Bernie, His Followers and an Insurgency?

Bernie, His Followers and an Insurgency?

By oldenGoldenDecoy on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 1:47am |

Very interesting . . .

I couldn't pass up this comment...

Found in this thread here-->

To respond... There was a much more massive insurgency from the liberal Democratic ranks in the late 60s through the 70s. And to say that that insurgency made people uncomfortable is an understatement. And the elected Democratic party elites basically thumbed their collective noses at all US in our 20s. Oh yeah, eventually Carter was elected but that brought about the backlash of the Reagan years.

So beware to all those who thumb their collective noses at those who have supported Bernie. The pendulum swings both ways...

~OGD~

Add new comment
40514 reads

Comments

Thanks for highlighting this, OGD. The Democratic insurgency of the late 60s and 70s is a really interesting comparison. Unlike the progressive insurgency of the early 20th century, it didn't last long and doesn't even have a name, though as you say, it was incredibly divisive. I don't think Carter was an insurgent, but McGovern was. Centrists Democrats have waved McGovern's failure like a warning flag ever since.

The reaction to McGovern offers an interesting contrast with Goldwater, who lost almost as badly. After Goldwater's loss, Republicans returned to the center for 16 years, but the conservative insurgency continued to simmer, ultimately producing Ronald Reagan and a bunch of influential conservative organizations like the Moral Majority and the Heritage Foundation. Why do you think the Democratic insurgency fizzled, while the Republican insurgency took control of the GOP?

by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 8:59am

If you trace the lines of individuals involved in the 60's [not the popular media versions either], you'll see that many of the major voices went into "the movements," in some sense. These are sometimes treated as though they are an entirely separate thing coming out of the 60's, but they're not. The same individuals moved back and forth across the lines.

So when you look for the sustained influence in the Democratic Party, you need to look at the long-term, sustained policy pushes on the movements for environment... women.... peace....civil rights... cultural openness... and eventually, on its even later offspring, the changes being driven out of the Internet.

So an individual like Al Gore, who one normally wouldn't identify as being a "60's style insurgent," was actually a force carrying a number of those movements forward.

Now, for me, there are two things that fell away and were lost during that process.

#1. In the US, the most noticeable part of the 60's/70's push that fell away was the one around participation - both in terms of economic democracy, but also in terms of deeper participatory democracy. I think people who wanted the latter largely decided to embed themselves in "local" or regional politics.

But the challenge to economic power fell away. Or, was defeated. And our leaders made... trade-offs. And we all accepted massive corporate money as long as our candidates were elected, so he/she could then make changes that helped the other movements.

But in some cases, those individuals fell across the line into directly serving the powers that be.

#2. And that's when second absence, the absence of a larger, coherent, movement, really hurt. There was no one - and no way - to reel a Clinton and co. in from their trade deals and financial moves.

Which is one reason why it was sooooooooo hard to watch as Obama came through the door, a man with an historic opportunity, both in the world AND in the way he had a separate and much more participatory financing mechanism already under him.... and then immediately and directly dismantled it.

In short, the base of a new, more unified movement was disassembled.

And HRC? You must be kidding. It's a return to the worst of those historic side-deals. And the problem is, we already feel the downside of those decisions by Bill. And could easily feel the consequences raising themselves even further in the coming months.

At which point, she'll have nowhere to run to, no place to go.

by quinn esq on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 9:42am

On the positive side, it'll give Quinn something to bitch about the next 4-8 years. Opposition backbencher is always more fun than say leading a difficult coalition. And when it's a Clinton, double fun, double the pleasure.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 11:04am

Yawn.

You do realize that every single goddamn election cycle we get these same phrases, PP?

Whining Walter Mondale said the same thing.

"Ohhhh, the difficulties of the real world."

Spare me, willya? I'm 27 years into living inside and working with governments. And every single time, they're "difficult coalitions."

Let's be plain. HRC has MILES of policy room, much of it populist ground, that she could take in before she reaches Donald Trump territory. So do you think if she threw some more punches against the 1%, or international trade deals, or money in politics, or wage differentials, or holes in the tax code, that she's be HURT politically?

Set aside the HRC issue for a moment, because you have a personal attachment, and let's talk about BHO. And how Obama dismantling his independent grassroots people, and picking a Cabinet full of the old guard, and inserting himself in-between the people and the banks - to protect the BANKS - was all about "leading a difficult coalition."

Because if you think it was - that this sort of thing is basically inevitable - then what you're saying is that there is no possible path, at all, in which we can challenge the 1%, change trade laws, change the tax code, etc.

To me, I would say there is absolutely NO polling evidence to show that. Want an example the other way? Where a Centrist party tracked slightly left and populist and won big?

