Saturday Open Thread [4.16.16]
A new CBS News poll finds 63% of Donald Trump’s supporters say that if he earns more delegates than the other candidates but does not become the party nominee, then he should run as an independent or third party candidate. Among Republican primary voters overall, a third think in that case he should run independently.
Some food for thought:
A March 2008 Gallup poll shows that 28 percent of Clinton supporters say they would vote for John McCain over Obama, and 19 percent of Obama supporters say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. A 2016 Marist poll asks Sanders and Clinton supporters if they would vote for the other candidate in the general election. A New York Times/CBS poll from this year finds that 40 percent of Democrats think the tone of this primary has been more positive than previous primaries, and 48 percent think it’s about the same.
While our little “civil war” may seem nasty now, it is nothing compared to 2008. But in 2008, if my memory serves, we all supported Obama, I believe. At least all the front page contributors. The divide among contributors and commenters this time around may make our primary seem worse than 2008, more divided, but it is really not.
Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball says House races are moving towards the Dems: “This week we’re making 14 House rating changes, with all but one of them favoring the Democrats. This has been a common theme for us in recent weeks. Two weeks ago, we offered ratings of a potential Hillary Clinton-versus-Donald Trump presidential race, which tilted the competitive Electoral College states toward the Democrats. Last week, we moved six Senate races and two gubernatorial races toward the Democrats. This is mostly because of the increasingly likely odds of the GOP nominating Trump or Cruz for president.”
“However, these House changes do not represent a massive upgrade of Democratic odds for taking the House. Many of them simply take some already unlikely targets for Republicans off our list of competitive races, and they don’t change the overall House prospects all that much.”
First Read: “In last night’s ninth — and possibly final — Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders fired off the rhetorical weaponry that they had been accumulating over the last two months. And most of the shots sounded very familiar. (In fact, as a colleague remarked, it sounded a lot like a college-dorm-room argument between the campus socialist and the president of the student body,) Clinton knocked Sanders over that New York Daily News interview, his gun record, not raising money for Democrats, and for his inability (so far) to release his tax returns. Sanders countered by firing back at Clinton on judgment, Wall Street, for not being a consistent voice in raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and for her inability to release her Goldman Sachs speech transcript.”
“It was a status quo debate – which benefits the frontrunner (Hillary Clinton) who leads in the polling in New York and in the overall delegate race, especially with Sanders traveling to Rome and Clinton raising money in California over the next two days. By the way, the New York Times is reporting that the Pope will NOT meet with Sanders while he’s in Rome.”
Whoever told Bernie to go relentlessly angry and negative gave him very, very bad advice. He's come this far because of his inspiration.
— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) April 15, 2016
Delaware’s jobless rate continued to decline in March, to 4.4%, well below the national rate of 5%, according to the most recent data from the state department of labor.
Nate Silver has a few problems with Bernie Sanders’ desperately transparent argument that southern states and their African American voters don’t matter and/or are deeply conservative.
[T]his line of argument … seems to imply that Democratic voters in the Deep South don’t reflect the larger Democratic electorate. (The remarks Thursday night echo previous comments made by Sanders and his campaign.) Consider Sanders’s reference to the term “Deep South,” which traditionally describes Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina: These are five of the only six states, along with Maryland, where at least a quarter of the population is black. Given the United States’ history of disenfranchising black voters — not to mention the importance of black voters to Democrats in November — it’s dicey for Sanders to diminish Clinton’s wins there.
But the Deep South isn’t Sanders’s only issue. His problems in the rest of the South are what really dooms him. Clinton’s largest net delegate gains over Sanders came from Texas (+72) and Florida (+68), two states that are within the South as the Census Bureau (and most other people) define it. Clinton also cleaned Sanders’s clock in Virginia and North Carolina. Overall, Clinton gained a net of 155 delegates on Sanders in the five Deep South states, but she also added 211 delegates to her margin in the rest of the region.
In addition to being important to the Democratic Party’s electoral present and future, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Texas are quite diverse. They’re diverse ideologically — Miami and Austin aren’t exactly “the most conservative part” of the country — and they’re diverse racially. They contain not only a substantial number of African-Americans but also Hispanics and, increasingly, Asian-American voters.
In fact, these states are among the most demographically representative of the diverse Obama coalition that Clinton or Sanders will have to rely on in November.
Although it will be a couple of decades before the electorate as a whole is majority-minority, the Democratic vote is already getting there. In 2012, only 55 percent of President Obama’s voters were white, according to the national exit poll. Our demographic projections of this November’s electorate, which account for population growth since 2012, calculate that the white share of the Democratic vote will tick down another percentage point, to 54 percent. The rest of the Democratic vote will be black (24 percent), Hispanic (15 percent), or belong to Asian or other races (7 percent), according to our projections.
So let’s take those projections as being maximally representative of the broader Democratic electorate as it stands today. In which primary or caucus states has turnout come closest to those ratios?
Hillary’s.
