Bernie or Bust?

    The "Bernie or Bust!" movement asks Sanders supporters to commit to vote for only Bernie in the general election. If he's not on the ballot in November, busters say they won't vote for President or will write in Bernie's name even though this could lead to the election of "il Duce" Donald Trump or Torquemada Ted Cruz. I am not a buster, although I certainly understand the movement's appeal.

    By contrast, I condemned Ralph Nader in 2000 as soon as he indicated he was running as a third-party candidate and continue to revile the man for what he did to our nation.  But there are significant differences between this year's election and Bush v. Gore. Most importantly, Al Gore was almost certainly a better Presidential candidate than Nader. He was also about as liberal a candidate as we could hope to elect at that point. He was more progressive than the Democratic President he served for eight years, refreshingly decent and honest, and an ardent environmentalist.

    Hillary Clinton, by contrast, was the most conservative Democratic Presidential candidate in this election cycle. She is decidedly hawkish, has a well-deserved reputation for dishonesty, and is an economic neo-liberal. She is exactly what this country doesn't need.

    So, I get "Bernie or Bust" which claims up to 1/3 of Sanders supporters. My sense, though, is that most Democratic pundits and insiders don't take them too seriously. After all, say the women and men making rounds on NPR, CNN, MSNBC, Clinton's PUMAs in 2008 ultimately didn't amount to anything at all. Liberal radio host Randi Rhodes who supported Obama ardently in 2008 and never missed an opportunity to slam Hillary - sometimes profanely - may have nailed it when she said "you fall in love during the primaries and you fall in line before the general election."

    Of course, there are important distinctions between the 2008 edition of the Democratic primaries and the 2016 campaign. Eight years ago the top two candidates differed little on the most important issue in that election season. Both promised healthcare reform and their plans were so similar that newspapers had to take pains to identify salient differences.

    I asked a disgruntled Clinton supporter in the summer of 2008 to identify policy differences between Clinton and Barack Obama. She couldn't do it, although she sputtered that nobody could have reasonably thought Obama would be a better President than Clinton so the fact that he won proved his supporters were sexist. It didn't take her long to endorse Obama.

    By contrast, there are broad and obvious differences between Clinton and Sanders both on the issues and in the way they're campaigning. To vote for Clinton, Sanders supporters will have to move quite a distance from the pro-peace, pro-worker, pro-environment, pro-economic justice candidate. So, I get "Bernie or Bust".

    I won't join them.  If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, as expected, I plan to vote for her because the Republican alternative will likely to do much more harm to our nation. Still, "Bernie or Bust" has good reasons to reject Clinton. In order to prevent the national nightmare that a Trump or Cruz Presidency would induce, Clinton must therefore demonstrate that, if elected, she will not govern as the neo-con corporatist Bernie's busters fear.

    How can she do this? She should right now commit to a truly progressive agenda by naming the people she intends to appoint to be her top domestic and foreign policy advisers. Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Sherrod Brown are all good choices for the domestic job. If she doesn't want to pluck a sitting Democratic Senator from Congress, Robert Reich might be a good choice, although his latest piece at Salon bizarrely questioned whether free trade is really as bad as its detractors claim. Perhaps a labor leader would be the ideal choice.

    Clinton should promise to push hard for a $15 minimum wage, higher top marginal tax rates on the wealthy, not to sign off on any more free trade deals and to renegotiate or renounce the ones currently in effect.

    Clinton should name as her putative top foreign policy adviser a national figure who has bucked the neo-con trend over the past 20 years. Not too many come to mind. Lincoln Chafee might be a good choice. I'd plump for a retired officer like Colonel Ann Wright who has been consistently correct on foreign policy over the past two decades.

    There are other actions Clinton can take to demonstrate she has forsworn the DLC/Third Way Wall Street moderates.  Breaking decisively from allies Rahm Emanuel and Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be a good start as would cutting ties with David "Hitman" Brock' and his "Correct the Record" SuperPac.

    Sanders die-hards may ultimately support Clinton but she must woo them.  Her stated goal Monday of taking America's relationship with Israel to the next level made the task much more difficult.  If Clinton continues to ignore the legitimate concerns of "Sanders or Bust!", if she signals contempt for its adherents as she did at AIPAC, she risks losing a significant number of Sanders supporters in the general election. Should this happen and our nation devolves into fascism or theocracy, Clinton will bear a portion of the responsibility.


    Interesting form of taking hostages. It reminds me of a scene in Blazing Saddles:



    Hillary has been wooing Sanders supporters for months. Indeed, one of Bernie's successes has been to draw Hillary to toward progressive issues. But she certainly won't go any further left after she clinches the nomination. She has the general election to worry about, and there are a lot more swing voters than busters out there. But if they can't draw her further left at this point, Bernie supporters can still hold her to the promises that she has already made and try to keep her from veering back toward the center. 

    Yeah, but Hal seems focused on just insulting Hillary one more time and demanding that she adopt all of Bernie's policies to keep his followers happy. Winning = adopting the loser's platform and advisor wishlist whole cloth? who knew.

    Even funnier to remember Hillary in 2008 with a near tie in popular vote, fought till June, but the idea that she could ask Obama for anything was treated as totally presumptuous and overreach.

    Anyway, I'm pretty meh about radical advice from the guys that can't even get their youth vote out to vote and keep complaining about how terrible the rules are when those (caucus & open primary) rules have been keeping them relevant for 2 months. And I doubt Hillary needs any prodding re: Elizabeth Warren - they know each other, and Warren's been rather gracious in staying out of the mix.

    These discussions go better when divested of grievances. The Bernie or Bust "movement" seems to be driven more by resentment against Hillary and the Democrats than rational calculus. But there is plenty of resentment among Hillary supporters too, some of it dating back to 2008. It often manifests as scornful derision directed at Bernie supporters, who are understandably frustrated to see their candidate losing.

    The scornful derision from some Hillary supporters has its roots in 08? Where than did the scornful derision in 08  from some Obama supporters directed at Hillary supporters who were understandably frustrated to see their candidate losing come form?

    Not all winners are magnanimous. Some losers are sore. It's the nature of the game. I don't think it dates back to 08. If Hillary didn't run and Biden was beating Sanders we'd see the same dynamic play out.

    I agree.

    The "winning=adopting the loser's platform" is right out of the Republican playbook, and it has worked beautifully. So for the Bernie folks to adopt it makes perfect sense to me.

    Our own dear Ramona has a blog post up today about the need to unite, and it's a beauty.

    Well, the Republican playbook is the antithesis of democracy. I suggest if you want Bernie's proposals adopted you get more people to the polls. It's been a long time since I needed a Nanny to tell me what I really intended or what's good for me. I know there's a meme going around that Hillary supporters don't know why they do it and are just waiting to be reprogrammed, but it's not that cynical or hollow.

    I'm happy for some of the tuning of the Democratic message, but only some.

    You may have gotten the idea from my comment that I am a Bernie supporter. I am not. I think the whole "loser sets the agenda" thing stinks. I was just saying that it worked so well for the Repubs, it's no wonder he's adopting it. So many people want to think that Bernie is a different kind of politician, but I don't think that is true. He has been flying under the radar, but when push comes to shove, he can be as nasty as the next guy. I don't think when he started this, he had any idea he would get so much attention. Now, I think it is going to his head, and he REALLY wants it. SO he will do whatever it takes, including accusing Bill Clinton of having meant that Obama had an awful legacy the last 8 years, when anyone with half a brain knows he was referring to the Repubs, and taking every opportunity he can to make digs at Hillary's honesty and integrity, playing into the repub's hands.

    I'm curious how you think Bernie supporters can hold her accountable to the promises she made? Considering she has flipped flopped on basically EVERY issue, I actually dare you to find one major progressive policy she hasn't flipped on.  Be it free-trade, healthcare, LGBT, climate change, mass incarceration, war, economic inequality, education.  The only thing I can legitimately issue she might have had her whole life is women's rights.  Hell, even civil rights she has flipped on considering she campaigned for Goldwater, one of the biggest advocates for segregation.

    And if you are going to say her re-election, that will hold her accountable, then my question is this: Do you believe the idea of the lesser of two evils apply any less in 2020? No, the same thing will be said to progressives "Sure you don't like her, but she is better then a republican."  And if progressives fold for that argument now they will fold for it in 2020.

    What we need in Washington now more then ever, is a corruption buster.  Someone to reform campaign finances and get the government out of the hands of the donor class.  Only Sanders is promising this and has a record to back it up.

    Trump won't fix Washington, but unlike Clinton, he will send a message to donors and the establishment that they aren't listening to the people.  Clinton will send the message that big money works, and no doubt she will open the flood gates to corporate donations.

    You have to remember, that in their life time, Bill and Hillary together have raised nearly a billion dollars from campaign donors, pacs and superpacs.  And personally have gotten $150 million in donations in exchange for speaking fees and other payments for "work" done.

    So you tell me, how are Bernie supporters going to hold her accountable?  Because right now, I don't trust her to keep ANY of her 'promises', and I see no way to hold her accountable as long as I am a held to lesser evil logic.

    Hell, it would be better if progressives don't vote for her and she just barely wins, because at least she might have incentive to prove her self to progressives FOR re-election.

    Some Progressives suggested staying home for the 2010 midterms ushering in the Tes Party. If the current idea is that a racist like Trump is better than Hillary, they again are making a YUGE mistake.

    The people will get what they want and what they deserve. In 2000 the strongest environmentalist we have ever seen in American politics ran for president but he just wasn't pure enough. Enough of the far left voted for  Nader, the "pure" candidate, and gave the election to Bush. Instead of a center left president we got the Iraq war. And Alito, Thomas, and Roberts on the Supreme Court.

    Do what you want Charles. I'm so far outside the system none of it will affect me. It's only empathy, a sense of justice, and the desire to see improvement in the world that has caused me to vote for the lesser of two evils for the last 40 years. If that's not enough for you, if Trump or Cruz wins, you and America will get exactly what they deserve.

    It's only empathy, a sense of justice, and the desire to see improvement in the world that has caused me to vote for the lesser of two evils for the last 40 years.

    So, you are going to vote for Bernie after all. Cool!

    Of course I'm going to vote for the best candidate that can win. Even if I thought Sanders was the best candidate I'd vote for Hillary. Voting for Sanders is like voting for Nader in 2000. What makes you think that losing with Sanders is the best way to send a symbolic message?  If I was making a symbolic vote for the best candidate that will lose I'd be voting for the Green candidate, not Sanders.   If I wanted to give Trump the presidency by making a symbolic vote I'd do it by writing in Kucinich, not Sanders. They are much better candidates to waste your vote on than Sanders.


    Of course I'm going to vote for the best candidate that can win

    Above you said you would vote for the lesser evil.  And, to conclude with such confidence that Hillary would do better against Trump or Cruze than would Sanders requires ignoring a lot of evidence. And, your Nader analogy is bumper-sticker mentality at work. Kerry won that election fair and square and then it was stolen and not by Nader. 

    What makes you think that losing with Sanders is the best way to send a symbolic message? 

    And what makes you think that I think that? I voted for Sanders a couple nights ago on a Spanish language ballot because the much higher than expected turnout caused a shortage of English language ballots. Sanders won by a very large margin. I hope he somehow makes it to the national ballot and when I vote for him again it will be because I want him to win. That is because I, like millions of other people, believe that whether he is lined up against against Hillary or any of the Republicans, Sanders is the lesser evil. It is not a close call. 

    Trump won't fix Washington, but unlike Clinton, he will send a message to donors and the establishment that they aren't listening to the people.

    The message he will send to the donors is that they might as well cut out the middleman "establishment" and just buy themselves some political power.  Trump is not winning because of his empathy with the common man.

    He does empathize with their racism and scapegoating of the blacks and the browns for all  the problems they face.

    What we need is someone who isn't promising unicorns, when he'll be lucky to give horses. Or anything. This revolution is DOA. We have a really pissed off guy screaming and wagging his finger about ain't it awful from the left, and a guy who is a spoiled rotten brat screaming and being vulgar about ain't it awful from the right. Neither of them can deliver what they want (unless the senate stays red, in which case the vulgar guy MAY be able to deliver a lot of it.) Both of them depend on making sure people are scared and really, really mad.

    Worse yet, even though I can't think of much of consequence that I disagree with him on, the pissed off guy on the left is NOT a Democrat. Never has been, never will be. He's sucking off the Dem teat for exposure, but he isn't doing a damn thing to support the down-ticket candidates, which is kind of amazing considering that he NEEDS them if he wants his little revolution to go anywhere. He throws the party under the bus every time he gets the chance. 

    Then we've got Hillary, who has tons of baggage (thanks in large part to the right's 25 year campaign of hatred of her, which the so-called progressives have also adopted) and most of it is not deserved. I am new to the Hillary camp. I couldn't stand her in 2008. It wasn't until the liars and haters started in on President Obama that I realized that's what they've done to her all these years and took another look at her with an open mind. The Hillary that I see now is very different than the one that has been stuck in my head for decades.

    I was all for hope and change, and given the obstructionism he has faced, I think President Obama did an admirable job. I only wish I could vote for him again.

    This time, I'm more pragmatic. Hillary appears to have been well-liked in the Senate. She has built coalitions, not just been a thorn in everyone's side. 

    And best yet? The President trusts her, and I trust him. So, I'm willing to give her a chance.

    And in all honesty, the lack of testosterone is a draw. I've had about enough of that to last a lifetime.

    And Stilli drops the mic and walks nonchalantly off the fucking stage!


    Thanks Ms. McCarthy!


    That's how I see it too stilli. I think Obama's biggest weakness is that it took him so long to see it too. He tried and tried and tried to work with these people to no avail. And then they blamed him for it, called him the divisive one.

    I don't know that I would exactly call it a weakness - maybe a miscalculation? He believed with all his heart he could unite the country, and I think he wanted to make sure he did everything he could possibly do to make that happen. 

    The country missed a huge opportunity by not coalescing around him.


    Miscalculation, mistake, he just didn't understand the nature of the opposition. Each year they get more and more extreme and now they have Trump.  I'm not sure that knowing then what he seems to know now would have made much difference.

    I see it as a fight. Not until they are thoroughly defeated can we begin to move forward. I don't see win/win compromise solutions to the differences we have. In the end one side will win and the other lose. With Trump this might be the tipping point, hopefully for our side. If not I think it will be a very bad very ugly four years.

    Unless or until we take back both the Senate and the House, I don't see any way around compromise. Hopefully we'll get the better end of it. But, 1st things 1st. We need to win, and by a landslide would be helpful.

    We can hope for compromise but I don't see it happening. A landslide win would go a long distance especially if we take back the senate too. Flipping the Supreme Court left is another step on the path. It really looks like we're close to the tipping point. But I'm never confident, I'm never sure. Trump could win and then, god help us all.

    Me neither. This is a weird cycle. ANYTHING could happen!

    You mean unless true progressives take firm control of Congress right?  In 2009, Dems owned Congress but there was still compromise - tax cuts made up a big part of the stimulus, the big bank bailouts continued unabated rather than help for embattled homeowners, no public option, no investigation into Bush administration crimes, etc.

    No, I said what I meant. Compromise is not a dirty word. Our founding fathers set it up that way intentionally, so that no one group could run roughshod over another. The only way this this form of government works is to work out compromises in which no one gets everything they want. 

    I do not have a "my way or the highway" mentality.

    I want progressive values, but there are a whole bunch of people out there who don't. We need to hammer out plans that speak for us all, even though sometimes it feels like we are speaking different languages. And if that means edging toward what we want by convincing people a bit at a time that what we want is what's best for everyone, then so be it.

    Please provide a direct quote where Sanders promises anything unrealistic.

    Seriously? Universal healthcare with a congress that has tried to get rid of the ACA 47+ times? Pays for tuition free college with increased taxes that the house will not approve...the list goes on. Are the things he wants unrealistic some day? Probably not. But during the span of what would be his administration? No way. Some of these college kids that support him think he gets elected, they no longer pay college tuition, and I have not one time heard him say this isn't going to happen in the years you will be in college, it's for the people who come after you - maybe a decade after you.

    You have failed to provide one quote.  Again, please provide a quote where Bernie Sanders "promises" unicorns.  Very briefly Sanders never promises anything, he says that if we work together, by electing large progressive majorities, we can begin the political revolution necessary for true economic and environmental justice.  He repeatedly points out that "the President can't do it alone." 

    He "talks about" electing large progressive majorities (just like he "talked about" supporting the auto industry) but he isn't lifting a finger to help the down-ticket candidates he would need in order to do it (just like he voted against the bill that would actually fund the help to the auto industry.) 