Justin Trudeau. Went green as hell. Feminist as hell. Went heavy on deficit-spending - beyond the left party, which idiotically said "balance the budget." Gay rights. Legalize marijuana, resolutely pro-choice, 50% women in Cabinet, a Sikh in charge of the military. etc.

And no, the US is not Canada, so some of this has to change. The point is that he took a moribund party of the Center and completely devoured the Left, as well as mobilizing young people and marginalized groups, and racked up the biggest gain in seats in Canada's entire history.

And the media, and the wise men and the talking heads ALL - all - thought he'd be killed for the deficits and related issues.

To me, it is absolutely a REALIST view - and with some real evidence beneath it - to argue that the Democratic Party needs to track in a much more populist/left/whatever direction.

In doing so, it will GAIN VOTES.

Oh no, wait. Because it's doing sooooooooo well with its existing strategy, barely able to edge ahead against a screaming asshole with a million demerits against his name, who hasn't even really begun to spend money, and has shit organization around him. And what are we ahead by 0? 3%?

Yes sir, this approach of ours suuuuuure is working well.

Welcome to the genius politics of the Anglo-American center-left in 2016. The sh*t show unfurling south of the border is gonna make Brexit look like a bowl of Cheerios.

And we get lessons on the tough realities of leading coalitions.

by quinn esq on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 11:26am

Dude, I opposed Obama in 2008 if you recall the Billy Glad, Rootie, etc faction , and was highly critical of how money was tossed over the fence to banks with mortgage robosigning ignored, how he dismantled all the grassroots orgs he'd coopted while ignoring downticket races, how he just continued Bush policy on Mideast and surveillance, how he wouldnt stand up for say jobs programs or police reorg for blacks because he was somehow president of us all, not just blacks (but the GOP got a special place at the table for negotiations).

And then the shit Hillary supporters get that she would be worse than Obama even though we predicted this would happen, that no, Obama wouldnt be a better feminist than her, etc, but 8 years later she has no real recourse but to eat shit and embrace the Obama years necause taking it for the team was all there is - unless you're a grumpy Vermont socialist who can do what he wants because no one takes him that seriously.

Punkass move, dude. I even asked for Obama to be primaried so we could focus on poverty - something that no doubt pisses off rmrd.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 11:35am

"But on the positive side, it gave PP something to bitch about for the last 4-8 years. Opposition backbencher is always more fun than say leading a difficult coalition. And when it's not a Clinton, double fun, double the pleasure."

See how sweet it works? ;-)

by quinn esq on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 12:17pm

You're the one fretting about Clinton side-deals and Obama betrayal. Lot's of angst to deal with, eh bro'?

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 2:09pm

I don't give a shit about the individuals. I care about where they want to go.

I'll leave it there.

by quinn esq on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 4:08pm

Q, We are only getting started with the revolution. Stay tuned.

by trkingmomoe on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 8:12am

But in the real world there were 8 million less votes this year than in 08. Why did those 8 million voters disappear? If the people are hungry for left wing policy and just waiting for someone to speak for them why didn't they come out for Sanders? Some want to blame the Hillary supporters for choosing the "wrong" candidate but if Sanders could have gotten half of those missing voters to the polls he would have won.

The people won't vote for liberal policy. Sanders landslide loss only convinces me of that more. Why did those 8 million voters disappear?

by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 2:29pm

"The people won't vote for liberal policy."

Because they wouldn't turn out for Bernie Sanders???? Dude. The guy is 74. From Vermont. Socialist. Hsd dick-all name recognition. Dick-all machine. Up against a Clinton. And let's face it, maybe not the greatest salesman or charismatic leader of all-time.

Who in their right mind WOULD vote for him? That turnout is down for what everyone figured was a done deal doesn't surprise me.

by quinn esq on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 3:56pm

It doesn't surprise me either but if Sanders wasn't the right one to give the people the liberal policy ideas they so fervently desire who is this white knight with the right age, name recognition, and charisma that we can all unite behind as he leads us into the glorious future? Or could it be the American public fears change and therefore prefers the status quo over a risky future even if it promises to be better for them?

by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 5:04pm

~~American public~~ Democratic primary voters.

by HSG on Mon, 07/18/2016 - 2:58pm

"The people won't vote for liberal policy." What do you call all those votes for HRC? All I've heard the past year is how progressive she truly is. Now this. Get your story straight.

by kyle flynn on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 4:07pm

All I've ever claimed is that Hillary is a center left politician. If you want to make these sorts of critiques you should at least read my posts. My stories are all straight.

by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 4:56pm

Center left? She calls herself "moderate center". She voted for war. She was a bellicose Secretary of State. She opposes a new Glass-Steagall. She supported the "big bank bailout". She flacked for "free trade". She supports the death penalty. She's against legalizing pot. Center left? C'mon that line might work with the clam diggers back home but not here.

by HSG on Mon, 07/18/2016 - 3:01pm

She voted as the opposition for a force authorization sanctioned by he UN that Bush turned into an illegal invasion 5 months later, a vote most leaders of her own party shared. Are they all bellicose?