Amy Walter: “Moreover, if Republicans think that denying Trump the nomination will solve their problems, they forget that the guy is neither a magnanimous winner nor a gracious loser. Forget about Trump running as an independent in the fall. He won’t have the organization or time to get on the ballot in most states. But, he’s got something more important than ballot access: Twitter and TV. He will be happy to continue his campaign against the GOP via social media. Do we really think that if Trump loses he’ll go underground never to utter his views again? Do you think that if he loses a floor fight he’ll warmly embrace Ted Cruz? I doubt it.”
“Trump’s success has been driven almost exclusively by his ability to frame the narrative of this campaign. While he may get outmaneuvered on delegates and floor votes, and continues to show only millimeter deep grasp of issues, he has been able to run circles around his opponents on the PR front.”
Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown explains why he endorsed Clinton.
I think that Hillary will know how to get things done. I trust Hillary Clinton on what she is discussing in her plans, in her proposals on trade and on Wall Street reform. As the senior Democrat on the Banking Committee, I take a backseat to nobody in applauding the regulators when they are doing the right things, as they recently did with FDIC and the Fed, and in criticizing those regulators when they’re not tough enough. I think that Secretary Clinton’s proposals, which I had input on with her staff, I think that her proposals will make Wall Street way more accountable than they have been in the past.”
Nancy LaTourneau on the conservatism of Bernie’s perfect pure white Midwestern and Mountain States:
I would propose that the Mountain West (where Sanders has notched up big wins lately) could challenge the claim that the Deep South is the most conservative part of the country. An analysis by The Hill on the five most conservative states turns up a mix of these two regions, giving us: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas and Mississippi. Were the [caucuses and] primaries in Alaska, [Kansas] and Idaho distorted by their conservatism? The other question this assertion raises is: do more conservative Republicans in a state mean that Democratic primaries there are “distorted?”
Ultimately, the elephant in the room about this claim is that the difference between conservative Mountain and Southern states is that the Democratic electorate in the latter is made up largely of people of color – with whom Sanders performs poorly. Do people of color distort reality because they are more conservative?
It is very possible that the answer to that question is “yes.” The truth is…we don’t have a lot of data on that. But I would suggest that anyone who asserts that argument is assuming that a political continuum from conservative to liberal is, by default, based on how white people would construct it. For example, I would imagine that liberals in the Mountain West states would prioritize things like repealing Citizens United and challenging Wall Street, whereas African Americans in the South would prioritize voting rights, ending systemic racism and programs to lift people out of poverty. How progressive one is would be measured by their record and platform on those issues.
Writers I respect, Rebecca Traister, Ed Kilgore, and Nancy LeTourneau, all seem to be discomforted today after witnessing the raucous Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in Brooklyn last night. Maybe it’s my New York metro background, but I thought it was probably the best and most clarifying debate we’ve had so far, and I had no problem with the audience showing some real Big Apple passion.
To each his own, in some respects, I guess, but I do have some basic disagreements.
For starters, I don’t think people should worry about the Democratic Party coming together at the end of this process to unite against whatever candidate the Republicans eventually cough up. There’s no need to fret that these candidacies are poisoning each other, and if Bernie Sanders is going to run this out until he is mathematically eliminated, he should take it seriously and play to win rather than go out there like a tomato can waiting for his cue to take a dive. If he lands some haymakers on Hillary’s chin in the process, well, it’s good to know that she still has that famous steel jaw she’s known for, and getting some sparring rounds in now is good for her. She doesn’t want to come out unprepared the way President Obama did in his first debate against Mitt Romney.
Sanders may be in denial about “The Math,” but he has a point when he says he’s won seven of the last eight contests, some in landslides, and that he’s got some momentum. I agree with Traister that his disparagement of the Deep South in the debate sounded an awful lot like a disparagement of the black vote, but it’s not like he isn’t on a winning streak. He’s trying to win, and it may be a longshot but I can’t begrudge him playing hard. His supporters deserve nothing less.
I tend to agree, though the whole Deep South bullshit borders on outright racism by Sanders, so if he continues in that vein, Bernie will have to go. But if backs off and just says he got beat badly just like he beat Clinton badly in Wisconsin and Wyoming, then fine. I hate to use this expression, but there really is no other way to say this: if Clinton can take her losses like a man, then so can Bernie Sanders. He needs to stop whining like a Donald Trump.
Let’s see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that practically no one has for decades associated southern states with conservatism? And we can fairly ignore all those conservative state laws in southern states as evidence? And when the so-called scant few who did associate them with conservatism did so only for racist reasons or semi racist reasons? So that’s what you are saying? And this positron reflects reality as most people have known it for a very long time?
I ask because if that is really your position, I suggest a cat scan.
“You are saying that practically no one has for decades associated southern states with conservatism?”
Nope. Not what he said at all.
The primary is not the general. Yes, there are red and blue (and purple) states, but that doesn’t mean the Dem voters in those states are necessarily more conservative. It also doesn’t mean their vote should count less/have less importance.
As I said yesterday, if you follow this argument thru then only who wins swing states (Florida, Ohio, etc.) should be the nominee (I disagree with that, btw) – since we’ll automatically win blue states and lose red states.
I’m really not sure why Sanders thinks this benefits him. He’s not sending the message he thinks he is – And I have no idea what message he’s trying to send with these statements. Do you? I’d love if you could explain it to me. Thanks.