    Has he said "I promise you unicorns?" Of course not. Really, he doesn't say much of anything other than pointing out repeatedly how much everything sucks and how by doing a bunch of stuff that can't happen with a repub house, it won't anymore. And then he throws in a slam against the dem party, oh and against Hillary, too, for good measure. And people eat it up. I don't get it.


    You said he is promising people unicorns.  Are you backing away from that assertion?  Are you backing away from the claim that he's promising anything?  If so, good.  If you really don't get why people are frustrated and angry with the Democratic party, I strongly urge you to read what I have written here and elsewhere.  If you prefer another authority, read Thomas Frank.

    No, I'm not, Hal. In essence, that's just what he's doing. You are trying to bully me into backing down because he's never precisely said, "I promise you unicorns," but the truth is, he's making people think there's going to be this "yuuuuge" change if he's elected. And there will not be.

    The banks will not magically be broken up, universal health care will not all of a sudden appear, college tuition will not be paid for by the government next semester.

    But to hear young people talking, you'd think that was the case. They are not saying how wonderful it will be when the next generation of students will not leave college with huge debt. They think they will benefit. They have no idea that the Republicans can, and will keep it from happening. They are inexperienced, and think that democracy works in a way that it doesn't. 

    I DO get why people are angry and frustrated with the Democratic Party. I'm frustrated by it, as well, but for different reasons. And if you think there is anger and frustration now, just wait until all these young people realize they've bought a pig in a poke.

    I'm angry because the people who elected President Obama abandoned him in 2010 and 2014 and made his job so much more difficult. Had they not abandoned that revolution, we wouldn't have so many Republican statehouses and governors, and they wouldn't have taken the House and the Senate. We would have been able to the work necessary to improve the ACA and have more people in those red states covered by insurance or Medicaid.

    And the new president might just have been able to do all these wonderful things. 

    But not now. Now we get to slug through the mud and works 10 times harder, and progress much more slowly.

    So, no, he hasn't used the words, "I promise you unicorns." But the inference is there. He's like a snake oil salesman. He's making people believe things that are not true. And the worst part of it is, he's doing it to young impressionable people who will find themselves in a lose-lose situation. They'll either watch the candidate that got them so excited lose, in spite of all the enthusiasm, and feel bitter, and want to blame "the establishment" for  cheating them. Or they'll see him win, then face the reality that he can't do what he made them believe could be done, and feel bitter. I'll have a hard time forgiving him for that.


    So young voters who support Clinton are wise beyond their years? Give me a break. "They are inexperienced, and think that democracy works in a way that it doesn't." Jesus Christ. Don't trust anyone under 30, Stilli.

    I understand now.  You said Bernie's promising unicorns.  Now you admit he never actually promised anybody a unicorn but people are inferring from what he's saying that they'll get unicorns.  Could you please cut and paste a few sentences or paragraphs from one Bernie speech that implies he'll be giving everybody a unicorn or a pony or single-payer healthcare?  Thanks.

    Hal you are still being disingenuous.  The unicorn thing is a metaphor for promising things that are very attractive and appealing but you have no chance to deliver.  I think you know that.  And when you leave a challenge to find quotes from your voluminous writings to demonstrate what you say in different ways all the time, it is just annoying rather than a constructive exchange.

    Here's challenge for you:  show a creditable source that proves what you wrote elsewhere on this strea; that Hillary is the second-most hated politician in this race.

    Whom does America hate more – Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?

    Hmmm, who do democrats hate more, Sanders or Hillary? I see two possible answers. Democrats prefer to vote  for the person they hate or democrats hate Sanders more than Hillary.

    1) For many months you argued Clinton didn't violate any rules with her private email server setup.  After I finally explained to you in painstaking detail that by failing to preserve her government emails at the State Department, she violated a regulation effectuated a few months after she took office that did not pertain to her predecessors, you abruptly stopped arguing.  When I subsequently noted that your silence suggested to me you actually did understand the issue, you insisted I was wrong.  Now the FBI is planning to interview her as part of its investigation into Clinton's use of a private email account while Secretary of State.  Last I checked Obama's FBI doesn't spend months investigating nothing.

    Addendum - From today's Washington Post (a noted Sanders basher):

    Specialists interviewed by The Post said [Clinton's] practices fell short of what laws and regulations mandated. Some of those obligations were spelled out a few months before Clinton took office in National Archives and Records Administration Bulletin 2008-05, which said every email system was supposed to “permit easy and timely retrieval” of the records.

    2) Here you (and Stillidealistic) recoil at my request that you provide some evidence for the false Clinton claim that Sanders is "promising" to give people anything at all if he is elected.  Stillidealistic calls me a bully! for asking him to back up the claim with evidence.  You make the astonishing argument that because I don't get metaphors nobody has to back up their attacks on Sanders with anything.

    3) Since I had the temerity to ask for evidence supporting the bald (and false) assertion that Sanders is writing checks he can't cash (metaphor alert) which you of course refuse to supply, you demanded that I prove my claim that Hillary is the 2nd most hated Presidential candidate, I immediately linked to a US News & World Report article which describes her as one of the 3 most hated politicians in along with Trump and W. Bush.

    4) Your response is to ignore the fact that I (unlike you) back up my assertion and to try to attack without a shred of evidence the far more well-liked and less despised Bernie Sanders.

    Ocean-kat - is it too much to ask you to display a modicum of intellectual consistency and willingness to reconsider expressed views that are demonstrably wrong?

    From LATimes:

    The interviews by FBI agents and prosecutors will play a significant role in helping them better understand whether Clinton or her aides knowingly or negligently discussed classified government secrets over a non-secure email system when she served as secretary of State.

    The meetings also are an indication that much of the investigators' background work – recovering deleted emails, understanding how the server operated and determining whether it was breached – is nearing completion.

    “The interviews are critical to understand the volume of information they have accumulated,” said James McJunkin, former head of the FBI's Washington field office.  “They are likely nearing the end of the investigation and the agents need to interview these people to put the information in context. They will then spend time aligning these statements with other information, emails, classified documents, etc., to determine whether there is a prosecutable case."

    Many legal experts believe that Clinton faces little risk of being prosecuted for using the private email system to conduct official business when she served as secretary of State, though that decision has raised questions among some about her judgment. They noted that using a private email system was not banned at the time, and others in government had used personal email to transact official business.

    The bigger question is whether she or her aides distributed classified material in email systems that fell outside of the department’s secure classified system. But even if prosecutors determine that she did, chances she will be found criminally liable are low. U.S. law makes it a crime for someone to knowingly or willfully retain classified information, handle it in a grossly negligent manner or to pass it to someone not entitled to see it.

    Clinton has denied using the email account to send or receive materials marked classified. Though some emails have since been deemed to be too sensitive to release publicly, Clinton's campaign has attributed that to overzealous intelligence officials and "over-classification run amok."

    Legally it doesn’t matter if the emails were marked as classified or not, since government officials are obligated to recognize sensitive material and guard against its release. But legal experts noted that such labels would be helpful to prosecutors seeking to prove she knew the information was classified, a key element of the law. 

    “The facts of the case do not fit the law,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University. “Reasonable folks may think that federal law ought to prohibit what Hillary did, but it’s just not clear to me that it currently does.”

    Even so, her use of the private server, which was based at her home in New York, has become fodder for Clinton’s political foes as she campaigns to secure the Democratic nomination for president.

    As WaPo notes, Petraeus got a misdemeanor with probation for handing 8 classified notebooks to his mistress while Director of the CIA, with photos of them found in her personal files, and I believe agent IDs, etc.. (She was also investigated for cyberstalking, so not necessarily the most together person). A rather light slap for such outrageous conduct in such a position.

    Hillary wasnt handing out any classified info to unauthorized people. So file this in your expectations equation.

    You live in a tough world Hal and I feel for you. You're intelligent and you read. You form opinions that seem so obvious to you that they seem like "truths." Then, in the face of such obvious "truth," other intelligent, well read, knowledgeable people don't see the obvious "truth." It's not just that the country at large with it's mix of levels of intellect and knowledge mostly disagrees with you. Media pundits and experts in multiple fields write articles that disagree with the media pundits and experts that write articles you agree with.

    Worse by far is that you come to a place like dagblog with people whose level of intellect and knowledge equals your own, people who spend as much time everyday reading as much as you do, and most of these people disagree with you. Even they can't see the obvious  "truth" that is overwhelmingly clear to you. Time and time again you attempt to spread the "truth" with blogs and comments. Time and time again you "prove" they are "demonstrably wrong." Yet in spite of the time invested and the obvious "truth" you share the majority of the intelligent, well read, knowledgeably people continue to hold "views that are demonstrably wrong."

    I can see how difficult it can be to know the "truth" and have the majority of people debate with you instead of immediately seeing and admitting they are "demonstrably wrong." It's a tough spot you find yourself in and you have my sympathy.

    Hal, the article you cited asks the question in the first sentence, "Who does AMERICA hate most; Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?"

    It then goes on to discuss polls that cite each person's unfavorables and favorables.  Nowhere does any poll ask anyone if they hate any of the candidates!  The author obviously wanted a hyperbolic lede because none of the polls support that first sentence as a factual assessment.

    Since accusing you of deliberately misrepresenting the article that you cited would put me in the doghouse (though I'm not sure why) I will just ask you a question. Did you simply read that first sentence and use it to prove your challenged assertion that many people hate Hillary, although it was clearly the wording of the author and was not quoting a poll?  Did you stop reading there?  Because nowhere in the article was there anything of substance that agrees with your prejudiced comments about her.

    And the bullying continues. I'll not back down. You know that what I'm saying is accurate. Use whatever metaphor you feel comfortable with. Bernie is taking money from people who can't afford it and selling them swampland in FL. Or snake oil. Or a pig in a poke. Or unicorns. They all work for me. He has either bought his own hype, or he is intentionally misleading people to make himself relevant, or one of a dozen other reasons other than the good of the country. He's been around for awhile. He knows what he is saying is unrealistic. It's just sad.

    You're flogging a dead horse here stilli. The elephant in the room is that Hal just can't grasp the concept of metaphors. Of course this could be a pretense on his part to avoid discussion so don't judge a book by it's cover. In a nutshell, what I'm saying is this dialog has gone beyond the point of no return, in fact, it's kicked the bucket.

    Note of clarification for Hal: No horses died in the production of this comment. No elephants were present. This comment was written without consulting books or their covers. Nuts were used as a snack but they were pre-shelled. Warning, do not kick buckets as there is danger of foot or toe damage.

    Bwahahahahaha! So true. I'm getting so tired of the people who are using the internet insisting that people show them the evidence, as if they just can't find it.  I guess I just like to believe that reasonable people...oh, it's Hal. Never mind.

    Flogging a dead horse is an idiom just for the record.

    wow, isn't it ironic?

    Don't act like this was some sort of master plan, you got caught being an idiot.


    Mildly amusing but wholly non-responsive.  Sanders simply isn't promising anybody anything.  What he has said repeatedly is that only if we work together will we be able to effectuate needed change.  But keep on keeping on.

    Promising Unicorns, Stilli is right. 'Make College Free':


    The cost of this $75 billion a year plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago.

    pdf at, looks like Wall Street speculator tax doesn't 'fully pay' for the plan:

    Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost.

    These are direct quotes from Sanders websites.

    Inconvenient facts:

    "There are currently 31 Republicans, 18 Democrats, and 1 independent that hold the office of governor in the states" Google.

    States could of course, pay for 1/3 of tuition without a President Sanders.

    They aren't. 48 states have cut per student funding by 21% since 2008.

    Call it promising unicorns, misleading, pandering or lying. Sanders is often like your crazy uncle.

    Of course if the Act doesn't pass, it won't be effectuated.  Nothing is false or misleading in what you have posted.

    Nothing except 'fully paid for by taxing Wall Street speculators'. 

    Here's a good article on this subject from the Washington Monthly.

    Message to Millennials: Bernie Sanders Is Intellectually Consistent, Not Intellectually Honest

    It drives me crazy that so many people buy into the idea that Bernie’s policies are the principled ones and that other people’s more “pragmatic” policies are compromised, watered down, and, ultimately, something to be ashamed of. I don’t see it that way at all. To me, selling policies that you know or should know won’t work is pretty much the definition of unprincipled.

    Except they do work and we know they work because they are working well in Europe.

    Your statement is a non sequitur. Clearly you didn't read the article. Here is one example from the article of a Sanders policy that will not work. A promise that is impossible for him to keep.

    Sanders pointed out, rightly, that America has more of its citizens behind bars than any other country, including China, then promised that “at the end of my first term as president we will not have more people in jail than any other country.” Even some of his strongest boosters, like the MSNBC host Chris Hayes, pointed out that Sanders was making promises he wouldn’t, as president, have the power to keep. States house 87 percent of the nation’s prisoners; even if a President Sanders were to pardon every inmate of every federal prison—the only ones he would control—the United States would still have more people behind bars than China.

    So your point is we should elect the candidate in this cycle who championed the laws and policies that led to all those people behind bars right?  Yes, that is your position and it's an immoral one.  It's also not borne out by your tedious insistence that the President has no impact on who's locked up in the states.  Of course, a federal law decriminalizing marijuana will have an immediate impact on the number of people being arrested everywhere and therefore reduce the pressure that keeps state facilities bursting.

    The President (especially if Congress is with her/him) can also incentivize states to release inmates in other ways.  Outlawing private for-profit prisons would also cause states to reevaluate the dangerousness of inmates and to release many.

    Or we can maintain the highest incarceration level of any nation in the world.

    Bernie Sanders the crime bill that led to mass incarceration. Sanders is the only candidate who voted for the bill. Bernie-splainers tell us that he feels bad about his vote, Sanders could have taken a stand against the bill like he took a stand against funding the auto manufacturers, but he didn't. Sanders voted for mass incarceration and for auto workers to face unemployment when the auto industry went belly up.

    Edit to add:

    The core difference is that you expect that Congress will magically go along with Sanders' platform. This is remarkable since it appears that Sanders wants a Progressive Congress but is not funding downstream candidates. Sanders also says that he will go after superdelegates if he cannot win based on the popular vote. Bernie, the Independent, is willing to destroy the Democratic Party if he doesn't get his way. I'll be voting for the Democratic candidate this election.

    "The core difference is that you expect that Congress will magically go along with Sanders'  platform."  Perhaps you can point to one statement of mine that supports this claim.   If you can't, then perhaps you should stop making it.

    Yes yes yes.  He voted for the crime bill.  My gosh you keep beating that horse no matter how many times I and others have explained why that vote from 22 years ago is is far less meaningful than you keep trying to make it seem.  I know you understand this but you've staked out a die-hard pro-Hillary position and you are unwilling to back down.  Too bad.  Your obstinance and the obstinance of her other supporters makes it impossible for us to work together to make America a better place.

    Oh come on Hal. The same thing could be said about you and some Sanders supporters. If the primary hasn't yet been decided it soon will be. Then we will see whether obstinance makes it impossible for us to work together to make America a better place.

    Bwahahahahahahaha! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! There are several school yard taunts that would be applicable here. Suffice it to say, we are at impasse. Die-hard pro-Hillary position vs. die-hard pro-Bernie position. Why is yours any more valid than ours?

    So your point is we should elect the candidate in this cycle who championed etc.

    My point and one or the points of the article I linked is that Sanders has advocated policies that are literally impossible for him to achieve. Here's another example from the link.

    In fact, it’s pretty clear that Bernie himself doesn’t take his plan seriously. When he first rolled it out—hours before the Iowa caucuses—knowledgeable (and sympathetically liberal) health policy experts were shocked at how sloppy it was. For instance, he promised to save Americans more per year on prescription drugs than we currently spend in total per year on prescription drugs.

    Sanders is all inspiration with little or no grounding in factual analysis of effective policy to achieve his inspirational goals


    There is little in terms of what he says a perfect world would look like that I disagree with. Problem is, it's not a perfect world, and it isn't going to happen. At least not now, and not all at once. Hillary at least recognizes reality. It's not as sexy as the fairy tale, but I'm good with that.

    Hal, I think you are being disingenuous.  The things Stilli brought up are the very things he's running on.  His tax proposals for free college tuition are on his website.  So are his plans for Universal Health care.  He is running on the issues; he is not saying "This is what I want to do, so vote for me even though the truth is, I can't get any of them through Congress."  If you don't think those college kids are feeling the Bern because they are expecting the things he's running on to actually happen, then I wonder how you would explain their enthusiasm. To say that he has not "promised unicorns" is very dismissive, since I think you probably understand the unicorn metaphor.  