Under Obama I & Hillary's tenure at State we withdrew from Iraq (2011) and after killing bin Laden started our final drawdown in Afghanistan, and she worked with Egypt and other Arab countries on Arab Spring transitions. Did she act more bellicose than Bush? Bill Clinton? Bush Sr? Reagan? Carter's legacy in Aghanistan/Pakistan, Nicaragua and Iran? Nixon? LBJ in Indochina and Indonesia? Kennedy's Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis and Berlin wall and Vietnam? Ike? Truman's Korea and overthrowing Mossadegh? You'd think Hillary annexed North Mexico and faced down the Russians with nukes and chemical weapons.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 9:00am

1) She voted for the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002. I understand you believe and peddle the rank nonsense that this doesn't mean Clinton voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq. But let's face it except for the willfully blind, nobody's buying what you're selling.

2) We're still in Iraq. We're still in Afghanistan.

3) Let's take our relationship with Bibi "to the next level."

3) Death penalty.

4) "Free" trade.

5) "No fly" zone.

6) War on drugs.

7) Everything else I've pointed out for over a year.

What else you got?

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 9:58am

#1- after Pearl Harbor we were at war the next day. After 9/11 we'd declared war on Afghanistan within a couple weeks. After the 2002 AUMF, it took us 5 months to declare war - and you dont find something peculiar? What took place over those 5 months, Hal - or is context irrelevant?

#2- blame Obama. Your anger is misplaced.

#3- I'm fine with the death penalty if well-regulated. The current racial imbalance is unacceptable.

#4- trade is how we grow the global economy. Simplifying trade takes waste out of the system, such as trucks at the borders spending 24 hours to clear customs., or being held hostage by local oligarchs who overcharge and control the labor market. You've dumbed down this point to where it makes no sense.

#5 - no fly zones worked for 12 years with Hussein until Bush decided we needed boots onthe ground. What's your idea of Plan for ISIS? Let Russia do it? Run away and do nothing?

#6- Hillary's backwards on drugs but states are legalizing pot and taking care of part of the problem, so why should I worry?

#7- all your other points the last year suck too. You lost. Give it up. You *are* the Black Knight out of Monty Python. No legs, no arms, still want to fight as equals. Watcha gonna do, bleed all over us?

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 12:42pm

[Deleted by poster as inappropriate]. The question presented was whether Clinton is left-of-center. The various positions I outlined that she has taken over the years demonstrates she is not left-of-center regardless of whether you support them.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 12:59pm

Poverty, women's and family issues, adult & children's healthcare, racial justice, reigning in police, abortion rights *AND* women's right to *CHOOSE*, rural development, fair taxation, affordable education, wage equality, unions, gay rights...

No, you're not entitled to your own reality.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 1:38pm

Yeah whatever PP. That war on the Iraqis that Clinton voted for was great for women and children wasn't it? How about overthrowing Gaddafi and opening up Libya for ISIS. Now there's a pro-family group if I ever heard of one. Then there's the Haiti minimum wage hike she stymied, that did wonders for the moms and kids working in garment factories. How about the bankruptcy bill she turned around and supported making it tougher for underwater debtors to escape usurious interest rates from the likes of pro-family, pro-child, pro-choice organizations such as Capital One and American Express.

Standing up against the "super-predators" and helping her husband become the number incarcerator in American history did wonders for the black family. Then the bank bailout was great. Rather than provide direct assistance to homeowners, she voted to give the money directly to the big banks and you know some of those CEOs are dads. She's a peach that Hillary a real peach!

Let's just cut to the chase. She's a lousy candidate who's done a lot of bad things but she's better than the alternative. That's the truth. If you want me to stop pointing out how bad she is, stop pretending she's anything but what she is.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 1:48pm

Hal found himself a kitchen sink, and is determined to use it. Even has a Dispose-all.

Must be galling to see a "lousy candidate" kick your ass. Coulda, shoulda, woulda - better luck next (campaign) season.

PS - to play in and win the World Series, you first have to win the pennant. Even those bums from Brooklyn know that much, and they haven't had a team since the Dodgers slipped outta town 60 years ago. You play baseball one game at a time. A lot of teams look good on paper, but can't execute or simply choke under pressure.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 2:13pm

Donald Trump couldn't have put it better. American politics is all about winners and losers and trash-talking the other "team."

PS You're plagiarizing my postscript

by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 3:02pm

To ballast your points, and to add to them, please do give this a chance. I hadn't meant to click into it, and was glad that I did, even given its length. The author explains when neoliberalism began, how dangerous is it to vote out of fear (in this case: of Trump), and why it's time for a new social movement rejecting both candidates' neoliberalism. Dunno about his idea about a new party, especially given a day late, a dollar short, but...some of the history and thought he narrates is great, and it's full of good links.