“But in 2008, if my memory serves, we all supported Obama, I believe.”
Ask Dominique about that.
“[T]his line of argument … seems to imply that Democratic voters in the Deep South don’t reflect the larger Democratic electorate.”
They don’t. The Democratic Parties in the Deep South are majority black. That’s not the case outside of that region.
And why is it that this blog has never noted that Sanders has pulled even with Clinton in national polls? Why is it that this supposedly “liberal” blog, like the supposedly liberal Daily Kos, is arguing delegate math rather than principles?
You have been revealed as what you are, or rather want to be — an insider. Real insiders are insiders because their jobs are linked to their positions. What’s your excuse?
Sanders isn’t saying their votes shouldn’t count. He’s saying they should be taken in context. Your inability to understand is not his, or our, problem, it’s yours.
You liberals-manque think backing the social issues you do makes you liberal. It doesn’t. Social issues shouldn’t even be up for political discussion, as the law is the wrong place to work out those issues. For hundreds of years, politics has been about power.
In that context, bringing blacks and women up to the level of most white men, who are just as disenfranchised as blacks and women but have their sexism to buoy them, is no solution, just as giving people health insurance is no solution to that problem. I’ve always had insurance and I’ve been fighting with those assholes for years to get what I’m supposedly due.
It’s not a “winning argument.” It’s just the truth. You’re so politically inclined you don’t know how to take it when you hear it.
Delegate math is simply fact; Clinton will likely be the nominee….that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t vote our principles in the meantime, but it does mean we should begin to accept this and turn down the vitro a bit.
Having lost the argument over excessive corporate influence, Hillary supporters still have nothing to do but scour Bernie’s comments for signs of racism…
@Mike: Don’t take this personally, because this answer isn’t merely to your suggestion that we all pretend to like Hillary. That’s the daily demand from pandora and DD.
Why should I turn down the vitriol? I have no stake in Hillary being elected.
My vote doesn’t count in the presidential election, nor does yours. I’ll vote as I choose and it won’t matter because Hillary will win Delaware regardless. But fuck you and anyone else who suggests that pointing out Hillary’s blatant, numerous flaws “helps the enemy.” If you’re going to go with “enemy” thinking, then Hillary is an enemy, too, because I’m not on her team and I have no intention of joining. I see how the Clintons treat their erstwhile friends, and I’m not interested in being one of them. The only difference between the Clintons and Tom Gordon is a patina of class (from the Clintons, not Gordon of course).
Who are you people to condescend to others about their opinions and expressing them? I thought you people were all about “democracy.” Does democracy go out the window when it’s inconvenient? Or is it “vote and shut up”?
That’s what it is at Daily Kos, which has led those on the actual left to abandon that site for the Democratic Party house organ its founder wants it to be. Why does he want that? For the proximity to power, is my guess, but it’s a sell-out no matter the reason.
Hypocrisy of the highest order — the kind in which the hypocrites haven’t the slightest clue that that’s what they are.
Let’s look at another issue on which Hillary Clinton reveals she’s no progressive, liberal or anything other than warmonger: Israel.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/16/sanders_is_making_history_on_the_israel_palestine_conflict_while_clinton_is_as_extreme_as_netanyahu/
You probably pay more wage tax than Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors:
$37K? He can’t even afford his own car! Oh wait:
But Musk is the founder. Surely other officers in the company make more?
“Sanders isn’t saying their votes shouldn’t count. He’s saying they should be taken in context. Your inability to understand is not his, or our, problem, it’s yours.”
It’s not just my problem. Sanders struggles with minority voters. Clinton struggles with young voters. Those are facts. The states Sanders carves out for “context” are the states where he lost, due in large part to minority demographics. When he singles those states out, says they’re not in “context” the question it raises is why those states – especially since we could apply the same standard to Sanders’ wins in Utah, Alaska, Wyoming, etc..
People pointed out what’s demographically different about those states and how Sanders struggles with the minority vote. So, when he cites those states as not being representative/don’t reflect the Democratic electorate the question asked is why not? What’s different about voters in Georgia and voters in Idaho? Both are red states, but only one, it seems, needs to be taken in special context.
And could you show me where I’ve demanded that you like Hillary?
MIke said to turn down the vitriol. This disingenuous “where did I say it” is a load of crap. There are others at this blog pushing the same line. It’s not just about you, believe it or not.
I’ve already pointed out what’s different about those states (again, reading comprehension. Do you read entire comments, or just look for the parts to be condescending about) — the Democratic Party in each of them is majority black. The country is not majority black. It’s not lilly-white, either, and Sanders’ problems are real. But so what?
Once again, you mistakenly try to put me in the pro-Sanders camp simply because I’m anti-Hillary. You keep trying to jam this entire discussion into the frame of this election. I don’t give a shit about this election. I reject your insistence that we talk about these issues in that context.
Criticizing Sanders is not an answer for why Clinton is not a progressive. “Yes, but Bernie did this…” is not going to fly once she’s elected.
Craven.
