually prefer Bernie’s proposals and who mostly support Hillary on the unquestionable truth that a woman President would be good for Americans, especially women, but who lack the integrity to admit that’s principally why they support her? For heaven’s sake, show some authenticity and let people like me agree with you that a case can be made for voting for Hillary for that reason even if, personally, it didn’t outweigh the unique possibility the Sanders campaign represented.
Whether you support her or not, we should recognize that Secretary Clinton is a flawed and vulnerable candidate. And that is the bigger issue. If the Dems lose it will be because we picked a candidate who seems to have an issue connecting with the 2016 electorate and who is open to attacks on too many fronts. This is not to say that Senator Sanders who be a better candidate vs Trump. However, this is Hillary Clinton’s race. If she fails to seize the opportunity and loses the Presidency’s it is on her and her campaign. No excuses.
To go back to the origin of this thread, my objection, and the objection of (I think) all the people here who don’t care for Clinton, is the demand that I “fight hard” for her.
No. I will not…
Agreed. She’ll get my vote, but I’ll never like her. I voted for her jackass husband twice, but somehow she comes across as LESS genuine that “3 dollar Bill” Clinton. WTF? How can she not best such a low bar?