That he knows that he's a privileged white guy and offers a series of rejoinders to that potential critique is a breath of fresh air. His ideas on different phases of organizing are at least interesting, but that's not what I found estimable in his essay. Sorry to not say more about it, but I reckon you'll read it, others will, and will rail against it.

‘The Time is Now: To Defeat Both Trump and Clintonian Neoliberalism’, by Mark Lewis Taylor, July 19, 2016

by Goldberry (not verified) on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 4:21pm

My reply was meant for Quinn far upstream. Sorry for the goof-up.

by Goldberry (not verified) on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 4:23pm

So Cornel West should lose his seat on the Democratic Platform committee. What's the point of a guy who's declared he's not even for the Democratic ticket writing the rules. I like West in a way, but a career based on dickishness has its limits.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 07/20/2016 - 10:07am

You're welcome Michael...

You are right. Carter was not an insurgent. But he was by far the next best thing in comparison to Gerald "Milquetoast" Ford who had stepped in a big steaming pile with his pardon of Nixon.

You asked:

Why do you think the Democratic insurgency fizzled, while the Republican insurgency took control of the GOP?

From my perspective of living through these times, the main underlying reason was across the board mistrust of the party representation and as Quinn pointed out, "the movements" being scattered into "environment... women.... peace....civil rights... cultural openness..." and eventually "embed[ding] themselves in 'local' or regional politics."

For sure, that is what happened out here on the left coast and specifically here in California bringing to power Jerry Brown in 1975.

And after all these intervening years of Republican power here in California Brown has resurfaced in a big way. It's quite nice being 2,847 miles from the swamp of DC...

Recall what I originally posted:

~OGD~

by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 5:41pm

The problem Democrats face is that a significant number of white voters respond to economic stress by moving more to the Right. A snippet from "What's the Matter with Kansas"? notes this fact.

“Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: To the right, to the right, farther to the right. Strip today’s Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land and next thing you know they’re protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO and there’s a good chance they’ll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.”

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/16/the_matter_with_kansas_now_the_tea_party...

Thomas Frank's message to Democrats was that the party should move more to the Left to offer a counter to the Right. Democrats did not take this advice. Democratic elites carried memories of the white backlash. Democrats remember losing the South. That memory makes Democrats cautious.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 11:55am

Democrats lost the South because they embraced civil rights for African Americans not because they supported progressive economic policies. The best way for ~~them~~ Dems to get the South back is to fight much harder to improve the quality of life for the poor, working, and middle-class folks in the region. 1) Public option, 2) debt-free college, 3) no more "free" trade deals.

by HSG on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 1:18pm

Hal, race trumps economics for many Southern whites. They overwhelmingly vote for the Republicans. When it comes to college, Southern whites focus on closing HBCUs. When it comes to health they focus on repealing Obamacare.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 3:09pm

The way you separate civil rights from "economic policies" misrepresents what happened.

One of the results of the Republican upsurge in the South after the Civil Rights advancements of the Fifties and Sixties was that the use of Capital development was embraced in a way that had been resisted in the past as attempts to weaken the power of local economies.

That story has been told a number of different ways. Maybe you could add a chapter. It will take more than saying people just have to realize what is better for them. They are in this thing way deeper than you are.

by moat on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 6:31pm

Hal's construct of how Democrats lost the South adds another plank that confirms BernieBros will never understand why Sanders lost the black vote. The world is viewed through the Sanders economic bubble.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 10:47pm

Hold the phone RMRD. Are you actually saying you disagree with my statement that the Dems lost the South because they supported civil rights?

By the way, the personal attacks demonstrate your inability to respond to my specific points and your refusal to admit error. See also PP. I take them as a point of pride. Keep on keeping on!

by HSG on Mon, 07/18/2016 - 3:05pm

Hal, I misread the first part of your statement, Regarding the second part, white Southerners reject Obamacare because it comes from a black President. They also will reject poverty and college programs that include blacks and minorities.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/18/2016 - 3:34pm

I apologize

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/18/2016 - 4:07pm

Thanks accepted. Now how do we take down Trump who's leading in some national polls as I write this?

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 9:59am

Well, one way would be to focus on Hillary's positives rather than flogging the same poor old dead horse over and over.

by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 10:18am

Agreed. At the same time, can we agree that it would also be a big mistake to misrepresent her record as one that reflects 1) a pro-peace bent or 2) manifest concern for A) telling the truth, B) following governing regulations, C) the poor, D) women, E) children, F) minorities, and G) the working class.

Positives: She has great experience. She is a woman. She is not a racist or a sexist. She will appoint qualified justice-minded justices and judges. She does not pander to haters. She is not a demagogue. She is not a social conservative. She will respect the institutions of government. I'm sure I missed some.