    Stupid kids.

    Not stupid - ignorant and experienced. Bll came into office dealing with all the Electric Third Rail issues that pagued Democrats from the time of Carter. Put on another fucking sweater and get used to it? No thanks. That's what got Reagan elected by a landslide, that and weakness towards Iran. Hillary understood in 2002 that the alternative to swallowing the turd was complete irrelevance to the American public, another generation of unserious on security Dems when security was biting us in the ass. And anyone who researches knows it wasnt just Bush disinformation - yes, the safeguards were supposed to be in place to prevent war without noncooperation - Colin Powell was our ace in the hole.

    All the rest is thinking a president can wave a magic wand and an opposition congress comes running. Until kids realize they need to elect more than just a president, that state legislatures and governors matter more, it's all a joke. Matt should know that. He's hetter when he focuses on Wall Street. General politics, not so good.

    You're simple wrong. Regularly.

    One of the things I love about Baby Boomers is that they just keep getting older.

    Not a boomer, dude - generation fuck all. Thanks for playing , take your ass on the way out.

    You're right, that was cheap, Let me rephrase. One of the things I love about Baby Boomers as a voting block who identify as Democrats is they just keep getting older. 




    Just looking forward to the day when we can say with confidence that the era of Big Clinton is finally over. Getting closer every day. Nothing personal, of course.



    Sanders says repeatedly no President can do it alone.

    I can't decide on the proper it "more disingenuous?" Or "disingenuouser?"

    Either way, it's what your answer is.  

    Un Chien Ingenu, ou peut-etre un canard. Le plus ca change, le plus le meme chose. Il n'y a rien de nouveau a bas du soleil.

    C'est vrai, malheureusement.  Jus suis désolé, mais de tout façon, il n'a rien de tout á faire.  

    Chaqu'un á son goüt.

    or isn't.

    Not only can he not do it alone, he can't do it period. So why is he not fundraising for down-ticket "progressives?" Does he think it's his "followers" who are going to write/vote for the new laws? The old people and students who have no money, but who are somehow scraping together the few dollars they have to send to him that will be writing them? Actually, the more I think about it, the more pissed I get. Taking money from the poor - to do what? Did he really pay his campaign manager $810K? Just what is it that he does that is worth that kind of money? KInda like Robin Hood in reverse, isn't it? 

    No, you are propagating a lie. He did not pay his "campaign manager" $810K. The source that you are referencing clearly shows that the $810K line item went to the media COMPANY, Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, Inc. What does the media company do that is worth that kind of money, you ask? Perhaps media related activities for a political campaign that is being blacked out by the major establishment media. 

    Yeah, this same kind of bullshit, worrying about Mark Penn or someone else costing too much. Elections cost money, successful campaigns cost money. Save a penny, lose the election - will someone cheer?

    As you correctly fear, holding Clinton accountable will be very tough, if not impossible, once she's elected.  I do think if she campaigns now on the promises I set out in the OP and identifies true progressives as her top policy advisers it will be very hard for her to backtrack.

    Hal, I just noticed this:

    I do think if she campaigns now on the promises I set out in the OP and identifies true progressives as her top policy advisers it will be very hard for her to backtrack.

    So, Bernie makes no promises at all, according to you, but if Hillary agrees to your blackmail conditions, they suddenly become "promises?"  Your level of inconsistencies is astounding.

    Robert Reich might be a good choice, although his latest piece at Salon bizarrely questioned whether free trade is really as bad as its detractors claim.

    For a lot of people on he left, the jury is still out on that.  Probably to no one more than the author of The Work of Nations. For a liberal globalist there is also a positive moral aspect to trade...

    I still dont grok how we're supposed to care about underdeveloped countries, but only do trade that overwhelmingly benefits American workers. Somewhere there's a unicorn in there, but I dont know where it comes from.

    That's why we seek to unite the WORKERS of the WORLD. ( lumpen, not so much.  )


    Internationale, yo!

    it's possible to intellectualize enough to expand homo sapiens innate tendency for tribalism to nationalism. Humanity is not yet ready to intellectualize it to earthism.

    Look out the window...


    That pic, as it shows up on dagblog, is very apropos. Most people will see only a tiny slice as "their" people and the rest as the "other." I'm all for ending tribalism and nationalism but that's less likely than  the unlikely election of Sanders as president.

    "Free" trade benefits a small number of people very disproportionately.  It has devastated our middle class.  It has led to a very polluted Asia where there are many fewer starving people and many more people living extremely hard lives in sweatshops that are comparable to the sweatshops in America 120 years ago.  Because so much money has been siphoned off to a few million extraordinarily wealthy families though, there is far less available to provide real improvements to billions of lives.  Not hard to understand at all unless you choose not to.

    Nah, it isn't going to be so terrible this fall, that many Bernie supporters will not sit out this election because their guy didn't win the nomination. I just don't believe that at all, since PUMA's didn't seem to stay home in 2008. I get it, the primary has been hard. I remember what losing is like and I don't like it now and i didn't like it then. 

    So I know you'll be with us in the end Hal and so will all those folks who want to keep the GOP from wrecking the nation even more. I know you think Bernie is a better human being. I see them as equals, complete and total equals in every single way, except she has to work harder to prove herself to everyone. That is a fact. So I truly believe that the passions of the primary will turn into the passions of making sure some Republican knucklehead stays out of office. I have faith in people to do the right thing.

    I'll be with you but I'm affluent enough to care about social issues and a reasonable level of comity among the populace.  The bottom 50% of Americans haven't seen their real income rise in 40 years.  They're working harder and harder and are more and more financially insecure.  Their anger and resentment could hand Trump the election.  Hillary can show she truly cares about the other half and win if she pursues the strategy I propose.  If she does not, still wins, and ignores the poor, working, and middle-class, another, perhaps worse, Trump will arise in the next election cycle.

    Hal, you act like you invented concern for the poor. Hillary was dealing with rural poverty 40 years ago. Here's an excerpt from her 2007 NASDAQ speech. Which Bernie items didn't she tick off?

    . As we've seen with the home foreclosure crisis, too many American families are not sharing in the growth that is created and driven from this city.

    Now, productivity has risen 18 percent among American workers over the past six years, yet wages have stayed flat, and family incomes have fallen by nearly $1,000. There are five million more people in poverty here in our country than there were in 2000.

    On top of stagnant wages, we've seen a rise in economic anxiety. Students struggling with the skyrocketing cost of college, families burdened by health care costs, premiums have doubled in the last six years, and we see the increasing role that energy prices play in people's lives.

    Gas prices have doubled in the past seven years. Home heating costs continue to rise. In fact, the typical family is paying $2,000 more for energy this year than in 2000. That's like a $2,000 energy tax - more than 3 times what the typical family got under the Bush tax cuts.

    We've seen people hit hard by a deepening housing crisis. Families who've worked hard, thought they were doing the right thing. Who've spent years scrimping and saving to buy a house, but their dream of homeownership has turned into a nightmare of escalating payments and threatening letters.

    In short, we've seen too many middle class families struggling in an economy that is simply not working for them right now. An economy that, in recent months, has been the subject of increasingly worrisome headlines about weakening consumer confidence, about a declining dollar and ballooning national debt.

    Let's start with an honest, clear-eyed assessment of what went so terribly wrong.

    Over the past seven years, as incomes fell and wages stagnated, many families were lured into risky mortgages with rates that later jumped beyond what they could afford. Now, we can debate what was technically illegal; we can debate what should be defined as predatory. But there is no debate that what happened did not reflect the best of our financial system.

    It did not reflect prudence, transparency, or even an understanding that behind large bundles of securitized mortgages are real families who were led into bad situations by people who should have, and even did, know better.

    As a result, 1.8 million foreclosure notices have gone out this year, an increase of 74 percent from last year. And the worst may be yet to come. The rates on 2 million mortgages are set to escalate over the next two years. Meanwhile, there's been an unprecedented national decline in home values.

    Middle class families can't afford to refinance their loans, and it's gotten a lot harder to sell their homes. Many families are finding themselves trapped - stuck with mortgages they can't pay and expenses they can't meet.

    So they're facing wrenching choices: pay their medical bills - or pay their mortgage. Put off retirement - or lose their homes. And many people who worked s hard and did try to follow the rules are receiving that same grim letter in the mail that says "get out now."

    I met a woman in Derry, New Hampshire - a stay-at-home mom with three children - whose husband lost his good-paying job. He was in the computer industry. They kept making their loan payments for six months after he was laid off, but just at that time, their interest rate ballooned from about 8 percent to about 11 percent.

    They tried to file for bankruptcy, but the bank still foreclosed on their home. And even after her husband found a new, high-paying job within a year, they were unable to make their back payments. Basically the door was shut in their face. When I met her, it was literally the day before her family was being forced out of their home with nowhere to go.

    As the foreclosures mount, the housing crisis is also becoming a municipal crisis. Cities and towns face the prospect of blight, higher crime rates, vacant properties marring neighborhoods, cutting tax receipts, and dragging down property values.

    And I believe the housing crisis also threatens the economy as a whole. Even Americans who don't face foreclosures are feeling the impact. 60 percent of the total wealth of middle class families resides in their home equity. And home equity withdrawals accounted for more than 8 percent of families' disposable income in 2005

    All the things your wrote, have been written before. An no, no one is going to sit out this election if they are engaged. I didn't happen Hal, those so-called PUMA's didn't exist, in reality. Mostly this is an internet thing, where people get together and yell at each other and take very extreme views of everything and then they reinforce that, and then they believe everyone feels this way. I just havent' met these people you speak of, i've know a ton of Berner's too, I mean I live in Seattle, Berner central. They all to a person tell me they vote for Hillary when Bern loses to her, and they seem to have accepted he is losing to her. 

    I'm not worried, I don't see the gloom and doom you see. By the way, I don't see old blue collar men who are ever voting for Dems in any form, so they don't really count, Yes they have been losing out economically, but guess what, they still vote for R's because gunz and gayz and womenz... and we don't have their vote anyway. Trust me, the positive politicians win, not the gloom and doom folks.

    Combining over 13,000 interviews that Democracy Corps conducted in 2012 showed that Obama received a pathetic 25 percent of the white non-college vote in the South and just 33 percent in the Mountain West; Romney, in contrast, was getting around two-thirds of this vote.

    The scale of the rejection of President Obama in the Southern and Western base of the Republican Party obscured the fact that Obama was far more competitive among white voters elsewhere in the country. In Democracy Corps’ combined interviews for 2012, Obama won white non-college voters in New England by 51 to 42 percent, tied Romney in the West North Central states by 47 to 46 percent and trailed by only 7 points in the Mid-Atlantic by 44 to 51 percent. At the same time Obama received 41 percent of the vote of white non-college voters in the East North Central and Pacific Coast states where he trailed Romney by just over 10 points.

    Hal, Clinton is responsible for fascism. Absurd.

    Bernie needs to get his "followers" in line. Such a witholding would ruin his chances to get anything done, whereas if Clinton wins, we all get something.




    Good point, but you leave out the fact that Sanders can't get elected.  The "Socialist, Communist,"  etc ads just write themselves to appeal to the complete fear factor that the GOP depends on.

    Absolutely. Just draw a hammer and sickle on his face. Done. He hasn't even BEGUN to be vetted. And he won't be unless he wins the nomination. I'm sure some preliminary work is being done, but for now, the repubs are so afraid of Hillary they are concentrating on weakening her as much as they can so they can run against Bernie.

    Clinton is the second most hated candidate in the race.  Sanders is the most liked by far.  He beats every Republican in all the head-to-head matchups pollsters have posed whereas Clinton sometimes loses to Kasich and even Cruz.  Sanders also beats Trump by much bigger margins than Clinton but yeah she's more electable.

    Did you mean to say "disliked", instead of "hated"?

    Hal, we can read. And even I can type in

    Bernie has not been targeted by either the media or the Republicans. One damn mistake and CNN will run the clip ten thousand times.

    Our politics are designed to degrade and undress candidates down to their socks and underwear. The older I get the more I respect "resiliance", a quality Clinton has, despite the consistent crappy media attitudes as well as attacks by those who would play fast and loose with a word like "hate".

    Bernie has yet to be undressed.

    Right I know it's not Hillary's fault she's "disliked".  She hasn't done anything wrong in the past 25 years.  Everything I've and Synchronicity and LULU posted is just a bunch of BS.  She's a pillar of rectitude, a peace-loving, pro-labor, pro-gay rights environmentalist.  Do you think you might try to understand why there are so many progressives who really really really don't like her and don't trust her?  I am always trying to understand why some Democrats seem to really really like her.  But even Ramona has acknowledged various areas where Clinton disappoints her.

    Oxy, I want to align myself with you on your pushback against the word "hate". I have pushed back against it here at Dagblog several times when I was either called a "Hillary hater" or else grouped with others who were called by the same name. I do not recall anybody agreeing then that the term is/was inappropriate and misapplied. I think Hal should get a lot of slack for his use of it when talking here about the political dynamics since it is a term consistently brought up and kept in the conversation by Hillary supporters. 

    As I said upstream, the article you cited has zero polls that even addressed the subject of "hate."  The first sentence of the article has the author asking provocatively who is hated most, Trump or Clinton ? And you ran with it despite the polls referred to don't mention hate anywhere.  Go ahead, Hal.  Say you were wrong and apologize.

    The only reason Bernie is in such a good position in terms of likability is because he reminds every one of their grandpa.

    I like (well, love) my grandpa, too, but I wouldn't vote for him.

    Bernie has not yet been vetted. I'm sure there is a lot of opposition research out there, but it isn't needed just yet. Why spend a lot of money tearing down a long shot? They WANT him to look good now.

    The repubs are not spending millions tearing down Hillary because they are afraid of Bernie. She is the one they don't want to run against.

    If by some miracle they are able to destroy her, then they'll bring on the "tear-down-Bernie" machine, and it will be really easy to do.

    As for your sarcastic remarks about Hillary never doing anything wrong, yes, she's made mistakes. The only people who don't are people who don't do anything. You make a mistake, you learn from it.

    But the vast majority of things she's disliked for have no substance. Never did. But by repeating the lie over and over again, they were able to create the illusion that it was the truth. The more things they embellish, twist, lie about and even fabricate, the more it looks like there is smoke, so there must be a fire. Somewhere. And we'll find it any day now. Sound familiar? It should. It's the same thing they've done to President Obama. Had I not seen what they've done to him, I doubt I ever would have taken a moment to re-think what I used to think about her.

    It's the same thing they've done to her on Benghzi and now on the e-mails. Just hold enough hearings, and sling enough mud, and SURELY something will stick. Well, they never did find that fire, but they were able to keep the cloud of mistrust swirling. 

    Back 25 years ago, I was a republican. And I was busy raising a family and building a business. I paid very little attention to politics. In fact, I usually gave my ballot to my spouse to fill out, because I really just didn't have time to care. I knew Bill was a womanizer, and Hillary was his slimy spouse. I heard the lies (saw the smoke) and I believed them. The only thing I knew about her first hand was that she wanted employers to pay for health care, and if that had happened, I would have been out of business. The cost of policies was more than I cleared.

    Had Bush not lied us into Iraq, and in the process potentially put my son in the cross hairs of war, I don't know if I would ever have started paying attention. But I did. Finally. And now I make it a point to stay informed. I read a lot, from so many sources sometimes it makes my head swim (and drives my spouse crazy.) I've learned how to research, and learned how to defend my point of view. 

    I voted for Obama twice (becoming a Democrat after McCain chose Palin for hi running mate) and have been horrified at how he has been treated by the Repubs, and absolutely pissed at how he's been treated by "progressives." This country missed the opportunity of a lifetime by not doing a better job of backing him. I won't soon forget how he was betrayed by his own party. 

    I did not come to my enthusiasm for Hillary lightly. When President Obama showed his respect for her by making her his Secretary of State, I knew he saw something in her I hadn't seen. So I tuned out all the negative voices and educated myself. I didn't get carried away with fanciful talk or pretend that we live in a country other than the one we have here in the real world. When I weigh what she brings to the table vs. everyone else in the race, it's so very obvious to me that she is the best qualified person to be president. Watching her speak, I can picture the Presidential Seal on the podium in front of her. There has not been another candidate in the whole field I could say that about.

    #I'm with her.

    Well, he might still be able to beat Trump. I could see that going either way.