“This disingenuous “where did I say it” is a load of crap. There are others at this blog pushing the same line. It’s not about you, believe it or not.”
Oh, I see. You edited your comment and removed my name.
And I haven’t tried to put you in any camp. I thought we were having a discussion about why these comments about the south are reading a certain way to certain people. Obviously not.
First, I did NOT remove your name. There was no name at first, and I added the reference to Mike so he’d know he wasn’t the only target of that criticism.
Oh, I see. you want a discussion about racism, because you think you have the high ground. Got it.
You are so fucking clueless it makes my eyes hurt. You want to control the discussion so it’s flattering to you and your side. You’re not the least bit interested in discussion. You don’t even read the links I post.
I know exactly why it struck certain people that way — because they are professional grievance-mongers. I don’t give a shit about your tender, tender “liberal” feelings. You and the young microagression crowd can go fuck yourselves — after gaining consent, of course, and providing no microaggressions were committed.
AS a stay-at-home mom, you apparently have no realization that it’s a mean world out there, and it doesn’t give a fuck about your microaggressions. The real world specializes in macroaggressions. ONly on your blog can you close your eyes, ban commenters and stay safe in your bubble.
This blog is full of people (a couple of exceptions, but they do less posting) who want to pat themselves on the back because they want to treat the unprivileged (women, minorities, LGBT) decently. That’s not politics. It never was politics until Republicans made it political so they could convince the rubes to vote for them.
Politics is power, and you’re perfectly content to give it to a person who isn’t a crook only because we’ve made influence-peddling legal. Even that doesn’t irk me. What does is that you’re doing it in the name of “liberalism.”
You are unhinged.
And you’re an asshole, and I’m still far more aware of what’s going on than you are, and faster at articulating it, too.
I’ve been trying for weeks, and you just can’t engage. I’m beginning to think you’re just not very bright.
Gonna ban me now? Have I been warned? YOu’re a joke. I just want you to know it.
I’m sorry, I didn’t edit that in time. The first sentence should read “passive-aggressive asshole.”
” Yes, there are red and blue (and purple) states, but that doesn’t mean the Dem voters in those states are necessarily more conservative.”
Oh really? I guess then the fact that those Dems in southern states that have managed to be elected to Congress are among the most moderate-conservative or conservative Democrats in office is an illusion and isn’t reflective of the political sentiments of the political sentiments of many, if not most, of the Democrats in those states.
All Bernie Sanders did was state a fact. It had nothing to do with racism. That’s ludicrous.
Look this post is a cheap shot made by a Hillary supporter who has hardly ever had a good word to say about Bernie Sanders. There’s no mystery here. It’s a partisan political smear. End of story.
“All Bernie Sanders did was state a fact. ”
And considering this fact, there are huge number of electoral votes represented by the South and relatively few electoral votes represented by Sanders’ 7 state sweep. What does the portend for the general? Does Sanders need to win the South in the general? Can he?
I would think that those would be pretty critical questions for Sanders and his team. He must be convinced that if he can win the primary, he can win the general. There are some that believe the general is a whole new ballgame. I suppose to some extent it is, but if it is, then what would be plan to win the South? Right now he seems to be fairly dismissive that what happened is very meaningful.
While our votes in DE will not matter because we have so few electoral votes, you can’t say that about many other states. If Sanders were to replicate his 7 state run in the general it would win 42 electoral votes. If his performance in the South were replicated it would cost him 200 electoral votes.
Then again, my perspective is that I believe it’s critical to keep the GOP out of the White House. For others maybe that’s not the most important objective.
@aaa “Sanders isn’t saying their votes shouldn’t count. He’s saying they should be taken in context.”
And what context is that?
The argument that only purple states should count, is perhaps sound from a simplistic game theory perspective. These are the states that will decide the presidency, and so if you want to win, those are the people you should let decide who the nominee will be.
But that view is way too simplistic. The party depends on donations from all the states, and a big tent approach where everyone decides together strengthens the party and brings us all together in a very real way. It also helps with the down-ballots on the bright red and bright blue states.
Sanders should be smart enough to know this. Of course he knows this. So then why would he say such a thing??? Why would he suggest that some voters are only worth something like 3/5ths??
If you think the people here are so wrong about their suspicions, then what’s your theory?
==========================================================
And then there’s this!
“Your inability to understand is not his, or our, problem, it’s yours.”
and
“And you’re an asshole, and I’m still far (((better-than-you-in-every-way))).”
And your ability to quickly go off the deep end is really off-putting. Do you hold down a job? Do all your neighbors hate you? Do you live in a guarded bunker??
If you want respect in any walk of life, you need to earn it. Here, you earn that with good content and by showing respect for others. When you deliver your nuggets of wisdom covered in scorn (read that “covered in sh*t”), why are you surprised and angered that no one wants them??
Bottom line…. You’ve got some interesting things to say. So just say them and leave the clown car in the garage. OK?
“What does the portend for the general? Does Sanders need to win the South in the general? Can he?”
In the end, Democrats all have to vote for the Democrat to win the general. Bernie would depend on African American and older voters to prefer him over the Republican. Just as Hillary would depend on younger and whiter voters to prefer her over the Republican.