As I noted in a previous response to RMRD, I will stop pointing out Clinton's flaws, foibles, and mistakes the instant her supporters stop puffing her up to be something she is not.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 10:34am

Hal, we no longer care about your opinion of Hillary.

The fact that you remain mute while the Mena nonsense is used to criticize Bill Clinton speaks volumes about Clinton hatred.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 11:23am

Care or don't care doesn't matter. What matters is winning. Puffing Clinton up to be a full house when she's really a pair of treys isn't going to defeat Trump. What will defeat him is to point out that two 3s beats a 7 high.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 11:41am

Trump is defeating himself. His wife is a plagiarist. Next we hear from his kids.

Edit to add:

Trump scared the living daylights out of people last night.

He angered others by using a grieving mother as a political prop.

We got white supremacy from Steve King on MSNBC.

Antonio Saboto did an anti-Muslim rant on national TV

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 12:13pm

See post at bottom dated July 19, 12:40pm.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 12:39pm

Hal, You asked the question,

Now how do we take down Trump who's leading in some national polls as I write this?

I responded to your question that maybe if you would focus on her positives rather than her negatives it would help. Your answer was very disappointing as you listed yet again all the dirty laundry that you claim to have on her, and then list a few pretty lame positives. But what came next is what was so typical of you, and why I think these "conversations are so useless. You say:

I will stop pointing out Clinton's flaws, foibles, and mistakes the instant her supporters stop puffing her up to be something she is not.

In other words, you will stop doing the things that you do that run counter to your previous statement indicating that you want to help "take down Trump.." If and when everyone else does what you tell them to do. I don't need to make a bargain with you to get you to do what you claim you want, and no one else should either. Keep on with your lists; keep on throwing mud all over the place, but don't claim that your goal is to defeat Trump. That flies in the face of your very words.

Oh, and when you say this is all just to protect her from the "misrepresentations" of those of us who support her -- that is the very definition of concern trolling.

by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 3:32pm

Any article with a positive take on Hillary Clinton published by anyone will be a target for Hal's commitment to point out his perceived "flaws". There is no reason to list Hal as a Democrat in this election. Perhaps Jill Stein or Larry Johnson are more to his liking.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 4:33pm

I liked Larry Johnson in the old Grandmama ads but I didn't know he was running for President. Maybe I'll give him a look-see.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 5:41pm

That's fine. Don't make any bargains with me. It's your call. If you want to keep misrepresenting Clinton's record, that's fine. But I will keep correcting you.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 5:32pm

You say you want to derail Trump, but you really want to wallow in Hillary hate; you use the excuse that everyone else isn't doing what you commanded as your price for not keeping up the negative comments about her.

Funny. I don't recall reading one thing from you that specifically criticizes Trump. I think you really want him to win. Correct away. I am done with this nonsense.

by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 5:42pm

You write: "Funny. I don't recall reading one thing from you that specifically criticizes Trump."

In my latest long-form post here, I use the following words to describe the putative Republican nominee, "racist," "deadbeat", "hustler", "meanspirited," and "flimflam man."

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:03pm

Hal, hell will freeze over before I go to the trouble to register at your site to read what you so generously post here. I said that I did not recall reading any negatives about Trump that were "specific." I still haven't.

by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:18pm

CVille - My link was to an article I posted at Dag. I think the words I used to describe Trump were very specific. They go to the various ways he has hustled and bamboozled his followers. I'm sorry if you don't think I've been harsh enough. Frankly, as I've stated before, Trump is beneath my contempt and I don't feel there's benefit to be had from spending a lot of time and energy attacking him.

On another note - why the animus I'm curious. I remember you told us here that your son explained to you that he didn't like Hillary because of her close ties to corporate America. I asked you whether any of that sounded right to you. You still haven't answered. So do you think your son has any legitimate reasons to harbor misgivings about a Clinton Presidency?

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:24pm

I too hold to that maxim. We're finally in agreement.

If Hal and others want to keep misrepresenting Hillary's record, that's fine. But I will keep correcting you.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 5:46pm

You mean like correcting me by claiming she really did follow the pertinent federal regulations governing email preservation when she was Secretary of State. LOL.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:04pm

What it gets down to Hal, is you continue to have the same conversations on the same subjects using the same arguments over and over again because you're still butt hurt that your candidate was crushed in a landslide by the candidate you don't like. Your arguments lost, your loser candidate lost, and you just can't deal with losing so badly. You're going to force us to have the same arguments that lost in the primary until you find some way to get over your butt hurt.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:14pm

I love the personal analyses O-K. Keep 'em coming. The reason I'm angry the better candidate lost in the Democratic primaries is because I love America and I want what's best for my country and world - especially because I have two teenagers. That's the only reason.

