The NYT accepts reality – Bernie is for real, Clinton is on the wrong side of history
It may well be weeks or months before the corporate media and the high Dems around here accept reality, but cracks are beginning to show through, and “delegate math” incantations grow increasingly hollow.
Senator Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday, his sixth straight victory in the Democratic nominating contest and the latest in a string of setbacks for Mrs. Clinton as she seeks to put an end to a prolonged race against an unexpectedly deft and well-funded competitor.
I’m not a zealous anti-Clinton person, but it is getting increasingly difficult for her supporters to deny that she had had her hand on all of the shady shit that has made life increasingly miserable for the American working class.
Iraq War – She voted for it.
Free trade that shifts American manufacturing to Mexico and beyond – Bill Clinton’s signature accomplishment.
Deregulation of the financial Industry – She was (is?) all for it.
…the (Wisconsin) loss underscores her problems connecting with young and white working-class voters who have gravitated to Mr. Sanders’s economic message — a message he will now take to economically depressed parts of New York State ahead of the April 19 primary there.
I initially said that it seems like she is running for President in 1988 somewhat flippantly, but I’m more and more convinced that I tripped over the truth. Unless Clinton gets a handle on the issues that are important to people today, I don’t see her being the nominee. 
Jason, explain the math of how it happens, please. How is she not going to be the nominee. Like your candidate, you seem to enjoy making bold proclamations without actually thinking through how it will happen. Does Bernie win 70% in New York, PA, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey and California? Do all remaining superdelegates, who have been attacked for years by Bernie, suddenly decide to support him?
How does it happen?
Add to your list: Does big favor for big banks and wealthy investors looking for tax havens, gets big $$’s in return. I’m gonna steal this directly from Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/5/1510760/-Panama-Papers-Hillary-connection-to-Deutche-Bank
So, Clinton and Obama lobby for a Bush-initiated treaty that will help create tax havens in Panama and elsewhere DESPITE warnings that it will enable wealthy investors to hide their money. The big banks push for the treaty.
Deutsche Bank is one of the key lobbyists and beneficiaries of this treaty. Deutsche Bank becomes one of the financial institutions flagged in the Panama Papers.
Upon leaving the SOS position, Hillary Clinton gets $485,000 in ‘speaking’ fees from Deutsche Bank.
I don’t really give a shit if there was a quid pro quo or not. This practically defines why I can’t trust Hillary Clinton when she spouts quasi-populist rhetoric. She’s proven time and time again that she doesn’t believe it. She’s bought and paid for by the Deutsche Banks of this world.
Iraq War – She voted for it.
Fair point
Free trade that shifts American manufacturing to Mexico and beyond – Bill Clinton’s signature accomplishment.
How is this her doing? Are wives responsible for their husband’s actions. If she said vote for me because my husband gave us a great economy would we say a husband’s successes are his wife’s successes?
Deregulation of the financial Industry – She was (is?) all for it.
That’s not true.
Let’s stick with the facts.
“Jason, explain the math of how it happens”
I’ll let Mr Kissinger explain:
“A conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerilla army wins if it does not lose.”
Clinton is the conventional army.
@Pandora – I stand corrected.
When is Hillary going to start triangulating with the left? I’m totally willing to be co-opted. In fact I am kind of yearning for it. Bernie isn’t exactly the perfect vehicle for his own policies.
Hear, hear. Co-opt the fuck out of me. I’m ready.
But.. she can’t do it because, like I said, she is running in 1988, and thinks she has to “tack to the middle” in the general – which is pure bullshit.
I think Hillary has already gone as far to the left as her donors are comfortable with.
@pandora on free trade: “How is this her doing? Are wives responsible for their husband’s actions.”
Of course not. Pointing out Bill’s role is not a great talking point for today. It is far more useful to contrast the candidates’ current positions: Bernie has pledged to renegotiate NAFTA. What is Hillary’s position on NAFTA?
I, all of a sudden, has a flash back to high school geometry. I was considering an equilateral triangle with the points labeled DG, Puck and Jason. I’m game. Let the pandering happening.
(N.B.: the charisma and slickness of the husband is not necessarily the political strength of the wife.)
Those who forget history…… Bernie, meet George McGovern. I may be an old hippie musician but I remain a pragmatist, not a dreamer. No Bernie Bot, no pundit and no poll has convinced me Bernie can win, love him though I do. At this point it’s give me victory or give me death, there can be no second place.
Why do you think Bernie would lose to Cruz or Trump? Because of the socialist boogie man?
That is certainly a possibility. Bernie has been handled gently so far by Hillary because she doesn’t want to lose his supporters and Republicans have focused their attacks on Hillary so far because she is probably going to be the nominee. Bernie’s favorables are high because he hasn’t been smeared too much yet.