I agree that Sanders made a strategic blunder as representing the southern states as too conservative to support him. No argument there. But the charge that his blunder stems from latent racism is laughable on its face.
As far as the general election goes, however, I think it’s significant that Sanders does better with the general electorate than does Clinton. Her negatives are high. That’s one reason for his better showing in the polls. But my hunch is, and it’s just a hunch, that Americans are now ready for a more progressive presentation than they have heard from Democrats ever since the *candidate* Carter ran as a moderate and Bill Clinton emphasized fiscal responsibility somewhat reminiscent of GOP rhetoric. Income inequality is very much on the minds of the American people.
My daughter, Dr. Johanna Kowalko, an associate professor in genetic biology at Iowa State who has courageously accompanied women, through protests, to planned parenthood facilities, who shared an apartment and idealism with a prominent lawyer who exclusively represents immigrants in this country, who vocally and personally stood with equal rights advocates, (just an aside: lawyer roommate was gay) who has publicly expressed genuine outrage at the mistreatment of blacks throughout this country’s sordid history in that regard and who doesn’t preen about having black friends and acquaintances because she has spent her life with hundreds of them, who has always demanded equal pay for women (including women, and men, in science and research —a category wherein the United States falls pathetically and immorally short of any sustainable/adequate funding) recently sent me this personal note. With her permission and a clear and unadulterated understanding that, in Novembers general election, Iowa “IS” an important swing state and her vote will count I am reprinting her measured response to the dialogue that seems to be consuming a lot of people.
Rep. John Kowalko
Please stop telling me to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election.
If you read anything on social media, or if you peruse online comments to news articles, you inevitably read things that make you angry. I try hard to let these things go, and by and large I succeed. However, one refrain that keeps popping up these days that I cannot seem to let go of is the seemingly relentless instruction for Bernie Sanders supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. People who refuse to say they she has their support if she is the nominee are, apparently, naïve, unrealistic, and responsible for the inevitable Donald Trump presidency that will be if Clinton does not get their vote.
Before I go any further, I should admit two things. First, I am an ardent Sanders
supporter and second, I will most likely vote for Clinton in the general election if she is the democratic nominee. I tell you these things so that you can interpret the rest of my comments through that lens, and because I really do want you to stop telling me to vote for Clinton in the general election.
Now, with all of that up front, here are the reasons I think you should stop telling Sanders supporters to vote for Clinton in the general election:
1) The primaries aren’t over. Yes, yes, I understand how much Sanders would have
to win by in the rest of the states, and I understand how polling predictions work. But right now, today, it is not out of the realm of possibilities that Sanders will win the nomination. We also have no idea who, whichever Democrat who wins will be running against. Because the primaries are not over. So, if nothing else, please save your instructions about who I should vote for until after we know who will be running.
2) Should Clinton win the nomination, it is not Sanders supporters who should
change, but Clinton who should. Sanders, and his progressive issues, have found a surprisingly large audience, both within the Democratic party, and among independents. If Clinton wants Sanders supporters to vote for her in a general election, she should modify her platform accordingly. Do I think candidates should sway in the wind, supporting anything that is most popular at the time? Of course not. But if it is true that she holds progressive beliefs, just believes in a different path to getting to them, it should not go against her beliefs to modify her platform, at least slightly, to acknowledge her base. If we vote for her, she will be representing us.
3) Portraying die-hard Sanders supporters as naïve, silly, or stupid is not helping your cause. For one thing, I personally know many strong Sanders supporters who are life-long Democrats, well informed, politically active, intelligent people who make very cogent arguments about their hesitancy to support Hillary Clinton should she be the Democratic nominee. I sympathize strongly, and would be happy to share with anyone actually interested my own misgivings about voting for her in a general election. Consider the possibility that other Sanders supporters do not have any ties to the Democratic party, or have a fundamental problem with the two party system. They also have excellent, well thought out arguments supporting their views. Finally, if you persist in believing that someone is simply being bull headed and short sighted in their refusal to consider voting for Clinton, consider that your talking to them like they are a silly child is probably not helping your cause.
So, before you dismiss and criticize everyone who won’t pledge their undying allegiance to a Clinton presidency, please pause and consider that these Sanders supporters might have a good reason for doing what they are doing. You could even consider asking them why.
Johanna Kowalko Trimarchi PHD (with permission)
Well said, John. The tone of some Hillary supporters is quite authoritarian and undemocratic. The clear implication is that no one can have a justifiable reason for preferring someone else over Hillary Clinton. I suspect that’s because Hillary is the Democratic Party establishment’s choice. All that is proved by this rhetoric is that those who take this approach are more estalishmentarian than democratic.
“My daughter, …recently sent me this personal note.”
One of the longest run on sentences I’ve every seen. Good thing you were typing it and could breathe during the process! Still,
“If Clinton wants Sanders supporters to vote for her in a general election, she should modify her platform accordingly.”
And if she does modify her platform in a direction that independents and moderates do not like, she will no longer be representing us, or is there a presumption that one constituency has more value that the other?
Is there an implied consequence that if she doesn’t modify her platform she and others won’t vote for Clinton?