You said you'd keep correcting me. I laughed out loud because your "corrections" are more akin to an errata sheet.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:26pm

The reason I'm angry is that the worst candidate can't handle being quite justifiably crushed in a landslide and some of his supporters are so butt hurt about it they keep repeating over and over and over again the same arguments that lost in the primary. Like somehow whining and crying is going to change the minds and the votes and make the loser a winner. Whining and crying just makes a loser a sore loser.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:40pm

Sanders endorsed Clinton after losing in a much closer race than anyone thought he could possibly run so there go your arguments. Regarding the claims made in the primaries, if you don't want to hear them stop falsely claiming your candidate is righteous.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:51pm

Hillary fought Obama to a dead heat with 18 million votes. Sanders could barely top 12 million. Still it was surprising that he could get 12 million votes before getting crushed in a landslide by the far superior candidate. No one thought this clown could scam more than 3 or 4% of the people to vote for him.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 7:11pm

Double post

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/17/2016 - 10:48pm

Moat - what you wrote confirms exactly what I did. Democratic embrace of civil rights alienated a large majority of Southern white voters in the south. The Democratic party's move away from economic populism since has only exacerbated that trend.

by HSG on Mon, 07/18/2016 - 3:07pm

Yes, Civil Rights being introduced into the Solid South put the Democratic Party into the crapper for several generations. That process is not yet complete. Cardwell is on this problem 24/7. Listen harder to that part of your conversation with him.

The point I made about the influx of Capital with the emergence of the Republicans is not adequately addressed by your observation regarding economic populism as a Democratic Party agenda.

You seem to want to have it both ways: A party loses power to determine what happens in a place. That party is also responsible for what another party is able to have happen in that place. That isn't to say that the causes you have in mind are incorrect or are irrelevant. But shifts of power between individuals and groups is why the place is how it is. Speculation of what might have happened if what didn't happen had happened will never be an adequate account of that reality.

Life is happening way too fast for that sort of thing. See Tolstoy for details.

by moat on Mon, 07/18/2016 - 8:28pm

Let's assume the absolute worst about Southern white voters. They are motivated by two disparate irrational hates. 1) They hate blacks. 2) They hate bankers and Hollywood filmmakers - especially Jewish ones.

When Roosevelt was running for President, they were torn. Yes the Roosevelts - especially Eleanor - seemed to have a soft spot in their hearts for black people. But the Wall Street establishment and rich Jewish filmmakers didn't like them. For example, L.B. Mayer of MGM was Chair of the California Republican Party. So, racist anti-semitic white southerners had to choose whether to vote for the rich Jew party or the black (they used a different word) party. Some went with the more populist Democrats.

Since the Clintons, at the latest, Democratic party standard bearers have actively sought the support of Wall Street and pretty much given it what it wants just like the Republicans have. So racist anti-semitic white southerners now choose Republicans who at least (from their standpoint) pander to their racism but not necessarily their anti-semitic (Trump has reached out in this area to them) anti-Wall Street sentiments.

As a Jew, anti-semitism scares me quite a bit and the last thing I want the Democratic party to do is embrace Jew hatred but rejecting the wishes of Wall Street and focusing in on Main Street would be a good way for the party to reach out to the heartland and to start to try to win a bigger share of the white working class vote.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 12:53pm

Where the parties converge on the matter of supporting Wall Street is an important issue and I would not want to make light of it.

But your comments do not address the point I was making about what happens when a party loses power on a local level. I have no interest in making the narrative of the Democratic past into a magical mystery tour for all involved. The South changed in many ways because it suddenly had money in places it did not have previously. That was both a good and a bad thing for the people involved.

Your desire to make it all about one story closes you off from a much more complicated thing.

by moat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 9:54pm

Dems maintained local power in the south long after they were routinely losing in the national races. But Democratic governors and legislatures couldn't stop employers from moving operations overseas or Walmart from destroying small towns. Maybe they could have done more but that's the point.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 10:22pm

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 12:40pm

All of the vomitus being spewed at Trump by the liberal media and wise informed bloggers seems to be working but not in the way they expected. It seems to be causing people to react and reject this extreme BS and become more tolerant of Trump's less desirable traits, great work liberals!

by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 12:55pm

None of this makes sense Peter. Clinton was the electable candidate. We were supposed to ignore all those polls showing Bernie would easily beat Trump while she'd have a fight on her hands. Clinton was the one who had been vetted. She couldn't be touched up by the cons since she had already faced 25 years of withering assaults and yet her approval numbers just keep right on dropping. As of now, they're almost as bad as her opponent's. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/18/the-continuing...

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 1:33pm

Still flogging those national polls? 1) they're largely irrelevant til near election, 2) the presidential election is by state/electoral votes. Hillary's playing the swing state bit quite well - opening new ones. Likely there's only so much crazy Americans will chew down. Yes, some get numbed to the next Trump outrageous statement, but like many establishment Repubs sitting this one out or voting Hillary, so will many of the rank and file. And yes, a first time female canidate will help too, despite traditional sexism.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 1:47pm

Yeah, over and over again the same old crap.