George McGovern..? Why not site the 1853 election of Franklin Pierce ?
The McGovern false equivalence and the “he hasn’t been attacked yet” pseudo argument in quick succession. That’s how I like it, dumb and fast. Hooray!
Hillary’s latest worry troll false meme?
She ‘isn’t sure Sanders is a true Democrat’.:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-not-sure-democrat
Meaning, I suppose, that he won’t accept money from Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank like true Democrats like Hillary do.
She also says that she’s sorry about all the young people who have been duped into voting for him instead of her. Because, you know, they can’t think for themselves.
Well, she’s a little less off-putting than Dennis Williams, and he got elected, so…
“Meaning, I suppose, that he won’t accept money from Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank like true Democrats like Hillary do.”
If Bernie should win he better damn well accept that money. He cannot fight with one hand tied behind his back – and I doubt he will. He’s not stupid and his supporters will have to embrace it.
“If Bernie should win he better damn well accept that money. He cannot fight with one hand tied behind his back – and I doubt he will. He’s not stupid and his supporters will have to embrace it.”
Agreed. Now we just have to convince Goldman Sachs to send the money.
“If Bernie should win he better damn well accept that money.”
I think I have identified your problem — you think exactly like a DNC Democrat. “Oh, dear, we can’t win unless we have as much money as they do, so we have to get it from the same places they do.”
That one little calculation gets you today’s Democratic Party. And your lack of understanding that that little calculation makes the entire party moot is why you support Clinton.
The money is losing importance. Ads have not moved the needle this cycle, possibly because nobody watches ads anymore.
“Why do you think Bernie would lose to Cruz or Trump? Because of the socialist boogie man?”
No. Because Don Quixote promised to raise taxes on the middle class, unless you think the GOP will not make a point of that.
And of course, the NY Daily News interview which should have demonstrated to all but the most ardent Sancho Panzas, that he really is an empty suit of armor.
Thank you for defining me and ignoring what the Republicans and their SuperPacs have headed our way. The idea that money shouldn’t be in, or influence, politics is great. The idea that money isn’t in politics, or influences it, is naive.
We don’t have to like the system, but denying it exists isn’t smart.
And HIllary is a suit of armor full of horseshit. So there’s that.
Still waiting for a list of accomplishments that includes any, y’know, accomplishments. Besides enriching herself, of course.
Pretty funny, isn’t it, that all these non-Democratic Democrats get rich in public service. Tom Carper, Joe Biden, the Clintons — all came from no money and now have plenty of it, despite never having had private-sector jobs (except for HIllary, of course, who finally found a state in which she could pass the bar when she moved to Arkansas. And who wouldn’t make a partner of the wife of the governor?)
When Bill Clinton was running, it was pointed out to me how much money he accepted from Wall Street and large corporations. I shrugged it off for exactly the reasons Pandora cites. I was just so eager to finally have a successful Democrat, I didn’t care where the money came from. Kind of an “ends justify the means” philosophy.
Then Wall Street and large corporations crashed the economy, and got themselves richer at our expense, and we learned a lot more about how they did that. And they will do it again in a New York minute, given the chance. It turns out that when you accept their money, you owe them.
You’re welcome. Just because you can’t see what you are doesn’t make you something different.
Denying that the system has changed isn’t smart. You continually fight past battles. Ads don’t work anymore.
We all deny ads work on us, but y’all believe in their power. Your self-delusion is showing.
We arent going to get money out of politics until politicians stop accepting it. Someone is going to have to be brave.
There is is wishful thinking and denial on both sides. Clinton people wish Sanders was more practical and winner-y, but deny that he is winning. Sanders people wish Clinton was less the candidate of 1988, but deny that she has an actual constituency outside of Wall Street board rooms.
I listed a lengthy list of Hillary’s accomplishments several weeks ago and you, AAA, said they didn’t count because she didn’t do them by herself. Above I linked to Politifact rating her statement (Clinton said she “called for addressing risks of derivatives, cracking down on subprime mortgages and improving financial oversight” early on in the financial crisis.) as true.
Many of you claim to want serious policy discussions. I rate that as pants on fire false. It’s one of my biggest issues with Sanders. He’s got a great message. He’s good at giving a history lesson, but when it comes to the “how” he whiffs out.
And we can have a discussion on money… as soon as Bernie releases his tax returns. 🙂 Fair game, no?
“He’s got a great message. He’s good at giving a history lesson, but when it comes to the “how” he whiffs out.”