“is there a presumption that one constituency has more value that the other?”
The question is irrelevant, since all Democratic constituencies will need to vote to win the general.
“Is there an implied consequence that if she doesn’t modify her platform she and others won’t vote for Clinton?”
A candidate needs to earn every vote and take none for granted.
@DG “All that is proved by this rhetoric is that those who take this approach are more estalishmentarian than democratic.”
…or maybe just more pragmatic?
@p “The question is irrelevant, since all Democratic constituencies will need to vote to win the general.”
Not true. When the election day arrives, only the voters in the purple states will have any real sway. The value of a single vote in the red or blue states is basically nil.
The reason that all constituencies matter are for reasons well beyond the simple question of who will become president (e.g down-ballot candidates, fund raising,…)
That’s a fair response, Liberal Elite. I think the merits of the pragmatic argument is worthy of doubt and debate, but that’s a separate issue. Nevertheless, you do raise a fair point.
“The reason that all constituencies matter are for reasons well beyond the simple question of who will become president (e.g down-ballot candidates, fund raising,…)”
If that were true, Clinton would modify her positions to earn more support among younger voters.
Really nice letter, John. Hillary supporters could write one asking Bernie supporters to stop questioning our liberalism/progressivism and calling us corportists. It’s primary season and I’m at the point where I’m ready for it to end. Sure, I’m for my candidate, but right now we could flip a coin and I’d be happy. 🙂
Bottom line: All primary voters matter equally. Dems need everyone to win. And there’s a lot of solidly blue states that don’t elect down ticket progressives. (Hello, Delaware!)
Family fights are always the worst!
@p “If that were true, Clinton would modify her positions to earn more support among younger voters.”
But younger voters have terrible voting turnout rates, and they do eventually grow up.
My impression is that Hillary will do what she needs to do to win, and then pivot from there to another Clinton-like presidency. I get the impression that she was the actual brains behind Bill Clinton’s two terms (though Bill did have a penchant to go off-script and follow his dick).
““If that were true, Clinton would modify her positions to earn more support among younger voters.”
If Bernie were to win the nomination would he have to modify his positions to earn more support among Hillary voters?
Yes. Both candidates have positions they could (and should) modify without losing supporters. I would be thrilled if Bernie released his taxes and strengthened his position on gun control. Nobody is voting for Bernie on Second Amendment grounds – the gun nuts are all voting Republican.
By the same token, Hillary could support a Federal minimum of $15/hr (and she almost did, the other night). Nobody is going to vote against Hillary because she is for $15 instead of $12.
I don’t think Hillary should ever release her Goldman Sach transcripts, because the content would probably hurt her and the party in the general election.
Agreed.
The reason Hillaryists are flexing the muscles of power is because they are scared. What makes it deeper is that they are scared that they backed the wrong person too early because someone running on a platform they always believed in, is beating their candidate…..
“I don’t think Hillary should ever release her Goldman Sach transcripts, because the content would probably hurt her and the party in the general election.”
Finally, someone admitted it. She is not releasing her comments because she cuddled her audience with positions in a way that could be inimical to the interests of ordinary Americans.
“they are scared that they backed the wrong person too early ”
Or it could be as simple as they are scared that Sanders can’t win the general.
They (and I) could be wrong. They (and I) aren’t willing to take the chance because if he doesn’t win the general, real bad stuff can happen, with the impact will be felt for decades, perhaps longer considering the change to institutions such as the Supreme Court.
Simply put, a Republican White House with a Republican Congress would reshape America in ways that we cannot even fathom. Pragmatists like myself, consider that a significant risk. Idealists have their eyes so focused on nirvana that they either dismiss the risk or are convinced that they will overcome somehow. I don’t want a GOP administration appointing multiple SCOTUS justices that hang around for 30 years. I’m not willing to take the chance and so I can settle for $12 an hour. The $15 folks are either more accepting of that possibility or don’t think it’s much of possibility.
“She is not releasing her comments because she cuddled her audience with positions in a way that could be inimical to the interests of ordinary Americans.”
As a corollary, if she doesn’t release the transcripts, when the subject of the fees comes up, she needs to stop saying “I have nothing to hide.” She needs to ackowledge that we all know the gist of what is in the transcripts, and it is strong circumstantial evidence of bias in oversight of the financial sector. We know it, and she knows we know it. She needs to be chastened and move on from there.
On the other hand, in the general she is unlikely to be challenged on the transcripts by the husband (Cruz) of a Goldman Sachs executive.
But if it is Trump, that is another matter. Then Hillary might wish she had come up with a more satisfying response to being vetted on the transcripts.
“I can settle for $12 an hour.”
Really?
Really. And when you get your $15, you can lord it over me. I’ll be here waiting.
“The reason Hillaryists are flexing the muscles of power is because they are scared. What makes it deeper is that they are scared that they backed the wrong person too early because someone running on a platform they always believed in, is beating their candidate…..”