Here’s some political advice that most people will, unfortunately, ignore: Don’t fret too much about general election polls until both parties’ conventions are over.

Over the next two weeks, election polls will likely show some wild swings between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. (The Republican convention will be held from Monday to Thursday, and the Democratic convention will be held from July 25 to July 28.)

This happens every four years. Polling usually goes haywire during the conventions, since a lot is happening: The primaries have ended, the parties are consolidating, vice presidential candidates are picked, and so on.

But here’s the catch: Polling during the conventions is even less likely to be predictive of the final outcome of the election than polling at both earlier and later times of the year, says Princeton election guru Sam Wang. So if you’re eager to find out who’s truly ahead in the presidential race, you’re better off looking at earlier polls from the spring — or, if you can resist, waiting until August.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 3:42pm

Well you (always think you) know best.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 5:42pm

You know Hal, it's not whether pp, or I, think we know best. I'm just a educated amateur in statistical analysis. I think PP would say the same thing. All we're saying is that those who are experts in statistical analysis and who make it their life's work all say the same thing and offer evidence to support their claims. General election polls before August and especially during the conventions are unreliable.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:06pm

Okay O-K. The numerous election polls 538 is relying upon and which I cited that show a very tight race were completed before the Republican convention began and therefore are relevant according to the source you provided: "So if you’re eager to find out who’s truly ahead in the presidential race, you’re better off looking at earlier polls".

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:56pm

Pathetic Hal, just pathetic. The full quote is, " So if you’re eager to find out who’s truly ahead in the presidential race, you’re better off looking at earlier polls from the spring" You're really a sad little liar with your truncated quotes.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 7:16pm

Now you're being even more absurd than usual but I figured you would be. Obviously, the polls weren't affected by the Republican convention since it hadn't began when they were taken. So just as obviously they are pertinent per your source. It's kinda like when you cited to some alleged expert who, you said, claimed Clinton didn't violate fed regs with her private email server except your source said nothing of the kind.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 8:38pm

538 gives Hillary over 300 electoral college votes

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Game.Set. Match.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 2:22pm

Currently, the 538 projection is well below 300 and the race is closer than it's ever been. But you and PP need to get your stories straight. He says the polls don't matter, whereas you're relying on them. Very interesting.

To be fair though Silver does say Clinton's lead is safe - just as safe as John Kerry's was at this same point 12 years ago and we all know how well that turned out. Look, she may win. She's still the favorite. I predicted she would but those of you who have been arrogantly dismissive of Bernie Sanders as less electable really need to put on your bibs with the picture of a crow on them. Oh and I'm not going to be nice about it and forget about the nasty mean-spirited insults you've all been leveling at me for well over a year while ~~dismissing~~ mocking my well-reasoned and defended arguments and facts.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 5:54pm

you and PP need to get your stories straight.

Don't be ridiculous. We're individuals here with different views and opinions. We don't need to tow some line to your satisfaction. I don't expect you to get your story straight with wattree. As I've posted before I don't think you agree with wattree's constant posting of the Mena myth. I think you're too smart and reality based to believe that nonsense. I think you're like the smart republicans that knew Obama was born in Hawaii but gave the wink wink nudge nudge to the clueless birthers for political gain.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:03pm

The question of whether today's polls mean anything is somewhat different from whether I credit the "Mena" story of which I am wholly ignorant and will studiously remain. If the polls mean something, Clinton's in some trouble. If they don't, then we're all stumbling around in the dark. PP dismisses them since this allows him to avoid confronting the fact that he backs a candidate who is widely disliked and could actually lose to Trump. RMRD cited to Silver who relies almost completely on polls because he believed (wrongly) that the polls are trending in his candidate's favor.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:17pm

Duplicate.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:18pm

This really is the story of your last month here at dagblog. You haven't made a new argument on a new subject since Sanders was crushed in a landslide. Except it should be triplicate quintuplicate
sextuplicate
septuplicate
octuplicate
nonuplicate
decuplicate

Try to get over whining about your butt hurt and move on.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:32pm

O-K - why are you so angry and insulting? I have good reason to be upset. My candidate, who would probably be waltzing to the Presidency, lost to yours. Yours remains extremely problematic. In fact, she is so bad that we face the very real possibility that a neo-fascist will become President. This is terribly upsetting to me and I presume to you too. We had the chance to elect a true progressive and seize the Supreme Court. Instead, we may lose because you and your ilk saddled us with a hugely unpopular dishonest pro-war corporatist centrist. So again, what possible reason could you have to be upset with me? Are you projecting appropriate internally directed furor?