    I argue the major causes of the rise of ISIS and Islamic terror against the West now are:

    1) The destabilization of Iraq due to the W/Cheney war which Clinton supported.

    2) Anarchy in Libya which resulted from regime change there which Clinton championed.

    3) the United States's nearly undeviating support for Israel no matter how brutal her methods of suppressing and oppressing Palestinians.  Obviously, this is exactly the policy Clinton supports. 

    4) Global warming and the closely connected water crisis in the Middle East which has driven millions of subsistence farmers off the land and into overcrowded cities.  Clinton, as Secretary of State, championed fracking which requires millions of gallons of fresh water and results in more greenhouse gas emissions.  She also receives millions from the oil and gas industry.

    Please explain how my reasoning is off.

    It is tiresome when Sanders supporters Bernie-sprain way his vote for the crime bill yet take Hillary's vote on Iraq out of context. If Bernie was not voting for mass incarceration, Hillary was not voting for war.


    Sanders spoke out at the time of the crime bill against mass incarceration and has continued to until the present day.  He explained his vote for the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill by reference to its anti-violence against women funding and provisions.  From the time the war on Iraq was launched until 2008, Clinton supported it unwaveringly.   She never admitted she was wrong to vote the way Cheney/Bush wanted until 2014. 

    Nice try though.  Keep swinging.

    Clinton did not vote for the war. Your statement that she was in favor of the war is simply not true.

    You are entitled to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to your own facts.

    By the way there is an allegation made by Rudi Giuliani that Hillary created ISIS. Since you seem prone to fall for  rumors, that me assure you that that assertion is also false.

    Fact: Hillary's favorability among Democrats is higher than that of Bernie Sanders

    The Five Lamest Excuses for Hillary Clinton's Vote to Invade Iraq.

    Reason No. 1:  “Hillary Clinton’s vote wasn’t for war, but simply to pressure Saddam Hussein to allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq.”

    Interpretations on the vote differ. That fact that Sanders supported the wars in Serbia and Libya is documented. He supports an expanded US role in Syria Bernie voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF). AUMF was one plank in Bush's war.

    Sanders is not perfect but he is better by far on every issue save guns than any other candidate in this race. 

    Interpretations on the vote differ. That fact that Sanders supported the wars in Serbia and Libya is documented. He supports an expanded US role in Syria Bernie voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF). AUMF was one plank in Bush's war.

    Sanders spoke out at the time of the crime bill against mass incarceration and has continued to until the present day.  He explained his vote for the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill by reference to its anti-violence against women funding and provisions.  From the time the war on Iraq was launched until 2008, Clinton supported it unwaveringly.   She never admitted she was wrong to vote the way Cheney/Bush wanted until 2014. 

    Nice try though.  Keep swinging.

    The topic about what Sanders supporters might do has me wondering what Sanders might do. If he continues to do well in the lead up to the convention, he will be in a position to lay out different levels of support for a Clinton ticket in exchange for some things. There is a big difference between agreeing to not trash talk a candidate and actively standing up for them in the General Election.

    Again I find the contrast with 2008 galling - then Hillary's close finish bought her zilch, no bargaining, no input into the platform, only a convention slot where she and Bill could show what good team players they are. (Similarly, Jesse Jackson's strong showings in 84 and 88 didn't buy him much influence.) But I can already feel the "we wuz wronged" sentiment building up in this year's model. Why the difference? I sure didn't recall a "Jackson or bust" meme in the 80's in those innocent pre-internet BBS times. What gives?

    While I agree that coming in second doesn't generally get you much (and that the finisher should expect even less), Clinton did get to be SecState. I wouldn't call that a concession by the winner, but Obama did elevate a legitimate rival.

    At the time it was likened to gettting Gromyko out of the way, but it worked out well enough - returning to the Senate would likely have been a letdown

    Looks like he's going to go with the Republican-esque plan of "losers get to set the agenda..."

    There is a big difference between agreeing to not trash talk a candidate and actively standing up for them in the General Election.

    It'd be nice to see him try to direct some of his crowd's enthusiasm her way, if he can pull it off.  As for not trashing her, I think we can count on that based on his behavior in the primary.

    A portion of the responsibility? Frankly, I don't think it has much to do with her wooing Sanders supporters, although I acknowledge a percentage would grudgingly cast a ballot for her granted she quits with the blatant pandering directed at them.


    For me, it's all about the foreign policy. Her time in the State Department isn't just a legacy of hawkish maneuvering, it's a legacy of warmongering and provocation that has led to the current "Cold War 2" with Russia, and, if carried out to its logical conclusion, could result in an unmitigated human catastrophe in the middle east, if not the world at large. She's complicit in propping up the fascistic right wing parliament in Ukraine that openly advocates for the ethnic cleansing of pro-Russian dissidents in the southern part of that country, she's complicit in setting the stage for the Syrian civil war that's led to untold levels of horrors and violence, and its the culmination of her hawkishness that's led to the rise of ISIL. Our munitions storehouses are running out of bombs, quite literally. Just apologizing and perhaps making some public statements in favor of working with Palestine, or backpeddling on her absolutist position on Israel isn't going to undo the damage that's already been done, nor soothe the insanity that's blanketing the middle east and eastern Europe.

    From a practical standpoint, not voting only benefits the GOP.

    I disagree with your assessment of her as a warmonger, and also that the situation in Ukraine and the Middle East are her fault.  That's ok. Good people  can disagree.  However, both of the current GOP potential nominees have casually mentioned nukes as a solution to problems in the Middle East.  Even if they wouldn't actually use nuclear weapons, their rhetoric betrays a scary lack of knowledge AND intelligence; a seriously thoughtless approach to problems.  

    In contrast, anyone who has listened to Hillary's responses to questions such as these, has heard thoughtful answers, whether you agree with her approach or not.  As I said in another stream, if she wins she has nothing to gain by being anything but the best President she can be.  She has all the money she'll ever need.  I think her legacy will be very important to her.  

    Sure, the far left has been hyperventilating over that wwiii in ukraine for 2+ years now. Sorry it hasnt happened, but as consolation, Kiev's still corrupt and inefficient though not as bad as Moscow. Anyway, overall Ukraine was Obama's best foreign policy play, and between sanctions and fracking, Russia's threat is greatly diminished. But that probly doesnt make you happy either.

    Thanks to Donal for introducing me to Benjamin Studabaker. I think what he says here is worth careful consideration. You can count on it being thought provoking. It is completely on topic to this blog. 

    The preamble was such unadulterated bullshit I couldn't read the rest of the article. This is the biggest line of shit he pushed.

    Trump Scaremongering: Donald Trump is being deliberately made out to be more frightening than he is by Clinton supporters for political gain.

    Fear of Trump is entirely legitimate. Both sides have used that fear to push their political agenda. I've seen just as many articles from Sanders supporters as Hillary supporters pushing fear of Trump as one reason to vote for him since they believe he is the better general election candidate.

    I haven't seen anyone here pushing for Sanders to get out of the primary. So why are you bringing it here? That Kos may have called for it is meaningless imo as Kos has shown time and time again that it quashes dissent, punishes bloggers and commenters that vary from it's party line, and is extremely  partisan in democratic primaries. Since I support robust debate I don't read it anymore. I don't know whether Kos supports Hillary or Sanders but unless you're interested in spin and partisan hackery there's no reason to look to Kos for information on the primary.




    Since I support robust debate I don't read it [Kos] anymore. I don't know whether Kos supports Hillary or Sanders but unless you're interested in spin and partisan hackery there's no reason to look to Kos for information on the primary.

    You claim to have read the preamble but you apparently didn't understand that the author was being critical of Kos too, just using it as an example of a point he was making and which your response indicates might be a common problem at that place, that place that apparently is all in for Hillary. You then acknowledge that both sides use fear to advance their political agenda but call bullshit on the very idea that the side you support might have exaggerated anything ,such as the dangers of the other side winning, for political purposes. You say you have followed Hillary's career. You say you have watched political campaigns before. You do know that this is a political campaign, right?

    I haven't seen anyone here pushing for Sanders to get out of the primary. So why are you bringing it here?

    Because I like spirited debate but I will say that it is more interesting when the person trying to argue the other side has has the courtesy and intellectual honesty to listen to and actually  hear what the other side says before calling it "unadulterated bullshit". Whether it has been discussed here or not, there has been a lot of talk by some of Hillary's supporters suggesting that it is time for Sanders to get out so support on the Democratic side can center on her. And there has been plenty of trash-talk here about Sanders supporters who might not support Hillary. 


    Some of every candidate's supporters and often the candidates themselves always call for their opponent to drop out. I don't need to read some one sided partisan hack job to know that.

    Obama's supporters called for Hillary to drop out when she was doing much better against him than Sanders is doing against Hillary now. So I have a question.

    When Obama supporters were calling for Hillary to drop out where did you stand on that question?

    I don't need to read some one sided partisan hack job to know that.

    It would be interesting to see you try to justify calling him a partisan hack. 

    When Clinton supporters think about racism, they think about kids in college classrooms hearing words they don’t like. They don’t think about distressed low-income black and Hispanic households where children are often supported by single parents working multiple jobs for inadequate wages, with little time to spend helping their children develop into productive members of society.

    Your link is full of bullshit like this without any evidence to back it up. I've seen no polling data to substantiate this partisan hackery and your author provides none. But since you think wild speculation is "thought provoking" I guess you'll appreciate some speculation on this topic from me.

    Sanders supporters tend to be younger, in fact colleges are the hot bed of his support. Racism in college classrooms is a particular focus of this age group, along with trigger warnings etc. Clinton supporters tend to be older and have lived through racism in the work place. They're much more interested in racism in the work place than on the college campus. Hillary is actually winning hispanic and black single mothers. The very people that your hack job article claims Hillary supporters don't understand are in fact Hillary supporters.

    But I'm sure you white bernie bros can explain to these minority single mothers why they just don't understand themselves and the problems they face.

    Hillary Clinton may claim to believe these things, but her decades in the public eye tell a different tale. She has frequently and habitually said one thing to the working people of this country and done another. Regardless of whether Bernie Sanders wins or loses, left egalitarians must never allow themselves to be told that the interests of poor people matter less than those of the affluent members of the professional class who mistakenly believe they stand to benefit from a Clinton presidency (even most of these people will be left behind–most new income goes to the top 1%, not to the top 5%, 10%, or 20%). Poor people matter. Young people matter. Even if they’re white. Even if they’re men. It is better for a fake right nationalist to win in 2016 and lose to a left egalitarian in 2020 or 2024 than it is for a neoliberal to win in 2016 and lose to a real right nationalist in 2020 or 2024.

    They are telling the left to shut up because they don’t care about the causes or people for which it fights. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee and you don’t want to vote for her, don’t vote for her.

    Sounds about right.

    Now you have bookends to trash, ocean-kat.

    Glad that you saw fit to read to the end, Kyle. This was significant to me but its significance requires the groundwork laid by the rest of the piece. 

    Young people matter. Even if they’re white. Even if they’re men. It is better for a fake right nationalist to win in 2016 and lose to a left egalitarian in 2020 or 2024 than it is for a neoliberal to win in 2016 and lose to a real right nationalist in 2020 or 2024.



    Benjamin Studebaker is a serious thinker who writes interesting, thoughtful stuff. He's probably a bit too young for most of the crowd here, tho. (And yeah, he knows a thing or two about neoliberalism.)

    A fake right wing nationalist. If this is a real thing, I would like to know more about it.

    So far, the actual right wing nationalists have been putting up a pretty good fight over the last century (at least). If there is an entirely different species in the game, we need to learn everything we can about them. 

    If there could be such a thing as a genuine right wing nationalist who gathered a following then there could surely be a fake right wing nationalist with the ability to gather the same crowd. Playing to the niche while "playing" the niche. The scary thing is how big is the niche that his show, whether sincere or not, appeals to. 

    A very stupid definition of neoliberal that's more smear than definition.

    Here's Hillary's speech to NASDAQ in 2007 again - does it sound anti-worker? Does it sound anything like Donald?

    And no, I dont urge Bernie to drop out, happy for the conversation to continue, he's not hurting anything. Id be happier with less promotion of Donald and more talking about real issues. (but not made up or overhyped).Benjamin is talking out his ass. A few graphs and you'd think he wasn't actually lying.

    He doesn't offer a definition of neoliberalism, he just uses it in a sentence.


    Since the late 1970’s, both major parties have adopted the same economic ideology, which many academics refer to as “neoliberalism”. Neoliberalism attempts to drive economic growth by increasing investment. It does this by distributing wealth away from workers and toward investors. The hope is that this wealth will eventually trickle down. But instead, this results in widening inequalities and it makes it increasingly difficult for ordinary people to continue to provide the ever-increasing amount of consumption the economy requires without borrowing increasingly large sums of money. When these debt bubbles burst, the economy crumbles. The debt-fueled growth provides the illusion of economic success (e.g. Reagan in the mid to late 80’s, Clinton in the mid to late 90’s), but these booms are unstable and produce endemic busts (e.g. early 90’s recession, 2000 stock bubble, 2008 housing bubble)


    ...Increasingly people realize that the economic system is not working for them, especially since 2008. They want politicians who acknowledge this problem and have a plan to do something about it. Neoliberalism offers more of the same. Clinton has consistently been a supporter of reducing access to welfare, financial deregulation, and destructive trade deals. She’s against tuition-free college and single payer healthcare. In these areas there is zero daylight between her position and Jeb Bush’s. Donald Trump destroyed Jeb Bush because Jeb Bush represents everything about the neoliberal establishment that people increasingly despise–its inability to acknowledge the severity of the economic problems faced by working people today, its support for the very same economic policies that got us into the mess we’re in, and even its dynastic tendencies. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party’s version of Jeb Bush.

    I know how to read. He ignores that "ackwnowlwged these problems" many times including the 2007 speech. He ignores the positive results that came out of the Clinton presidency that got killed off by the "Gore and Bush are the same" purist motherfuckers and assole media, he spins things like Hillary supporting a $12 minimum wage instead oof $15 to be she opposes wage inequality. In short he's a deceptive lying shmuck who's just taking Bernie's platform and wrapping it in a huge all-my-enemies intelligent-sounding smear job. Fuck him. Fail. Start over without the heavy lpre-loaded bias that distorts any of his histories and analysis. Wonder how he left out Goldwater Girl.

    Bernie is bringing up good questions and issues. Hillary is vulnerable on issues. Discuss them, not the litany of faux left grievances as a diatribe.


    Fuck him, fuck you, fuck me. This primary is all over but the shouting. The blue team is deeply divided. Deeply. I'm gonna get some sleep now. Gotta be up early to caucus with my friends and neighbors for Bernie Sanders. It'll be the least compromised support for a presidential candidate I've ever given. Looking forward to 2020.

    No kyle, the blue team is not divided. The polling shows that the vast majority of Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary in the general. The polling also shows that the vast majority of Hillary supporters will vote for Sanders if he wins in the primary. You're making one of two possible errors, both are pretty common. The first error that many people make is thinking their small circle of friends is indicative of the beliefs of the larger population. The second is thinking the loudest voices on the internet speak for the majority.

    No ocean, the party is divided. Deeply. You make the common mistake of assuming that folks eventually coming around to vote for their second choice, or more accurately, what they see as their only remaining choice, represents unity. People supporting Sanders will surely vote for Clinton. I believe she will be the next POTUS. She will not, however, do anything like unite the party and certainly not the country.

    No kyle, I don't. I'm probably the only person here who has repeatedly said there will be no unity in this country. In fact I've posted that I think even compromise with the republicans is unlikely and will be rare. Nor do I think the democrats will unify.

    Over and over again I've posted that many of the issues that divide this country have no win/win solution. In the end one side will win and the other side will lose. No politician can unite people on the issues because we have fundamental disagreements on them.

    The democratic coalition has less disagreement on the issues than the nation as a whole. There are some issues democrats generally agree on but there are still large disagreements within the party. We are a center right to far left party. While it seems likely that we will mostly vote democratic as a party a block of democrats will have to  vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils. A different block depending on who gets the nomination.  If you think that somehow Sanders would do more to unite the party or the country than Hillary, or that Webb or O'Malley or even Biden would have, I disagree. Doesn't matter who the candidate is he or she will not unite the party on the issues, only on the vote.

    The reason is simple. That which binds democrats together is greater than that which divides us. That which divides democrats is smaller than that which divides us from the republicans.

    Okay. Sure.

    Seems my small circle of friends ain't so small. Glad to be in Washington State today.