That’s an unbelievable general and inaccurate statement Kavips. Nothing to be scared about here other than Bernie should tone the rhetoric down since he has an extremely low chance of winning the nomination now and he needs to start preparing for the strong probability that Hillary will be the nominee. The only thing he is doing at this point is increasing the likelihood of a Trump or Cruz presidency. As much as I like the guy and many of his policies, he is moving into the range of being a spoiler. I am hoping we come to grips with that. If he truly believes in improving people’s lives, he should start engaging Hillary privately about improving some of her positions that will result in the party’s platform and to support party down ballot candidates. This should be no different if the roles were reversed at this stage.
Hillary walked into this race with very high negatives. So negative that aTrump or Cruz presidency is a possibility. So I can see the spin that Hillaryites are now preparing if she loses to one of them. It won’t be her fault that she lost. It will be Bernie Sanders fault for acting like any candidate and as Hillary does to him and did to Obama by pointing out her drawbacks and his assets.
If she loses, it will be because (as most polls show) you blundered and backed a bad candidate. You went with the establishment choice chiefly because you want to be identified with the establishment of the Democratic Party.
And I can’t believe the callous dismissal above by the establishment Democrat that the poor aren’t worth supporting for $3.00 more an hour: a living wage. How GOP like.
I’m an establishment Independent, not Deomcrat.
And why aren’t you supporting $16 or $17 or $18. Aren’t the poor worth that much?
Does anyone know the source of the number $15?
It’s nice and round and it fits on a bumper sticker sure. But surely there must be some data that drives that number right?
I think what you mean is that you could settle for somebody ELSE to get $12, not you. Am I right?
Sounds like aaa needs to go to aa or at least anger management…lord, my friend, get a hold of yourself.
My general feeling about aaa and those others who are Bernie or busters is that they are probably part of a group that his little to lose if Republicans win because Democrats divide or stay home. This election will be as significant for its downticket results and it’s impact on the court as anything else.
@puck,
You didn’t answer the question regarding the source of the living wage. I’m guessing you didn’t like what you found.
In any case, a living wage for in NCC for a family of 2 adults and 3 children is $18.33 and yet you are willing to settle for $15. Even progressivism has limits it seems.
Of course you advocate for $3 more per hour, so that makes you better even though $15 isn’t enough. Whatever gets you to sleep at night I suppose.
And yeah, I can settle for someone to get $12 when boils down to a choice of that or nothing because I really don’t want them to be hurt by someone’s movement.
Do tell. How can the federal government set a (now notice this word) national living wage by setting it at regional levels? So back to the drawing board on that feeble reply, fellas. And since you apparently don’t know this elementary fact of government: nothing prohibits smaller political entities (states, counties, cities) from setting a living wage that is higher than the national (average) living wage, one that’s reflective of the needs of their areas.
The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton has settled for a modesty increased minimum wage that doesn’t reflect the national average need of Americans. So this business that she really has the interests of average Americans at heart is phony just as a matter of fact.
Who said the federal government did it? So back to your search engine. But here’s some help.
http://livingwage.mit.edu/
Who said the federal government did what? The federal government does set a national minimum wage. That is just a fact. And there is no reason why it can’t use a living wage standard.
News flash: Both candidates support raising the minimum wage.
“So this business that she really has the interests of average Americans at heart is phony just as a matter of fact.”
I think both candidates have the interest of the average American at heart. Why do you always need to paint her in such a villainous way? You. Disagree. With. Her. That’s it.
Or to be succinct, it boils down to Hillary taking a business side for every issue, and Bernie the people’s side. Nothing wrong with that. Now vote for Hillary if you’re a business and Bernie if you’re a person.
kavips
I’m not a Clinton fan, but that’s as much a bullshit distinction as saying, “If you read the Wall Street Journal, vote for Trump, if you read the Bible, vote for Cruz.”
Kavpis is right. Do the comparison: Hillary only supports a raise in the minimum raise; Sanders supporters a living wage. The former is more beneficial to businesses; the latter supports working people. Hillary supports private profit making health care; Bernie supports universal public single payer health care. The former supports private health insurance companies; the latter supports EVERY American. Clinton supports citizens paying for their college education; Bernie supports college education being publicity paid for.. The former creates debt for college students; the latter eliminates it. Hillary doesn’t support reinstating Glas Steagal; Bernie does. The former enriches big banks but risks the investments of ordinary Americans. The latter does not. Hillary is content to allow cops to investigate alleged malfeasance within their ranks; Sanders says the FBI should do it. The former is am apparent conflict of interest that will rarely benefit citizens, especially minorities. The latter is not an apparent conflict of interest and should produce more objective outcomes. And that’s just a start.
Sanders clearly and unambiguously has the interests of ordinary Americans at heart more so than Clinton.
I, for one, would be immensely happy if Rep. Kowalko would just use line/paragraph spacing once in awhile…
On Bernie’s Issue Page he titles it a Living Wage, but here is what he writes:
“Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.
Millions of American employees have been working 50 or 60 hours a week while receiving no overtime pay. That is why Bernie has been encouraging the Obama Administration to ensure that more workers receive overtime pay protection. The Administration’s new rule extending that protection to everyone making less than $947 a week is a step in the right direction. It is a win for our economy and for our workers.