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:46pm

I'm angry because the loser candidate that would likely lose to Trump in a landslide bigger than the landslide defeat he received from Hillary is unable to accept the fact that the people didn't want to vote for him and didn't want him to be president. He's such a cry baby that he's unwilling to put the good of the country ahead of his hurt feelings and he's helping the most incompetent person in the history of America get elected.

It's frustrating that so many were duped by Sanders during the election but that's not my main complaint. Most democrats saw through Sanders scam and he was crushed by the superior candidate in a landslide. What amazes me is that a tiny fraction of Sanders supporters can't see that his narcissistic sore loser whining and crying is proof that he would have been a failed general election candidate and a bigger loser as president than he was a big loser in the primary.

Sanders took his arguments to the voters and his arguments lost. He placed himself before the voters and the voters overwhelmingly rejected him. Some of his supporters still think that repeating over and over and over and over again the same arguments that were rejected by a large majority of the voters will change people's minds. It's a delusion of massive proportions.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 7:03pm

"Waltzing"? You're waltzing Matilda. Your candidate would be the one thing that could unite the Republicans and many independents - a Castro-loving self-avowed socialist bent on jacking up taxes on everything to expand government to the skies.

If Bernie were to be competitive, he'd have to show it in California,where he lost by 7% and 350K votes. Pretty good showing, but pretty good ain't good enough. Could he pull it out with another 5 months campaigning, ground game, TV buys and DNC support? Possibly, depends a bit on whether he mastered the swing states and weathered the shit-storm, but certainly no cakewalk.

And no, there are no caucuses in the November election to overstate his support - it's all popular voting as filtered through the electoral college.

Really, you're off in "I do believe in fairies" land. The Peter Pan remake was great, but still not real life.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 7:17pm

rmrd is doing the sane thing and looking at state-by-state contests, but not jumping up and down presuming it's definitive in July (like Bernie fans were doing in March) before the state-by-state TV money, GOTV, speeches, blunders and all the other high points and travesties of a general election. McGovern looked okay until the chaos of the convention and his poor pick of Eagleton. Kerry's demise was over Swiftboating and the progress of the Iraq War in November, not the national sentiment of July, and still relied largely on Ohio, nothing else. Al Gore's progress shifted several times between July and November and relied both on Florida polling sentiment as well as confusing ballots, unregistering black voters, fights over hanging chads, and supreme court opinions. Did those national polls reflect battleground states and butterfly nallots? Thought not.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 7:01pm

The number fluctuates it is at 297 now.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 9:24pm

If the GOP thought Hillary was easier to beat, they would have been attacking Bernie to ensure she gets the nomination. They did exactly the opposite.

by NCD on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 3:22pm

Keep pushing that one NCD. Here's another interpretation. The RNC figured - correctly - that establishment Dems would be able to stop the Democratic Socialist so they did what they could to keep him in position to bloody up the candidate they (a) figured they would and (b) wanted to face.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 5:56pm

Perhaps the Dems knew the tax and spend Democratic socialist would not stand a chance in Nov.

by NCD on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 7:56pm

The rising panic among the the Clinton faithful is palpable and the political cannibalism being displayed here so early, they usually wait until after the election, seems to show their denial of reality is wearing thin. It appears they are pre-selecting scapegoats who can be blamed for not showing the proper submission to the Red Queen and will be designated as the cause of her downfall.

by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 3:46pm

When you see us shaking all over with weird looks on our faces you assume it is "panic," when in fact we are laughing our a**es off at the spectacle in Cleveland. Sorry Peter, you are reading this wrong.

by CVille Dem on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 4:03pm

You keep projecting emotions that you wish were true onto other people. I'm neither panicked not am I complacent. We're still 100 days out from the vote and there will likely be many ups and downs until then. Your posts lack all substance and are simply designed to antagonize people. The fact that you so often achieve your intent to insult and anger people isn't evidence that your analysis is correct. Constant insults actually show that you lack evidence or even good arguments to support your views. If you posted what you think and feel rather than insultingly attempting to psychoanalyze us and supported your opinions with a rational argument people here wouldn't consider you nothing more than an annoying gnat.

by ocean-kat on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 4:38pm

by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 3:46pm

Hal... That's little league polling...

Try something more meaningful...

Like up to the hour big league polls by:

Sam Wang at Princton Election Consortium.

And here's the Princeton Election Consortium Electoral Map

And if you need an explanation how it works, and you most likely do, here:

About PEC and the Meta-Analysis (FAQ)

Silver at 538 hedges his bets this early.

~OGD~

by oldenGoldenDecoy on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:51pm

Well this is a needed bit of good news. Thanks for brightening my day OGD. I sure hope Wang is correct and the polls showing the race has gotten much closer are not predictive.

by HSG on Tue, 07/19/2016 - 6:58pm

Hal, if Hillary wins you will be so disappointed. It is obvious. Why don't you admit it?