    Smaller than you might think, even if you consider all the people who voted for Sanders your friends. Voters in caucuses are a fraction of voters in primaries. A caucus is a more effective means of limiting voter participation than the most strict republican voter law. They are the main reason Sanders isn't losing too badly. I'm actually happy about that since I want Sanders to seem competitive. Even though for the last few decades I've supported the elimination of the caucus system.

    Caucuses measure enthusiasm rather than broad support. It's important to remember that. It's also important to remember that in the general no matter how enthusiastically a person slams the fucking lever down for their candidate it still counts the same as someone who quietly and with little enthusiasm pushes the lever for their candidate.

    Thanks for the civics lesson. Millions and millions of people have come out in support of Sanders. More have come out to support Clinton. These are the facts so far. My so called circle of friends may be in the minority for now, but that's changing. Give it a couple more cycles.   

    170,000 in Iowa, a paltry 80,000 in Nevada, etc, etc. These are the caucus facts so far. As OK says, it makes the conversation interesting - and keeps "inevitable" candidates sweating - but it's not a 1 person 1 vote equation that lets us encourage such insurgency. While Democrats dont want to repeat 1972, they do want to keep things competitive. Shame the party isnt given more credit.

    WTF are guys squawking about? I repeat: both campaigns enjoy the support of millions and millions of people. So far, more people have demonstrated support in an official way for Clinton. It's in all the papers.

    I know we disagree about a lot of shit, but I can't figure out what this particular disagreement is all about. Makes me think it's that you both just can't resist telling folks how things are.

    BTW, what happened in 1972 that was so bad?

    I understand your point. When you post what you think on dagblog it's a valuable contribution. When others post it's "squawking." What I don't understand is why I should care.

    Double posting mf.


    I have rarely, if ever, posted anything valuable here. Or anywhere, come to think of it. But yeah, verbs matter. Check out my blog in Parts of Speech Quarterly for my top ten list. I'm just a heckler up in the cheap seats.

    I think Clinton will be the nominee and win in November. I doubt I will celebrate. I probably won't vote for her. Don't despair, Washington will likely be blue in November. If things seem tighter than they do now, I guess I'll have to consider things a bit more carefully. Or not. I doubt she'll be re elected. It won't be as cute as The Secretary fantasizes, but things are crumbling.

    Anyhoo, the questions that interest me are whether come summer the blue team has the candidate they want, or was this thing decided too early? More importantly, will the voters have the choices they want, and if not, why not? And how divided are we and how many more cycles of this horse shit do we have to endure?

    Bernie Sanders for President. Because fuck this shit.


    If Bernie Sanders got elected, he would be unable to get anything passed because of his fantasy proposals and GOP obstruction. The current internal war in the GOP will result in a more Rightwing party. There will be unrelenting opposition in the House. The failure of Sanders pipe dream will lead to the election of someone to the right of Trump and Cruz since the so-called Progressive agenda failed.

    Couldn't agree less. How about we quit with the horse race speculation and prognostications about what a Sanders Presidency couldn't possibly accomplish and consider a bit of  policy?

    Kyle, we can and we have done both here. For example I have explained why I didn't support single payer in 08. I've explained what I did support, and I've explained why I don't support single payer now even more than in 08. Other policy issues have been discussed here by me and others.

    Yes, you have.

    If there were zero Republicans in the House it would have passed ! 

    My post came after your prognostication

      kyle flynn on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 5:38pm
     It is better for a fake right nationalist to win in 2016 and lose to a left egalitarian in 2020 or 2024 than it is for a neoliberal to win in 2016 and lose to a real right nationalist in 2020 or 2024.

    You feel that Hillary will usher in a wingnut. I think that Sanders will fail and usher in the reign of a wingnut. 


    Those are Benjamin Studabaker's words which I agree with strongly. My opposition to the Clinton Campaign has nothing to do with whether or not a wingnut comes after her. Hell, reread the quote. I'll take a wingnut next year if I have to. It wouldn't be the first time in my lifetime (or second, or even third for that matter). C'mon, we're tougher than that. Just ask PP.

    I understand that you would accept a wingnut. Most of us do not share that feelings. We heard from "pure" Progressives telling people to stay home in 2010. We suffered the election of Tea Party zealots. You say that you are willing to suffer through another wingnut, this time as President.

    The idea of accepting a wingnut President is repugnant.

    Independent Bernie Sanders suggested a Primary challenge to President Obama in 2012

    Sanders choose Cornel West as a key spokesman. West joined Ralph Nader, Johnathan Kozol, and others in supporting a Primary challenge.

    Others followed suit

    We have seen what happens when Progressives call for sitting out elections waiting for the great Liberal Liberator. The wingnuts just use the opportunity to screw things up more.


    Look. I'm not sitting anything out and I'm not waiting for anyone. I voted for Obama twice. I voted in both midterms and in every other election along the way. I rallied here in Olympia with my union sisters and brothers when Scott Walker and the Koch brothers were damaging public sector unions in Wisconsin. Where the fuck was the President? Remember what he said in 2007?

    If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I'm in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States.

    Here's what he said in 2011:

    Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions. And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends... And I think it's important not to vilify them or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees.

    Weak tea, man. But there is little point in continuing the airing of grievances.

    I supported Sanders' call for a primary challenger and I don't regret it for a moment. I liked reading those links you provided and I don't think they incriminate Sanders. You're barking up the wrong tree. Sorry, we disagree. And sorry my point of view is repugnant to you and your fellow Democrats. Truth is, I'm just not one of ya. But look on the bright side: I'd bet good money Clinton is elected the 45th POTUS. You're winning! Enjoy it while it lasts.

    I certainly understand voting for the lesser of two evils. I've done it many times myself. But you did seem to be agreeing with Studebaker's opinion that letting a right winger win this year might be a good thing. I can't see how anyone from the left could agree with that. This is the election that will flip the right wind Supreme Court, or not. I could stomach a lot of bad shit to see a 5/4 democratic supreme court.





    See below

    PS - I can afford to be an optimist - I live in Europe.

    Oh noes, more prognostication from Robert Reich. No, the 2 party system isnt threatened. The Dems are same as always and the Repubs keep doing more tea party makeovers. The GOP cant quite decide what it wants, but it still controls say 70% of the legislatures and both houses of Congress. We can only dream of such failure.

    I would love a grassroots Dem reform, but the activists who'd do it would likely be anti-business anti-trade and overboard on education spending and its effects as a cure-all.

    So far any time Hillary gets an endorsement from anyone, unions or planned parenthood, it's "the establishment". You'd think people arent involved or responsible for their leaders.

    Yeah, Reich is an idiot. What was Bill Clinton thinking? Fuck that guy.

    You'll notice I characterized the piece as fantastical. You should check out my latest post, Why Adjectives Still Matter, in this month's Words, Beautiful Words.

    Maybe Bill thought he'd grow into it or it didnt matter.

    More to the point, Bernie's against all fossil fuels and fracking, and that's good? How about we be anti-methane and by the way, millions of people are killed by water every year - let's ban it.

    I was for primarying Obama in 2012 and still think why not. Made Hillary stronger both times, and likely would have sharpened up the Big O as well. I also saidsome 3-4 years ago I doubted Hillary'd be in shape to run and hoped the party ncame up with a young buck/buckess to carry the standard. Little did I imagine folks thought that meant a 74-year-old hippie socialist. No offense, but if we want to re-live our dorm years, the conversations are interesting, and I like PIRGs and protests and drawing concessions from the vulture capitalist set. But give up fossil fuels immediately? And free college? How many kids did you know that drank or smoked their way through college or all card games and frat nonsense and came out plenty useless - 100% subsidy? I dont think college is the right approach for more than 20% in 2016, a successful entrepreneur noted thet waste in precious time and creativity for a 20-something to pursue an MBA. 

    Bernie's followers have their hearts in the right place, but the Uber/unicorns are much of what's wrong with the overoptimistic tech/capitalist/san francisco type, where the dot-com bust didnt leave enough lessons.

    I read Reich's article earlier. I really hate this type of crap that attempts to predict the future with a fictionalized history from the even more distant future. But since you brought it up I'll comment. 

    A populist insurgency to create a successful third party requires two things. An agreement on the nature of the problem and an agreement on the solutions. The right and the left do not agree on the problems. But even if both the left populist insurgency and the right populist insurgency agreed with Reich's analysis of the problems there is no agreement on the solutions. Reich imagines  a third party populist candidate that proposes solutions that align with his far left liberal views. Liberal solutions that will be rejected by the far right populist movement.

    I like Reich's economic analysis but when he strays into politics it's mostly nonsense. he seems to believe his economic analysis is so convincing the populace has no choice and therefore will agree. He doesn't understand the political reality of this country to a remarkable degree. That extreme left partisan bent produces exaggerated articles like this one.

    Looks like 23K voters in Washington and and 539 (total) in Alaska.

    Edit to add despite her "negative favorability numbers", Hillary has received over a million more votes than Trump or Sanders.



    Is that some kinda joke? I don't get it.

    ​The above is the NYT link giving the results of the vote in Washinton. Approximately 23, 500 people voted

    Below is the NYT link to the Alaska results about 550 people voted

    Edit to add 

    my mistake on the Alaska numbers. The 550 is the number of state delegates won via voting in the Caucus.

    You're off by a factor of about 10. Here's how it works in The Evergreen State.

    The NYT clarified the Alaska numbers, but not the WA numbers. I stand corrected. No attempt to deceive.

    Washington at 7million people is bigger than Massachussetts, where 1.2 million voted in the Dem primary. Max estimat for Washington Dem caucus was 230,000 - other estimates lower. So the caucus seems to attract 1/5th the voters. A good thing? If so, why exactly. Non-private voting is what we decry in other countries.

    News flash: fewer people participate in caucuses than vote in primaries. I'm not bragging about these turnout numbers, just correcting the facts. Up thread you were the one implying this was somehow a virtue for the party. What exactly are you driving at in this context? Boil it down for me. BTW, Washington State has a primary which the Democratic Party here doesn't recognize. Take it up with them. And 230,000 is probably pretty close. 250,000 in 2008. Not sure where we disagree.

    Response to Kyle Flynn from above

    Bernie Sanders voted for mass incarceration 

    Bernie Sanders voted against saving the auto industry

    We are Bernie-splained why these votes were honorable.

    Some so-called Progressives wanted Obama Primaried because he was not following their agenda. They did not care if Obama lost the election. Their hurt feelings were the most important thing in the world.

    Bernie's single paid system could not pass in his home state of Vermont, yet he promises a national single-payer system. He has no feasible plan to pay for free college, yet he places that wish in his platform. When confronted with reality some fight back by saying that they do not care if a bigoted fascist is elected because some day a "real" Progressive comes along. Supreme Court choices don't matter. Nothing matters except the hurt feelings of some Progressives. The idea that hurt feelings would allow someone to accept a fascist is repugnant. 

    These arguments are so misleading as to be false rmrd and you know it.  Please stop making them. By the way, you seem the one who's feelings are most hurt because many progressives were so disappointed in President Obama that they openly discussed primarying him 2012.  Is democracy that frightening to you?

    You can only deny the fact that Bernie voted for the 1994 crime bill by stating that he did so for a grand purpose. That grand purpose does not absolve himm from voting for mass incarceration. Bernie cared more about sending a message to Wall Street than keep auto workers employed.

    Even those who support single-payer note that it will cost $14 trillion dollars over 10 years

    Sanders wants free college, but how it would be funded is problematic. Others have linked to the recent article in Vox. Here is a link from CNN

    I am using the same criteria that you use for Hillary on legislation. Excuses don't matter. Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill and against rescuing the auto industry. 

    Sanders does not apologize for his questionable votes


    Democracy does not scare me. Stupidity does. Staying home at the midterms led to the Tea Party Congress. You seem to be the one who goes off the rails when people address Bernie's flaws. Bernie has not really been vetted by the press. When they do address the economics of his single-payer plan and his free college plan, for example, people will not be pleased. Sanders is correct that people support single-payer and free college. People are not willing to embrace financial ruin to put the programs in place.

    "Off the rails".  Please provide one example where I have gone off the rails.  Going off the rails would be demonstrated by obscenities, insults, personal attacks, distractions, goal-post changes, etc. 

    Perhaps the Democrats lost big in 2010, 2012, and 2014 because they (including President Obama) didn't fight hard enough for working Americans.  Did that ever occur to you?

    You question the economics of single-payer healthcare and tuition-free state schools.  Haven't these been shown to work extremely well in other nations?   Don't countries like Canada, France, and Japan which have single-payer spend less per individual on healthcare and get better outcomes?  In the US in the 1960s, couldn't students attend the finest schools in the world like the University of California and the University of Michigan for a few hundred dollars a semester or less?  It was virtually free - even in those pre-inflationary times.

    RMRD - you have shown here a very laudable focus on the concerns of African-Americans.  Wouldn't Americans of color benefit disproportionately from tuition-free state colleges and universal single-payer healthcare?

    By going off the rails I mean instead of addressing the financial problems found here in the United States with single-payer, you divert the discussion rather than pointing to a viable plan.

    Obama faced an obstructionist GOP and Blue Dog Democrats. Ushering in the Tea Party was irrational.

    Yes Canada and Taiwan have single-payer. The question is how to make that system viable in the US.

    Similar financial problems exist with free college.

    Yes, African-Americans would benefit from Single-payer, free college, and ending racism. There are no easy solutions.


    According to the urban dictionary, "going off the rails" means losing touch with reality. It has nothing to do with "obscenities, insults, personal attacks, distractions, or goal post changes." Since you demand absolute accuracy in other people's statements, I thought you'd appreciate knowing that. You're welcome. 

    Hal, Regardless of the impossibility of getting the funding for Bernie's tuition program, you state often that these programs work elsewhere. I am assuming that you are familiar with how free, or very low tuition works in Europe and Asia.  You do know, don't you, that every graduate from (the equivalent of) high school doesn't just show up and enroll, tuition-free, don't you?  In fact the admissions process is highly competitive, and based on tests that are very difficult.  My niece, (from Slovenija) wanted to go to medical school, which is a tract that begins the same time our college begins.  She took 3 days of intense testing, and was told at the end of it that she qualified to either go to Dental School or Veterinary School.  She was disappointed in a way, but also very relieved because many of her cohorts did not qualify for college-level programs and were steered towards trade school.

    She ultimately became a Vet, and they really did give her an excellent education; to Africa to study large animal medicine; England for an anesthesia course, etc.  I honestly think this is a good way to do things in small countries like Slovenija, France, Denmark, etc where all children get pretty much equal opportunity education prior to testing.  Here, as we all know, it isn't like that. How many of these youngsters realize at any level that free college does not mean free college for everyone?  Do you realize it?  How many kids who have no hope academically and financially think ... "Free College?  Yep!  I'll sign up for that!  I feel the Bern!"

    rm, we simply disagree about some stuff. No big whoop. Keep on truckin.


    ok, let me be clear. I 'm not the least bit interested in "letting" the wing nuts control the White House for even a day. But I will not be held hostage by the fear peddling of the Democratic Party. (Which, incidentally, is a different position than Sanders holds.) Every four years it's the same old song: this is the most important election of our lifetime. Give me a break. Things have sucked pretty hard in the past, too. Besides we're a resilient bunch.  And again, what I'll do in November is an open question.

    I get it. McGovern in '72 was devastating to many young voters. Why so many boomers continue to walk back their support for that campaign baffles me. And the solution championed by Clinton, which those same boomers run to, is sad. That the answer to the question, "were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?" is always "then", is a great American tragedy. Sure, the blue team has won the White House half the time since, but precious little else. As David Allen Coe likes to sing, it wasn't worth what you had to kill to get it. Or can't see the forest for the trees, if idioms are more your cup of tea.

    One of the benefits of the aging process is that in many people it imparts wisdom.You no longer believe in fairy tales or magic. Blacks did not get access to housing or voting rights overnight. Slavery ended and was replaced by Jim Crow and literacy tests. It took a long period of constant fighting to get things done. Ida B Wells fought lynching. Booker T Washington fought for skilled employment jobs. WEB DuBois fought for blacks in the professions including education. Martin Luther King Jr. And Malcolm X fought their battles for freedom. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund is fighting today. No generation went to sleep. The evil opposition has always existed.

    People fought for women's rights, Gay rights and decent wages. There were bloody battles. People died. It took organization to accomplish things. The demise of the magic, leaderless Occupy Wall Street movement was a forgone conclusion because there was no one in charge. The same fate will befall the leaderless Black Lives Matter movement.