Lastly, we must support and strengthen the labor movement to ensure that workers have a say in their own economic futures. That’s why Bernie has been a strong supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to organize and bargain collectively.”
Hillary under the title Economy says:
“Raising the minimum wage and strengthening overtime rules. Hillary believes we are long overdue in raising the minimum wage. She has supported raising the federal minimum wage to $12, and believes that we should go further than the federal minimum through state and local efforts, and workers organizing and bargaining for higher wages, such as the Fight for 15 and recent efforts in Los Angeles and New York to raise their minimum wage to $15. She also supports the Obama administration’s expansion of overtime rules to millions more workers.”
There’s more details under both plans. Both have plans to increase the Minimum Wage a specific amount.
aaa is off the chain but right on target.
@ LE, RE: the clown car-
My grandmother would have told you to “dry up and blow away.” I’m not nearly as nice as she was, so you can go fuck your elite self.
aaanon is right. And you fear him because he’s right. He forces you to look in the mirror. You don’t like what you see, so you lash out at aaa.
Way to go! You’re so much better than the allegedly “christian” hillbillies who support Ted Cruz! Except you’re not. You are the opposite side of the same coin. Are you heads or tails?
This is also their starting positions. Sanders is at 15, potentially ready to negotiate down to 12, once the hand-wringy Carper types get their over-privileged hands on it. If Hillary is starting the negotiation in the middle, we will end up with 9 or 10
And I’m sorry… This is probably a huge assumption, but I can’t see anyone who makes close to 12/hr actually argue that it would be a decent income. I know good an well the type of living arrangement that can pay for (at least in this area) it’s not bad for a single 20 something, but you’re going to be asking single parents to support a family on it. These “12 will be just fine” comments reek of privilege
Two points everyone is missing on minimum wage:
1. Bernie is for $15 indexed for inflation, Hillary is for $12 not indexed. For Hillary to move to $12 indexed would be a welcome step.
2. The minimum wage is not used the same way it was when we were young. Back then, minimum wage was truly an entry-level wage in many industries, where you had realistic expectations of getting raises into the middle class. Or, minimum wage was used for truly menial jobs often held by high school kids as temps on their way to a real job somewhere else. But now, there are entire industries whose business model is based on armies of minimum wage workers. And those jobs are held by adults, some trying to raise families. Minimum wage forces taxpayers to subsidize worker income via safety net benefits. But there are still some politicians who cling to the quaint “entry-level wage” belief about the minimum wage.
The minimum wage needs to become a living wage, because that is how American business has chosen to use it.
Point of order. Today’s poll was authored by Jason330. If you want other poll options put up another poll tomorrow.
“The minimum wage is not used the same way it was when we were young. Back then, minimum wage was truly an entry-level wage in many industries, where you had realistic expectations of getting raises into the middle class. Or, minimum wage was used for truly menial jobs often held by high school kids as temps on their way to a real job somewhere else.”
That was not my experience. I grew up with a lot of adults (mostly women and minorities) who worked minimum wage jobs all their lives. Could you supply a link to verify your claim. Mine is anecdotal.
Mine is necessarily anecdotal too. I don’t know of any statistics on the historical distribution of minimum wage jobs and the career path of the workers. I do know that 1968 was the high point of the buying power of minimum wage; there’s a link for that somewhere. Also remember that in that time there were many entry level jobs that paid more than minimum. There was factory work back then, often unionized. In Delaware there was GM and Chrysler, with clear career paths. Now the so-called entry level jobs are often in the service sector and are the terminal wage.
If you are basing what minimum wage is today, on what it was 15-20 year ago… and if you haven’t worked for minimum wage in the last 15-20 years, this is one of those scenarios where you need to quiet up and listen to people who live it. You’re dragging people’s live into this debate, yet I get the feeling that most of the people having it… BOTH candidates included, have no idea what they are really talking about.
I cant wait to see the HillaryHacks (every time i see the use of the phrase berniebro from a contributor, i’ll be using “HillaryHacks”) try and justify how wonderful it is that she will ultimately negotiate down to 9/hr.
“we CANT DO 12.. we have to compromise!!!!!!!!!!!”
I completely agree with the union jobs, and I think things were different due to the fact that most non-minimum wage jobs weren’t that far above minimum wage. That said, those who I knew that worked for minimum wage couldn’t keep up with those making more. It was still a stark difference.
Minimum wage isn’t just a number. There are corollary issues like scheduling, and whether it is indexed to inflation.
Wow, Ben. Stop telling puck to quiet up.
Im actually speaking to people who are ok with this 12/hr nonsense. We all know it will be compromised down… and the people who will champion compromise dont make anything close to 12.. or 15… It isnt as simple as one number and it should be based on a livable wage…. Not something a candidate can just say over and over again. 15 is close, but it would need to be higher in some places. We just have to face the uncomfortable truth that this country is still propped up by slave (or near to it) labor.
I saw an interesting article yesterday on one real consequence of the higher minimum wage; people with less real income due to cuts in government services resulting form higher income. People are asking for LESS hours….again, that doesn’t mean throw out the minimum wage, but all consequences need to be weighed.