I agree. Sanders failed to give a wonkishly convincing explanation of how exactly he would break up the big banks. I’m sure Hillary’s explanation of how she would break up the big banks will be much better. Now if we can just get someone to ask her the question…
Yeah, that Politifact account noted that nothing came of her warnings — so, no accomplishment there.
Actually, I recall saying she didn’t do anything but FIGHT FOR the things you cited. Fighting for something is not an accomplishment.
She seems so competent and corporate-boardroom-ready that nobody ever notices how often she’s wrong. I think she has a good chance of becoming the next Herbert Hoover.
Sanders also isn’t raising money for Democratic Senate and Congressional candidates, while Clinton is. His revolution will not take hold without Congress passing actual legislation. Clinton’s “big money” is being shared….I thought Bernie wanted to share the wealth?
Look, I’m not a hard line Clinton supporter…she is far from perfect and I still might throw my vote Bernie’s way, but his recent interview scares me. And if you think Republican attacks don’t work, you’re living in a dream world. You think Donald self-imploded in Wisconsin? Or was he torpedoed by a machine that is good at torpedoing?
Hillary may be full of mud, but she’s covered in it from 25 years of harassment and knows how to duck and throw it back. I’m not sure Sanders does.
Just a couple of things needing to be thrown in the fire here…
As to money, Bernie has out-raised Hillary the past 3 month in a row… (Deldem and Pandora, being a little stingy are you?)…. 🙂
As to momentum, it is becoming apparent that Hillary’s has the weaker team in the field, who is riding on a lucky turnover (the South) early in the game.
As to the future: people aren’t voting for Bernie the man, they are voting his way for a vision of an America that can be, if and only if, the American People act to achieve it… I still have no idea of what Hillary would do any differently to make America a better place for me…
That last sentence pretty well describes Hillary’s dilemma today.
But as one picks up from Deldem’s tone , Hillary must now play defensively. Bernie must continue to play offensively. We’ve reached the equivalent of a siege mentality where ground gained in the future will be measured in yards and we will have a close finish keeping us all in our seats until the final buzzer… Hopefully we don’t go into overtime.
“As to the future: people aren’t voting for Bernie the man, they are voting his way for a vision of an America that can be, if and only if, the American People act to achieve it”
Yeah, having trouble seeing that happen. We aren’t good at going the distance. We do it all the time. Mass shooting = outrage = forget about it until the next shooting. Super delegates are unfair = outrage/change the system = do nothing and forget about them until the next election – and have the same damn argument. We LOVE vision. We hate doing the work. Just sayin’
Bernie will win in Wyoming, but if Hillary wins NY and PA its pretty much over. The math isn’t there, nor are the poll numbers, for a California Bernie miracle. At this point, an indictment before the convention his best hope, and it isn’t going to happen.
Interesting examples you chose.
On guns: What do you propose we do? Back in the day we used to pass bans on various weapons, and the killings continued. That’s why we no longer bother. So the problem isn’t so much the lack of will to act, it’s the lack of actions (short of radical ones that would have the 2nd Amendment crowd in the streets) that would have any effect.
On super-delegates, which isn’t exactly in the same class as problems go, they are working precisely as designed. I don’t see a problem, unless you want to pretend that small-d democracy is somehow revered in the Democratic Party. A glance at Delaware’s Democratic Party should disabuse all of the notion that the party is named after the small-d principle.
“We LOVE vision. We hate doing the work. Just sayin’”
America likes candidates with vision. Republicans won on vision in 1980, and they have retained control over America’s direction and politics ever since. They called it a revolution too. When you have the vision, you get people to do the work to accomplish it. If anything, Bernie isn’t hitting his version of the Morning in America vision hard enough. Hillary isn’t hitting it at all.
It would be interesting to know what people here are working on right now.
Let me say, I find it interesting how vision and big, country changing ideas are possible, but when it comes to guns… nah, it won’t work. Suddenly everyone’s a pragmatist.
OK, it’s one thing to say about Bernie “Guns!… gotcha.”
But what does Hillary propose to do about gun violence, that Bernie wouldn’t also do? I’m asking – I haven’t researched it yet.
I figure it all comes down to the Supreme Court, and otherwise presidential actions on guns are just posturing. Just ask Obama.
Much comes down to the courts…that why winning has to be the priority. No Bernie or Bust, not Hillary or Bust…just “not those Republican assholes.”
Here’s a link to her platform on guns from her issues page.
I’d link to Bernie’s platform on guns but he doesn’t seem to have one on his issue page.
So, I guess the answer to your question “what does Hillary propose to do about gun violence, that Bernie wouldn’t also do?” might be… actually consider it an issue?
That’s gotta be a mic drop!