    We have seen success and we have seen failures. We have seen charlatans like Marcus Garvey. We have seen people with rhetoric and nothing else like Cornel West.When a guy comes along talking revolution and runs to the front of the pact to say follow me, we are skeptical. Sanders does not have the record of a Ted Kennedy. Sanders has built no infrastructure. Sanders is not a Democrat so he is not funding downstream candidates via the DNC. Sanders has not built an independent infrastructure like an Al Sharpton.

    When we look at Sanders' proposal we see that they are pipe dreams. When we see something that is fantasy, we speak out. People are still fighting a real fight. People are fight for Gay Rights and against homophobic anti-transgender laws in Georgia and North Carolina. People are fighting voter suppression in North Carolina and several other states. People are fighting police brutality. People are fighting for immigration laws. People are fighting for their lives. They are fighting for concrete things.

    Sanders' distracts us with fantasy. I don't have the time to devote to a "revolution" that he speaks about and has not done the hard work to create the structure to support his dreams. Martin Luther King Jr had a dream. Malcolm X had a dream.They fought to make their dreams reality by taking action.Action speaks louder than words.

    Adam Clayton Powell Jr was a Congressman who worked to improve lives.Talk is cheap.

    ​Why do I trust Hillary more than Bernie. Hillary has been through the fire. Sanders talks a good game but his proposals white lofty, don't pass the reality test.

    Hillary is Liberal enough for me

    Wow it is even possible that Hillary is honest

    Let's stipulate that Jill Abramson is, for all intents and purposes, substantially correct in her evaluation of Hillary Clinton.

     Many investigative articles about Clinton end up “raising serious questions” about “potential” conflicts of interest or lapses in her judgment. Of course, she should be held accountable. It was bad judgment, as she has said, to use a private email server. It was colossally stupid to take those hefty speaking fees, but not corrupt. 

    Bad judgment and colossally stupid, but at least within the letter of the law. [Maybe]  Those are two of the several conclusions I have come to and had reinforced over the years that make me want someone else as President.

     Oh yeah, Hillary may be more honest that Sanders but the link Abramson supplied didn't indicate that.

    It's colossally dishonest for Sanders to promote programs that are fantasy. That is why he is not my choice for President.

    Me, too, rmrd. It is intellectually dishonest, and I'm really kind of unhappy that many of the people I know who are donating to him really have to scrimp to be able to send him anything. Hal is going on and on about him not promising anything, but the inference is there. Follow me, and this is what we can accomplish. It's like he thinks just because he gets elected, the House will suddenly flip and do whatever he wants. It's incredible.


    Susan Sarandon was on Chris Hayes' "All In" supporting Bernie Sanders. She noted that many Sanders supporters would not vote for Clinton because she was "dishonest". Sarandon suggested that she herself might not vote for Hillary. She opined that others suggested that the election of Trump could usher in the "revolution". Like others, Sarandon cares "so much" for the people that she does not care about the pain inflicted on the poor, women, minorities, immigrants, etc. by the election of a fascist. In her mind there is no difference between Hillary and Trump. Her attitude boggles the mind. Does she forget the meme that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Did she believe that if a successful Primary challenge was conducted against Obama in 2012 that weakened Obama enough that Romney won, there would be no difference between Romney and Obama. Sarandon can vote or not vote, that is her right. I have freedom of speech to call out what I feel is an idiotic decision.

    Edit to add:

    LGBT activist Dan Savage appeared on the next segment and quickly pointed out that he would vote for the Democratic candidate in November. Savage noted that the lesser of two evils is less evil.

    I agree with the position that anyone who would want Trump or Cruz elected if Bernie Sanders does not win is making an unwise decision

    I don't get why people care what a person says when their only skill is pretending to be someone they are not. But some people do care. Huff post's fame was totally built on people wanting to read posts by famous pretenders. I enjoy reading stories that didn't happen and, since I like sci fi, stories that could not possibly  happen. I like watching movies with people who are really good at pretending to be these fictional people. But likely every person at dagblog could easily make Sarandon or Penn or Clooney etc. look like clueless idiots if they joined  a debate here.

    I was surprised that she is so willing to let people suffer under Trump so her imagined revolution can begin.

    I'm not. It's a common theme among a segment of the far left. It was one of Nader's arguments. Things have to get much worse so the people will wake up and make things much better. The callousness of the argument has always been abhorrent to me, to deliberately seek to increase suffering to make the world a better place. But the premise is also flawed. Suffering people are more likely to succumb to tribalism, xenophobia, and scapegoating than to reach for the better angels of our nature.

    edit to add: One wonders how bad Sarandon wants or thinks it needs to get. After eight years of Bush America voted for Obama who Sarandon supported Nader called an "Uncle Tom" and a "con man." Clearly two wars and the Great Recession wasn't enough. Exactly how bad does she think it has to get for Americans to suffer enough to elect some one left enough for Sarandon?

    The big corporate money behind the GOP would, regardless of polls now, hammer (and sickle) Sanders into election night road kill if he were nominated.  

    American is far from ready for a tax hiking big government self declared socialist.

    Would the hammer and sickle charge scare you off Bernie in the National if he were to beat Hillary and become the candidate?

    Irrelevant. It will scare off Joe and Joanne Six-Pack, and the Republican will beat Bernie like a splayed out packmule. For all Obama's faults, he's a very good campaigner, but still only beat McCain/Palin by 7% in the Mother of All Turnouts and beat Romney by only 3 1/2%. The country is conservative. Forget that at your peril - and ours. Invading Iraq was a very very popular decision. Voters arent unhappy with Republican policies - theyre unhappy the free lunch hasnt arrived amidst the rampant self-sufficiency calls and endless wars. They like the outrage but want the free pony.

    Good points. I would certainly vote for Bernie but he would be too easy a target for swiftboat attacks about taxes and ' big government'.

    As rmrd says, Hillary has been through ' the fire' , Bernie has yet to feel GOP 'bern'.

    It wouldn't scare me off, because even Bernie is better than a republican - a no-brainer, actually, but it would be painful. The more I see and hear of him, the less I like him. He was initially pretty good at hiding the fact that he's not a team player, but it's all out there now. He's being very passive-aggressive with Hillary, showing his total disdain for the Democratic Party, and generally acting like a jerk. He went from saying how terrible the super-delegates are to now courting them, in an effort to thwart what appears to be the will of the people at the moment. Now that he's gotten a taste of success, he seems to be willing to win at any cost, in contrast to the trustworthy, high integrity person he makes himself out to be.


    You say you will not be held hostage by fear. I think we are all constrained by political reality. We always have been.

    The examples are numerous, I'll choose one. When FDR got The Social Security Act passed it barely covered half the white male workers in the country. Do you think FDR wanted a bill that only covered half the white male workers in the country? Was he held hostage to fear? I think he was constrained by political reality. And look at where SS is today. SS is a story of a half measure followed by incremental change. That's the history of America I see. Half measures and incremental changes. And I'm astonished at how far we've come and how big the change has been over a few centuries.

    In the article you linked Reich predicts a grassroots populist revolution. Sanders talks about it all the time. It seems he expects it too. Hal does, perhaps you do too. I don't. I think the people will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. In some cases the very people liberals are trying to help will fight us to stop the changes they fear that we think will help them

    You think you get it. You think its about older liberals afraid because of McGovern's loss in 72. It's not. Most people don't study history but people do remember what they lived through. McGovern lost  the electoral college 520 to 17. And then Mondale  lost 525 to 13. Then Dukakis lost 426 to 111 This is the ground that Bill Clinton rose out of. This is the historic context one must know to understand him. This is the conservative tidal wave that overtook the nation that is only now beginning to recede.

    Do what you want Kyle. Few people are as pure as you and I think the democrats are not just rising but the liberal wing of the party is rising. I think the democrats will win without you. If I'm wrong and the republicans win (shrug) you'll have to live for a generation with a conservative Supreme Court and you know, I won't. You may think you don't care cause the democrats and the republicans are Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. I think you'll learn the difference. If you haven't learned it from a 5/4 conservative court wait until you see what a 6/3 or 7/2 conservative Supreme Court will do.

    Not much interested in purity. Big fan of political courage, tho. Sure do wish more of your team showed some. I think Sanders does. In fact, I think it's one of his strongest qualities. I first came across it when he was still in the House and he appeared every Friday on Thom Hartman's radio show and listened for years. It was so refreshing to hear a politician speak freely. No filters. It was a wonderful hour of radio. Mostly he fielded questions from the listening audience from all over the country.  And he gave straight, complete and thoughtful answers to them all.

    I wish more dems would do that.  I wish Clinton would. I'd love to know what she thinks about things. Instead we get poll tested, calculated position statements custom made for the moment. I don't think her supporters believe half of what she says on any given day. Like the line from SNL: "Democrats know me. They know my support for the Iraq War has always been insincere." I think they've come to accept this behavior as a necessary evil baked into the process. They even dress it up as complicated and nuanced. Hell, it's been made into a virtue. She's Savvy. She's experienced. She knows how to work the system. It's taken for granted that there is no way a politician could say what they really think about x without negative consequences. Gotta think about those swing voters.

    Thing is, something happens when you don't bullshit people. At least some of the time. They may not agree with you, but people will give you some respect and maybe even a minute of your time. The authenticity and trustworthy responses voters are giving in exit polls and elsewhere aren't nothing. I want to see more.

    Finally, of course I'll do what I want. We all will. Again, not sure what that'll be. Either way, Washington will be blue again, with ort without me. Who the fuck knows? Maybe I'll be inspired in some unusual way to vote for Clinton. It wouldn't be the first time I voted for one.   

    BTW, you and I agree on a great many things.

    You're 23 I think you posted. Maybe you read the history, maybe you don't care. I lived though it. Hillary was brave. She was outspoken. And she was beaten down and knocked down until she became guarded. Until she watched every word that came out of her mouth. She had to to survive. And she did survive. Over and over again she got up and fought on. Many, maybe most women today don't know what it was like. People like Hillary, Steinem, Friedan made the world women live in today possible. I'm not saying women owe her a vote. I'm saying she fought and needs to be evaluated within the historical context of her times. I'm saying she was among the firsts, like Jackie Robinson on the baseball field, the most prominent example of a '60 feminist women and consequently the main target of the '50 patriarchal backlash.. She was and is brave and I've always admired her for it.

    I like Sanders and it looks like he was brave in college. Lots of hippies were brave in college. Anti Viet Nam protests, civil rights protests. Cops were beating white middle and upper class college kids in the head with clubs and women too on the protest lines. Four dead in Ohio and probably Sanders was on that line with the rest of the hippies. But speaking out on the radio as a politician from Vermont? That wasn't brave. We all knew Vermont was the place where the hippies were gathering, just like we all knew there was gonna be a Rainbow Gathering in Colorado. Word of mouth.

    He could have stayed in NY. That would have been harder. He could have gone to Arkansas. It's not like Sanders doesn't know how to pander. He had no trouble kissing the ass of the gun nuts in Vermont. Many Sanders supporters will admit he pandered on guns, but that's the only way he pandered they tell us. As a politician from Vermont that's the only way he had to pander. Taking on the gun nuts in his state would have been brave. It doesn't take any political courage at all to say what ever you want on a radio show when you're a bit player so far off on some distant corner of the stage that almost no one knows you even exist.

    So you see Kyle, we have different ideas about what it means to be brave. Sanders stepped back from the thick of the battle and from what I've read, did some good work in the skirmishes on the side lines from little old Vermont. Hillary threw herself into the thick of the battle over and over and win or lose, what ever the mistakes made, she was still standing when the battle was over.  I tolerated President Clinton as necessary given the conservative tide that engulfed America but I supported First Lady Hillary Clinton. I supported her having an office in the West Wing. I cheered when she said, " I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life." My support for Hillary is not new. For me it's once more into the breach, dear friends, once more into the breach.

    You have me confused with someone else. I'd love to be 23 again tho, for at least a week. Maybe a week at a time on a trial basis. I'm 46. Generation X.

    I don't buy the Hillary Clinton mythology you're selling here. I saw it live, too. Different lens. I remember thinking she often got a bad wrap, but jesus man, it was no tragedy. What do you mean she had to survive? Survive what? And yeah, the bit about the cookies. Cool. Authentic.

    Look, I don't think either of them are folk hero material. I prefer what he has to say, the policies he proposes and the vision he expresses about the future of the USA. I think he is electable and I think he could govern. I'm not holding out for a unicorn, but I do think his election could move the country in a much better direction than Clinton's. So on and so forth, etc, etc.

    I wouldn't call Sanders pro-peace. He supports the war with ISIS and the war in Afghanistan. He supported our disastrous adventure in Kosovo, although I guess that's history.

    I peek into this site now and again, and during this forever election cycle, have been simply staggered by the many posts arguing over Clinton v. Sanders.  Two questions come to mind: have any of you convinced anyone else to change horses (donkeys, I guess) during these 'battles'?  To an observer who couldn't give a fig about the election, it seems to be an exercise in (scatological reference omitted).  Now mind you, this is all about voting on Diebold e-voting machines, never mind...and which search engines are on one side or another. 

    But my more sincerely question is this: during all of this, how many crucial issues have gone begging for any attention here?  For instance: the signifcant numbers of city mayors or EMs closing schools, then creating private charters with TFA instant teachers?  #Grexit, #Brexit?  Fukushima, the gift that keeps on giving?  The European refugee crisis and the EU’s hideous amoral response?  NATO (and increasingly many nations ‘under our umbrella’) and Africom footprints?  The soft coups going on in the global south?  Obama’s ‘visits’ to Cuba and the right-winger Macri in Argentina?  Climate change indicators?  Recent and pending SCOTUS decisions?  And who is Merrick Garland, anyway?  Dilma Rosseff’s now likely impeachment?  TTP and TAFTA and the implications for the 99% in signatory nations? The  U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention having ruled that Julian Assange has been unlawfully detained at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and what that means?  The increasing murders of environmental activists in the global south?  Justice denied in the police state killings of blacks, browns, First Americans and mentally ill?  The constant attacks on trade unions and the ILWU getting the bird finger from the NLRB in a sleight-of-hand sick comedy sketch?  The uselessness (or worse) of Big Unions captive to Democrats?  Increasing wealth disparity, homeless  numbers, and percentage of USians living below the (low bar) poverty level? 

    Well, you get my drift....

    Well, my view on this is that Hillary Clinton has the best and broadest, and most well-thought-out answers to your (and our) concerns.  It seems to me, as  Hillary supporter that she has spent more time pondering the big issues. Bernie is an angry guy who has been safely ensconced in Vermont, where the only pandering he had to do recently was to the gun lobby.  He doesn't seem to me to have given enough thought to international issues. I also wonder what a President Sanders would do to everyone's retirement accounts just for the purpose of giving Wall Street a black eye.

    i don't agree with everything anyone says, but I am convinced that Hillary is the most informed and thoughtful candidate.  And Bernie cannot deliver one single thing he is running on unless the entire country takes up pitchforks in his name...the same populace that continually says that (even though they benefit from it) sees the ACA, or Obamacare as a terrible thing.  

    What is abundantly clear from what you have noted, and from what any person with a brain must know, is that the GOP message is toxic to the country.

    Not sure what you mean by your comment about unions vis à vis the Democratic Party.


    Goldberry makes a good point CVille and I think you've let yourself get sidetracked. The important question that goldberry alludes to is: Who is at fault for the numerous posts about Clinton v Sanders?

    Clearly the problem is Sanders. If he hadn't run for the democratic nomination no one would be talking about him. But that's just my opinion. Hopefully someone will write a blog on the topic so we can discuss it thoroughly.

    I suppose you have proven my point, Cville Dem, as I was referring to the scarcity of blogs here aside from the D Primary battles.  But you answer by opining again on what the two candidates know, don’t know, etc.  Nothing I’d mentioned was particularly about the GOP message, as far as I can tell.  You seem willing to let Hillary sort it you don’t have to.  Oh, well, I’d rather know and decide, myself.

    @ocean-cat: screen name was to be ‘Goldberry loves Tom Bombadil’; I’m Tom; quite the braggart, aren’t I?  ‘Clearly the problem is Sanders’.  Without him there would naturally more blogs here about the many noteworthy events and social movements around the world, then?  Thanks for the Politico link; maybe not as large, but you share a few similarities.

    @PeraclesPease:  IMO, Obama shafted ME nominating Garland, but you can discover who he is without my help.  But that’s how D v. R partisanship works: McConnell says no hearings, and all of a sudden, Ds champion Garland. 