You are witnessing this “vetting” of which you speak. The test is in how Sanders responds. I expect Sanders will have a better answer on guns and breaking up the banks by the next debate.
“But as one picks up from Deldem’s tone, Hillary must now play defensively.”
…not buying it. She can more or less just ignore Sanders. There’s no need to fight a battle you’ve already won.
“I expect Sanders will have a better answer on …breaking up the banks by the next debate.”
Yeah but since that is pretty damn central to his ideology, don’t you think he should have had some glimmer of an idea about how, by now? I mean, something, anything? Doesn’t that trouble you that he has nothing? Come on, reach your hand into the grab bag of his policies. What are you pulling out? And that doesn’t trouble you in the least?
On plans to break up the big banks, I still give Bernie the edge over Hillary.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/5/1510862/-Delusion-sets-in-at-Camp-Sanders
plan noun
1. a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.
I’m a project manager. I know plans when I see them.
As a project manager you know no plan will succeed without management buy-in. Hillary doesn’t want to break up the banks, so she will never even have a plan.
“Break up the banks” is a meaningless chant. As noted earlier, Sanders has said nothing [and likely knows noting about] the far more nefarious world of shadow banks.
Meanwhile, good criticisms of Hillary’s campaign here:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/clinton-needs-sanders
What John said about “meaningless chant”
Even so, you are right she doesn’t and won’t have a plan and that’s what I want I like because I am only interested in policies and plans that are executable.
When someone says I am going to close the carried interest loophole, I can easily envision a piece of legislation addresses carried interest, which will pass because it is patently unfair for them to pay almost nothing. A GOP Congress can be bullied ito passing. Does it break up the banks? No, but it a needed changed that address in a small way income inequality.
I’ll take that any day of the week because it’s doable. I recognize that we are far apart philosophically because my cognitive heuristic is to seek satisficing solutions instead of reaching for the stars. I appreciate visionaries, but the all or nothing approach often results in nothing.
“I recognize that we are far apart philosophically because my cognitive heuristic is to seek satisficing solutions instead of reaching for the stars.”
*golf clap*
I liked that sentence.
Fair points, Dave.
Meanwhile, Kevin Drum beats the skins:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/quiz-day-match-questions-bernies-answers
“I find it interesting how vision and big, country changing ideas are possible, but when it comes to guns… nah, it won’t work. Suddenly everyone’s a pragmatist.”
I guess I just have a better memory for how many of the gun control laws on the books were going to change everything. More of what doesn’t work will — I’m just guessing — not work. But I gave up on gun control long ago. Unless you ban them, the mayhem will continue, because humans.
What’s odd here is that Hillary winning the nomination isn’t enough for you — you have to convince someone that Hillary is too progressive, nyah! I think the person you’re trying to convince is you.
You’re such a charmer.
“Break up the banks” is a meaningless chant. ”
More meaningless than “getting things done?”
“According to the British website, PoliticalCompass.org, which measures political ideology on a multi-axis model, based on social and economic beliefs, Sanders is the true moderate of the 2016 primaries, while Clinton is a both economically and socially on the center-right, and Republican candidates are on the far right. Sanders’ “economics are Keynesian or Galbraithian,” explains the website, “in common with mainstream parties of the left in the rest of the west — the Labour or Social Democrat parties.”
Sorry for bringing this up so late, but I was at work.
Pandora quoted me and wrote:
“Me: Meaning, I suppose, that he won’t accept money from Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank like true Democrats like Hillary do.”
Pandora: If Bernie should win he better damn well accept that money. He cannot fight with one hand tied behind his back – and I doubt he will. He’s not stupid and his supporters will have to embrace it.”
No, he and his supporters won’t have to embrace it. Sanders outraised Clinton by some $15 mill in March w/o kissing up to the institutional gravy train. Meanwhile, Clinton was off the campaign trail for several days at fundraisers with the corporate fat cats b/c it’s the only way she can fund her campaign. She HAS to leave the campaign trail to do fundraising, Sanders doesn’t.
Sanders will be able to raise enough money through his grassroots supporters all the way through to November, if he gets the nomination. He’s living off the land. Hillary will be taking yet many more days off the campaign trail to troll for $$’s.
Bernie can raise money from tens of millions of smaller donors. He does it every month, and it only gets better as he wins more and more contests. Hillary can ONLY raise the kind of money she needs from the types of corporations who will expect favors in return.
It’s one of the most attractive aspects of Bernie’s campaign. He doesn’t owe these predators anything.
I seem to remember when Bill was elected it was a two for one package. A co President. As Bills main advisor she gets tied to his accomplishments and failures
Yay aaanonymous! We are a very right nation and I think we’d better wake up before it’s too late.
Deep Throat, “Follow the money.”