    @rmdr0000: Again, have your opinions on your favorite candidate changed anyone’s mind here?  My larger point was that blogging isn’t always about doing something (at least at the time) but <i>learning about things</i>, or perhaps even: tuning in to the global and national zeitgeist/s, including solidarity movements, labor strikes, and the like.  Even shorter: Knowledge.  The Left-Right doesn’t seem to me to be a linear construction any longer.

    @OxyMora: Sorry that responding wasn’t at the top of my ‘to-do’ list this morning.  I’m sure you won’t miss me if I don’t come back (smile).  So many miles to go before I sleep!

    Regarding changing people's minds, that does happen. Hearing arguments from other people adds perspective. For example, there was a discussion about black Confederates a while back. Some assumed the stories of black Confederates were true, but it turned out there was very little data to support the idea. I think minds were changed.

    in the political arena, I do think discussions about the impact of letting Trump win to usher in a Democratic wave of victories is worth the suffering that would come with a Trump Presidency are worthwhile. I do think some minds will be changed by arguments made here.

    Regarding Left-Right linearity, I think there is a clear difference in the Right and the Left. Where some might see a Rightwing Supreme Court nominee, others see a Centrist who will force to the Left from its far Right position. Given the number of important 5-4 decisions, I see that appointment as progress.A truly Progressive justice nominee will not get through Congress, but a Centrist still accomplished the needed shift in the vote because the Federalist Society members on the Court are so far to the Right that corporations have become people with great political power and  religious values. 

    rmrd0000 - it interests me that you cite as an example of minds being changed, people who changed their minds to think more like you do.  Can you think of an example where your mind has been changed because of arguments raised by others?  Here's an example where I have "evolved." 

    I no longer support reflexively higher sales taxes to help fund necessary government services and more government regulations to force businesses to act the way I want them to.  I was persuaded by arguments that higher taxes on retail goods and some regulations 1) fall hardest on small locally-owned businesses thereby putting them at a competitive disadvantage versus corporate behemoths and 2) hurt consumers.  I now believe society needs to focus first on whittling down the advantage that the big fish have over everybody else. 

    I have changed positions on Whether body cameras will make a difference in police abuse cases or if they only give information from the police POV and not the victim. I also wonder if the cameras will become a new way to monitor the activity of mostly innocent people.

    (1) Sales tax. It may hit 100% of the income of the poor and middle class.  They often spend all their income 'paycheck to paycheck'.

    Though the rich may spend more, they don't spend all their income.

    Funding government by sales tax is welfare for the rich in any society with a vast disparity in incomes.

    (2) The real estate tax.

    The home is most often the single biggest asset of the middle class.

    It is taxed on its worth every year. It is a 'wealth tax' on those in the middle class who pay it.

    The rich have enormous wealth outside homes/taxable property which is never taxed on a 'what is it worth' year by year.

    The GOP doesn't even want tax on the wealth passed on by the dead, even estates where the lower end cutoff is many millions.

    Oh, do come back, monsieur Frost. Bring two very good wines and petite deserts. Peace.

    Well goldberry loves (dagblog?)  we're a small site with few bloggers and we tend to follow the news cycle. We're not quite as comprehensive as Politico yet.


    For me C vs S is over. Dems got shafted on Garland. BRexit is overrated, Brits playing again. Need to improve on police state/abuse and labor support. Assange shouldn't have had to hide out. Feed the poor. Did I miss anything?

    world peace

    Overrated. Im here for the fighting. Plowshares into swords kinda thing.

    I think that it is natural for people to focus heavily on the election. We can lament voter suppression and police brutality in blog posts, but there is no real impact. Voting is the one way to voice an opinion that can count. If you feel that America is no longer great and needs fundamental changes you have Trump and Sanders. If you think the system needs tweaking, you have Clinton. If you are batshit crazy, you have Cruz.

    Along with your vote for President, you vote for downstream candidates. Can the Democrats capture the Senate? During a Presidential election year, you are focused on who is best to deal with education, immigration, police issues, etc.You also look to who is dealing with reality and who is dealing in fantasy.

    This election will decide if we are going to be led by a racist. The Supreme Court will either go e Ben more to the Right or move towards the Center and Left. The focus on the election seems appropriate.

    Goldberry, you remind me of the time a friend brought a last minute guest to a dinner party, which had taken most of the day to prepare,...who then insisted on going out and buying more food.  Feel free to post.

    I'm probably as responsible for Goldberry's (love the Lord of the Ring reference) hand-wringing over the plethora of Bernie v. Hillary posts as anybody.  Nevertheless I love the first question raised "have any of you convinced anyone else to change horses" because the only reason that I blog and do online radio shows is to persuade and learn from others.  It sure ain't to make to money.  Yet, as GB implies, it is doubtful that I have cajoled one Clintonite into feeling the bern.  Nor have Clinton's clique convinced me of her probity, compassion, and intelligence.

    When considering alternative viewpoints, I often ask myself what would persuade me that I'm wrong.  I am quite confident that humans are burning our planet up in short order.  But I can imagine evidence that would change my mind.  If for example, temperatures began to plunge year-round, the glaciers began to grow, or NOAA scientists published papers to acclaim from climatologists that argued higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was not closely correlated with higher temperatures on earth, my confidence in the theory of anthropogenic global warming would be shaken.

    I am nearly as sure that Bernie Sanders would be a much better President than Hillary Clinton as I am of human-caused climate change.  But I can imagine evidence that would convince me I'm wrong.  If, in order to be elected, Clinton was masking truly humane beliefs with the neoliberal/neoconservative ones she has expressed and acted out over the past 25 years, I would be much more comfortable with her candidacy.  Likewise, if a wealthy nation after embracing "free trade," saw poverty rates drop, its middle-class grow, and wealth disparities shrink, I would be less discomfited by Clinton's pro-"free trade" stance.

    I do not support Bernie Sanders because I care two figs (or even one) about him.  I support him because evidence has caused me to conclude that he will be the better President and is as, if not more, electable.  One of my biggest beefs with the Clinton supporters here is that it appears to me that no evidence could convince them that they're backing the wrong horse.

    You rationalize your support but ignore that Bernie has done nothing to create a structure of other candidates who would make his "revolution" more than a one-man band. Hillary is the only one supporting downstream candidates. Hillary is fighting for more Congress critters, Sanders is not.

    If Sanders does not get his way, he is willing to fight for superdelegates risking an internal fight that only benefits the GOP. 

    Thanks rmrd for discussing body cameras.  I really appreciate that.  I think we've gone in different directions.  I actually think they make some sense - certainly not a panacea - and support them more than I did in the past.  Likewise, we disagree on who is more likely to bring about a revolution but we're talking.

    Note: You altered your initial reply. Which was

    "I tried"

    That initial response can be found in it's original form in the "Latest Comments" section.

    lm keeping my response to your original post intact

    No, you really didn't try. You are convinced that Sanders is the best choice. I feel that Hillary is the best choice. You cite your reasons, I cite mine. You feel that Hillary is not trustworthy and give reasons. I feel that Sanders is selling vaporware and give my reasons. You reject my reasons but cannot dispute that he has done noting to create a viable structure that would combat Congressional obstruction. He is not working to create more people in Congress, a basic step in making change. That flaw is enormous and makes me reject Sanders as a first choice. 

    Neither candidate can get his/her agenda through without Democratic majorities in Congress.  What more do you want Sanders to do beyond what he is doing now?  The wave election in 2008 gave President Obama Democratic majorities but I'm not clear what exactly he did to accomplish that  beyond running a great campaign and inspiring lots of people.  Seems like Bernie is doing the same, although unlike Obama in 2008, Bernie isn't poised to win.  Should Bernie pull this out, he will continue to call on Americans to vote for progressives so that we can get the government we deserve.  If you think there is more he/we can/should do to make Congress more progressive, I'd love to work with you on attaining this essential goal

    Post crashed probably due to emoticon 

    Sanders can start by donating campaign funds to the DNC for downstream candidates. Unlike you, I do not consider Obama a failure as President. I think if Bernie got elected and people saw him in action., People would start a petition to revise the Constitution to allow third terms and push Obama to Primary Sanders (joke)

    It's a lot to expect Sanders to donate money to a party he doesn't belong to with members most of whom he considers bought and paid for by corporations and Wall Street. He wins in 2016 and then in 2018 replaces all the democrats and most of the republicans with socialists.

    Vive la revolucion!

    Yes, all that we magically happen.

    Sanders wifi erase the memory of the failed Presidency of Barack Obama (snark).

    We be guided by advisers like Susan Sarandon and Cornel West. What could go wrong.

    Bullshit, you dont care to learn from others.

    As you know, I've taken to ignoring your profane and dismissive posts but I will respond to this one, although I doubt it will do any good at all.  Actually, I do care to learn from others and for months here I read your blogs and comments closely to see whether you were presenting pertinent evidence/information that made my beliefs/assertions more or less likely to be true. 

    You may recall your response to one of my many posts bemoaning "free trade" and the resulting offshoring and outsourcing of millions of American manufacturing andmany  relatively well-paid service sector jobs.  You claimed the number of working accountants in the US had risen of late.  This was news to me and I was very curious to examine the data that you supplied in support of this claim because, if true, it could weaken my central argument.  It turns out your source was referring to CPAs in the UK as I noted in reply.  Were it not for the fact that I was interested in learning from you, I would not have taken the time to review the submitted evidence.

    I can't help but point out that you never responded to my rejoinders about the link you provided about Hillary being the second-most hated person in this race.  If anyone is interested, I'll just mention that Hal linked to an article that had no objective information about "hate level," but he insisted it was proof because the author used the term "hate" in the first sentence.  It was a completely disingenuous (dishonest) response, and you, Hal, knew it.

    Also, the "free college for everyone" is a completely dishonest claim, which I went into some detail above.

    i guess you just can't bear to respond when you know you're wrong.  That's ok. I knew that already.


    I'm sure you can't help but point it out.  I am perfectly comfortable with my claim that Hillary is the 2nd most hated person currently running for President.  Her very high disapproval ratings support my assertion.  If you disagree, the ball is now in your court to adduce evidence to the contrary. 

    My sense is you have no interest whatsoever in the question you pose to me.  Instead, you are hoping to embarrass me with a gotcha question.  But, if you set out specific reasonable criteria that you will accept as persuasive evidence that Clinton is one of the two most "hated" candidates, then I will seek it out for you.

    Oh yeah about your claim that Western countries that provide free education ration the number of college students so they spend less than we would if taxpayers had to pay the tuition of students at public colleges, it's not true.  If it were, America would be the country with the most college grads.  In fact, we are not.  In 2014, we ranked 19th out of 28 countries studied by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development whatever that is.

    As of 2011, we had fallen from 12th to 16th behind France, Sweden, and Denmark, among a number of other countries.  Sweden's colleges are free as are Denmark's.  France's cost about $200 per year.  So more Swedes and Danes graduate from college per capita than Americans and they cover the tuition of all their students.  Simply put, your claim that fewer Americans could attend public colleges if they were free is false.

    You will notice that I demonstrated you are wrong with a minimum of fuss and without any sarcasm.  Why do you think you are incapable of disagreeing civilly?

    I offered a criterion that you rejected. Seems to me votes are a pretty good way of determining who is more liked or hated. Unless you're going to claim that the voters looked at the candidates and decided to vote for the one they hated the most.

    I think we can comfortable adduce that if Hillary is hated by democrats Sanders is hated much more.

    That criterion is pretty rejectionable.

    Utterly absurd criterion.  By your logic, Martin O'Malley is more hated than Trump and Cruz combined right?

    The idea that favorability has nothing to do with electability is not absurd. O'Malley may be more liked than Trump., but O'Malley is unelectable. Favorability is a meaningless number. Trump has a high negative favorability rating but is likely the Republican nominee. Clinton has a high negative favorability rating but has the most votes among Democratic Party members participating in the Primaries. Clinton crushes Trump in a general election according to a PPP poll.

    Negative favorability does not impact electability. It is a number looking for a practical function. 

    In 2008, John McCain had a higher positive favorability rating than Barack Obama. McCain lost. Currently, Kasich has a positive favorability rating compared to Trump's negative number, but Kasich is losing to both Trump and Cruz. Stating that negative or low favorability equals hatred has no basis in reality when it comes to elections.

    Yes, and we also have to factor in the possibility that some people lie for partisan political purposes. Some questions aren't worth asking because for many reasons they won't produce worthwhile data. For example I don't believe that as many people polled actually think Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. I think that number is skewed higher due to partisan spin by some of those polled.

    Like all science polls must be thoughtfully considered. Who paid for the poll or the study. What were the questions asked or the hypothesis tested. Have was the data gathered. Does the data support the conclusions. Whether it's a poll or a study of climate change or GMO's one must look deeply and carefully at all the data from start to finish to draw out the useful information, if there is any there.

    This is one thing that really pisses me off. I make very clear statements and you distort them. Then I have to waste time repeating myself. Are you too lazy to pay attention? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

    I think we can comfortable adduce that if if if if if if if if if if if if if if Hillary is hated by democrats democrats democrats democrats democrats democrats democrats democrats democrats democrats democrats Sanders is hated much more.

    Or are you claiming that voters looked at Hillary, decided they hated her. Then they looked at Sanders and decided they liked him. Then they decided to vote for the person they hated.

    It's actually more possible than you seem to be willing to admit or accept. But c'mon, this is pretty corny stuff.

    I think it shows some logical inconsistencies of Hal's claim that Hillary is so hated. Not anything I would bring up for discussion. Just a response to Hal's choice of topic. it's a bullshit topic and I'll soon drop out. I'm just bored atm.

    It's a decades old meme that Hillary is hated and untrustworthy, yet she got roughly the same number of votes as Obama in 2008. And then in 2015 she's hated and untrustworthy again. It means nothing but the constant drone Im sure hurt her in 2008 - this time probably not so much. And it's as useless a measure as some poll of candidates in November. The polls have been fairly undependable 2-3 weeks out - not worthless but undependable - yet many use it as a rallying cry. My guess is the more young people who actually go to a Hillary speech, the more who would actually like her, despite common memes and wisdom.

    For whatever the number is worth, Hillary had a 10-point lead over Bernie when it came to favorability ratings among Democrats.

    Of course favorability measures how much a candidate is liked not how much she or he is disliked.  People can vote for Bernie and not hate Hillary and they can vote for Hillary and not hate Bernie.  55% of Democrats may prefer Hillary to Bernie.  Of those 55%, 10% might actually "hate" Bernie.  This would mean 5.5% of Dems hate Bernie. 

    On the other hand, 45% of Democrats might prefer Bernie.  Of that 45%, 20% might actually "hate" Hillary.  This would mean 9% of Dems hate her.  Under this scenario and factoring in the high percentage of cons who "hate" her, she would be much more hated than Bernie.   

    The question presented is which candidate excites more disapprobation and is actively despised by more people.  The evidence 1) from polls - she has much higher disapproval (Feb 2016 Politics USA) numbers - and 2)  anecdotally (see here (Daily Kos) and here (Slate) and here (the Atlantic) strongly support my original claim.  This is not tough stuff folks.

    In the end, doesn't matter. I don't vote for the candidate I'd like to drink with - I vote for policies and ability to get those done and overall professionalism. I'm happy to have an unlikable bastard that gets things done in a way that pleases me. I don't even care if they steal a little bit. I don't care if they sodomize goats or anything else. 

    I agree mostly with your broader point but I do care if my President is a thief or a child molester or harasses subordinates.  On the other hand, a candidate who is actively despised by a significant percentage of the populace may have more trouble getting elected as he or she will activate the other candidate's party's base.  I note you appear to be abandoning the argument that the evidence does not support my contention that Clinton is one of the two most hated candidates.

    That is why I worry about electing a moralizing scold like Bernie Sanders


    If by "harass" you mean yells and screams, I don't care. Sexual abuse is something else, though it wasn't that long ago in some climes that it was expected that secretaries would sleep with their bosses.

    I haven't abandoned anything because I didn't participate and still don't care. Hate Hillary as much as you want, just vote for her. Or don't. Frankly it doesn't matter, she'll win anyway.

    Sigh, this is very sad Hal. The point is that favorability is a fantasy number. It has no real world impact. It has nothing to do with getting elected. People do not go out to vote for people they hate. Politicians with low favorability have won elections..The fact that multiple sources use favorability in articles does not validate the number. The bottom line is that Bernie has not shown that his electability extends beyond white voters in most states, limiting his ability to win the Primaries.

    Your numbers above on Hillary hatred have the same reliability as numerology or astrology. You create numbers in your head and put them on paper. Hillary has one million more votes than Sanders.That is an important number. Hillary has more delegates and superdelegates than Bernie. Those are important numbers. I will concede that Bernie is likable enough.

    It is not rocket science.

    I presented numbers.  I pointed out the argument that Clinton's slightly higher vote totals don't prove she is less hated.

    Your post is illogical. It is more logical to state that Bernie can't win the minority vote. There is also an argument to be made that Liberals who agree with the concept of Hillary hatred are gullible.

    Edit to add:

    Unlike the nonsensical favorability rating, Americans named Hillary Clinton the most admired woman in the world a record 20 times. That number is a more rational explanation for why Hillary has more votes than Bernie.

    There is nothing illogical in my argument.  Do you think minority voters will sit on their hands if Bernie Sanders is the nominee?  First ladies are almost always the most admired woman.

    Black voters will hold their noses and vote for Sanders even though Sanders has done no honest outreach. When he lost in South Carolina, his surrogate blasted Civil Rights icons John Lewis and James Clyburn. Blacks realize Sanders was not supported over Clinton by blacks in New England

    Sanders is not in tune with the black voter.

    Edit to add: 

    Hillary has not been First Lady for a period that lasted 20 years

    Is it Sanders' job to do what you call "honest outreach" to each demographic group or is it each voter's responsibility to compare the candidates and vote for the best one?

    Frankly, Sanders has one job and one job only, that is to win the election.  It's for him to reach out where it counts regardless of whether those being reached out to have separately researched his record. 

    Case in point, Hillary was in Harlem doing outreach.

    ​When the Primaries come to states with significant minority voters, Sanders will get crushed.

    Conclusion, yeah Sanders has to do better outreach than Cornel West.

    Do we have elections to reward the "best" politician or to get the best possible representatives for us?

    If Sanders can't connect to minorities, he is not the best politician.

    So your argument is we should reward the best "politician" not demand the best leader for our nation.  I disagree.  Given your standard, I still can't understand why you support Clinton.

    Hardly is a good example of "learning". Im pretty sure I referenced BLS (america) data on accountants (maybe corrected the original) - if not, look it up. Sad if thats the only thing you walk away with. You had a source claiming 14% black unemployment which is a mch more important stat - but false. Etc etc. Still sounds like you just want to be right, not "learn"

    Why would Clinton cede so much on what you see appear to see as her more hawkish bent than Bernie Sanders?  I would venture to say that there are a very tiny minority of Democratic voters who will balk at Hillary because of her foreign policy--in the general election anyway when the choice is a Trump or Cruz.  I don't see her doing anything except sounding more hawkish during the generals.  Candidly I think we'd hear from a more hawkish Bernie Sanders as well in the general election were he to be the nominee.  Generals are about shoring the center once a base is secured (and her base other than the elite liberal left I think is fairly secure, i.e. don't mean "elite" in a monetary sense per se).

    I'm not going to delve into the domestic comparisons because I agree that Bernie finds himself to the left of Clinton on a host of issues.  But where does that win Bernie a state that HRC won't win already?  Don't see much.  I think Bernie is a great movement candidate, much like Bob LaFollette was, as Michael W. has written about, and I think he's forced the conversation (if not policy) to the left.

     I've decided to vote for HRC in the NY primary (after lots of soul-searching) because I really do fear a Trump or a Cruz as an alternative to a damaged Hillary).  Much harder decision for me this time than it was in '08,  because I really appreciate Sanders' approach to things generally (notwithstanding a rather shallow record in Congress).

    Thanks Bruce.  I address the electability issue here.

    Charles Blow in today's NYTs on the "Bernie or Bust" meme:

    Be absolutely clear: While there are meaningful differences between Clinton and Sanders, either would be a far better choice for president than any of the remaining Republican contenders, especially the demagogic real estate developer. Assisting or allowing his ascendance by electoral abstinence in order to force a “revolution” is heretical.

    This position is dangerous, shortsighted and self-immolating.

    If Sanders wins the nomination, liberals should rally round him. Conversely, if Clinton does, they should rally round her.

    This is not a game. The presidency, particularly the next one, matters, and elections can be decided by relatively small margins. No president has won the popular vote by more than 10 percentage points since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

    Find Mr. Blow's logic to be inpenetrable.

    I agree but I'm affluent enough to care about social issues, the environment, and comity among the various demographic groups in our nation.

    Hal, even the non-affluent care about these issues. I dont see the point.

    People juggling three jobs in order to pay the rent so they can stay in their motor home while facing daunting medical bills and hoping to be able to pay for their kids to eat a relatively healthy diet don't have the "privilege" of worrying about much beyond next week.

    And what percent of the population are you addressing here with the catastrophically unusually poor? And Bernie's attracting students and young professionals, not the trailer trash demographic - that's Hillary's side of the street.

    It's worthwhile noting the shift to contingent workers though:

    The 40% of workers who are contingent have median pay of $12/hour.  So a proposal to raise minimum wage to $15/hr is at least a 25% pay hike for 1/5 of the workforce and say $1-2 for another tenth. Alright, thats not quite true, as self-emplyed people probably dont have to pay themselves minimum wage and perhaps many independent contractors arent billing in by the hour. But that's a huge disruption in the market. What has Bernie addressed as the result of this upheaval?

    Yeah... Hal's proletariat is out to make America great again.

    Maiello's and PP's posts here demonstrate the perils of failing to read and not attempting to understand and instead looking only to score points.  The colloquy I was having with Bruce Levine related to his citation of Charles Blow for the proposition that both Clinton and Sanders are miles ahead of any of the Republicans.  I noted that I agreed but I'm fortunate enough economically that I can afford to look down the road a few years and even decades.  Barely scraping by Americans don't have that luxury.  Therefore they cannot be expected to be as focused on issues like the Supreme Court or tamping down tensions between discrete racial and ethnic groups. 

    Instead they're angry, resentful, and hoping for a few more scraps from the rich man's table.  Under these circumstances, it's going to be a tough lift trying to cajole them to vote for a candidate who called the TPP the "gold standard" and is in the pocket of investment banks to the tune of tens of millions of dollars

    By the way the number of economically desperate Americans is extraordinarily great.  More than half of us have less than $1,000 in savings.

    Your solution to Bernie's failure to have an honest outreach program is to tell black people, poor people, etc what is in their best interests rather than listening to their concerns?

    No.  I asked you whether voters have an obligation to investigate who's the best candidate and to vote for that candidate or if it's the candidate's responsibility to conduct outreach in a way that you believe is appropriate.  I am confident Sanders' record is both clear and easily accessible and that he is the best candidate for the great majority of Americans including Americans of color.  Obviously most but not all Americans of color disagree. 

    Is it your position that I have no right to voice my opinion on this question?  Do you have the right to claim that white working-class voters voted against their own interests when they chose Reagan over Carter and Mondale or voted for Romney instead of Obama?  Or do you believe that only members of each discrete group, broken down by race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc., can have any idea what's in their own group's best interests?

    Following your apparent line of thinking, did President Obama do enough outreach in Appalachia?  Did he speak to voters in Utah in a persuasive way? 

    I provided you a link today of black New Hampshire voters who did Not Feel the Bern. I previously provided data on blacks in Vermont who rejected Sanders. You arrogantly insist that blacks who do not support Bernie are ill-informed. You cannot accept that your candidate is flawed and unacceptable to most African-American voters.

    Sanders has no way to achieve his goals. He has no significant Congressional track record. He made zero outreach to the black community now he wants to be their champion.Heck, he has not been willing to support black Democratic candidates. Yet he wants the DNC to bend to his will. Blacks sense Sanders is a charlatan.

    In the past, I've noted that of course I accept that Bernie Sanders is both flawed and hasn't persuaded most African-Americans to vote for him.  I do not insist that blacks who do not support Bernie are ill-informed, I insist that Americans who do not support Bernie are making a mistake.  He certainly hasn't made zero outreach to the black community.  I'm perplexed by your sarcastic  statement he "wants to be their champion."  Shouldn't the question you ask be who will be the best President for the African-American community and America more broadly not whether Sanders wants to be champion for a certain group?  Obviously, he wants to be President.  That's why he's running.

    Sanders has certainly supported black Democratic candidates as he supported Jesse Jackson in 1988 and as Keith Ellison supports him now.  You claim Sanders is a charlatan.  A charlatan is a faker.  What evidence do you adduce for your contention that Sanders is faking concern for poor, working, and middle income Americans?

    You continue to have selective memory of more recent events. He suggested that a Primary challenge to President Obama take place. Did he consult with the black community before that? 

    Cornel West is not outreach. Anybody with contact with the black community would know that. Sanders knew, he didn't care what black voters thought.

    A fake revolutionary would talk about change and then say he would have to think about providing funds to support that change in Congress. Sanders is a charlatan. We have been over this multiple times. 

    Sanders exposed himself on Rachel Maddow when asked about downstream candidates.

    Blacks and most white Democrats see Sanders for what he is. Sanders does not care about the people as much as he cares about his agenda. Charles Blow of the NYT knew why people had to Bernie-splain to cover up the truth. Jonathan Capehart of the WaPo noted the duster of selecting Cornel West as a surrogate and now notes that Sanders is a hypocrite by running in the Democratic Party.

    How does not aiding downstream Democrats count as a reason to select Bernie Sanders as the nominee?

    "Sanders does not care about the people as much as he cares about his agenda."  Bernie's agenda is people.  Clinton's is Clinton.

    Could you please address how not supporting downstream Democratic candidates would make me want to vote for Sanders?

    You should vote for Sanders because he will be the best President for America regardless of whether he's raising money for downstream Democrats.

    Wow, you really have consumed the Kool-aid.

    One of us has.

    Your guy needs Congressional support for his ideas to manifest.He is "deciding" if he is going to help pay for the required support. He is a charlatan.

    Bernie is a politician who has done nothing for 25 years but sponsor a few amendments, who is reaching the end of his career, and whose empty promises, in the end, will lead to more dissatisfaction, estrangement and lack of participation in voting by millions.

    Voters Bernie has led to believe that one man and one election can upend the nation's economic power structures and extant political reality. Maybe he believes it. If he does his frustrations have overcome his aging perceptions of what it takes in years, elections, bloc building, and compromise for change in America.

    Good point.  Presidents have little power.  Certainly FDR had little impact on our nation.  Doesn't really matter for whom you vote right NCD?  Can you please provide one quote containing one of Bernie's empty promises?

    rm, tell me if any of this is true or why you think it isn't. I've noticed a couple of this guy's pieces, but sort of dismissed the story as too little, too late. After the last few days tho, not as much. Interesting, no? I mean sure, the guy is in the tank for Sanders, but...

    Kyle, your links are all speculation, all of it narrative spun to favor Sanders. When an author is so obviously in the tank for a candidate I like to check his numbers but he has few links, none in of the articles, for me to check. By the way, I fact check the data even if the author favors my candidate. Even if I accept his numbers there are other possibilities to explain them.

    But on Election Day — among voters who’ve been present and attentive for each candidate’s commercials, local news coverage, and live events — Sanders tends to tie or beat Clinton.

    In fact, that’s the real reason Sanders does well in caucuses.

    It’s not because caucuses “require a real time investment,” as the media likes to euphemistically say, but because caucuses require that you vote on Election Day rather than well before it.

    There's no evidence that's the real reason Sanders does well in caucuses. Caucuses do require a real time commitment. That's the reason a fraction of voters vote in caucuses compared to primaries. Clearly caucuses significantly depress voter participation. There is also plenty of evidence that caucus numbers measure enthusiasm as well as support. Ron Paul is an extreme example of that. The enthusiasm of his supporters skewed his caucus numbers higher than his overall support with voters.

    But there is also the phenomina of early deciders vs late deciders. Polling shows early deciders usually stick with their candidate. Late deciders can split evenly or swing overwhelmingly to one side. There is no evidence that a swing to one candidate by late deciders is an indication that the early deciders have changed their mind and would have voted differently on election day. It's possible that the more people get to know Sanders the more they like him. But that is by no means the only explanation nor is there any evidence to favor it over other explanations.

    We already know, per head-to-head general-election polling, that the better candidate to run against Donald Trump is Bernie Sanders

    No, we don't know that. Rarely is any democratic candidate fully vetted in the primary. Each candidate must hold their fire to avoid antagonizing the other candidate supporters that they will need in the general. Republicans will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars looking at every foot of Sanders video in every news archive. Until that research project is completed none of us know Bernie Sanders or how he would fare in a general election.

    You're right. The piece you reference has zero links. That doesn't mean his numbers aren't accurate, or that he's wrong. And agreed, his analysis about caucuses is speculative. But combined with his numbers on primary and caucus day results, his speculation is compelling. It is to me, anyway.

    The first piece, which you didn't respond to, has 15 links. More or less, those links support his claims. I'm curious, considering the hundreds of words rm has devoted to highlighting Sanders' weak support among African Americans, whether he cared to comment. (page 5)

    Mr. Abramson has written several essays favorable to Sanders. No doubt about it.  

    And yeah, We already know, per head-to-head general-election polling, that the better candidate to run against Donald Trump is Bernie Sanders.


    You dropped two links on us, the equivalent of two long blogs. I could have gone through them line by line but I don't have time for that and I don't find that a fun way to spend my time. Easy for you drop a link, hard and time consuming for me. Now I did read an article that countered many of the points in one of the articles written as a response to Abramson. I could have searched for that article and simply dropped the link. But I don't play link wars. I picked a couple of points that I thought illustrative of Abramson's main premise and responded to them.

    What we know is that polling data on general election match ups are grossly inaccurate this far out. They are especially inaccurate with primary candidates who have never been nationally vetted in prior elections. Polls can provide useful data if thoughtfully considered. Sometimes that necessary thoughtful consideration reveals the data to actually be errata.

    If you need to hang your hopes on worthless polling data go for it. But don't think you'll score any points here doing it.

     I voted in a caucus state. I walked in the door, stood in a short line, showed a picture ID, picked up a ballot, voted , and and was back in my car after about twenty minutes total. I could have stayed and waited until 8:30 when delegates were chosen and I wish I had but I was in a hurry. I don't know how caucuses run in any other state but in my state they did not take any extra time. Sanders won by a very big margin. 

    Believe exit polling at your peril - Sanders won Hispanics in Nevada? Hardly. Hillary up by 40% in Illinois? Only by weird outlier polls. Losing the black vote? You keep believing that. Yes, caucuses eat up several hours and many people can't be bothered, which is why they end up with 1/5 to 1/10th of the turnout for a primary, which favors people with more time (students?) and the rabidly engaged.

    These folks know how to look for the pony though. Doesn't matter they're being gutted, there's a unicorn and a rainbow on the horizon if just the right people turn out to vote.

    Black voters heavily supported Hillary on Super Tuesday. Do I have a problem believing that black voters in Wisconsin support Sanders? No. Do I have a problem believing that Sanders will win Wisconsin? No. If Sanders is the Democratic nominee, I will support him.

    I will vote for the charlatan who is promising a "revolution", but unwilling to support downstream Democrats. I will vote for Sanders despite supporters who suggest that a Trump victory would usher in their Revolution (tm). Sanders would still be a better option than Trump or Cruz. Sanders would be a complete failure, but at a different level than Trump or Cruz.

    I would truly fear for my country if Sanders won because he has no real experience to deal with what he will face. As Barney Frank notes, Sanders has done nothing in Congress to make him a national leader.

    Why do you urge me to vote for the guy unwilling to fund the Congressional structure Needed to support his goals?

    Yes, sure, yeah and no doubt. Not necessarily in that order.

    mind boggling responses from you guys. I'm not hanging any hopes on anything, nor am I trying to score any points. Hell, I'm not even trying to make a point. I thought his perspective was interesting and some of his supporting links were compelling. Absent some huge unknown, Clinton will be the nominee. If this is winning for you grumpy S.O.B.'s, I'd hate to see you lose.

    I have been honest from the start about Sanders. I would support him as the nominee. Obviously black support for Sanders could increase. I would still ask about supporting a guy would doesn't support downstream Democratic candidates. He criticizes the corporate fund-raising methods of the DNC based on his successful campaign. Many of us doubt his success could be duplicated by a large number of candidates.I do not see Sanders building the lasting structure he needs for a revolution.

    Hillary has been called a liar and worse, I'm surprised that you think that pointing out obvious flaws in Sanders promises is harsh. Why do you support a guy who seems reluctant to pay to build the Congressional support he will need? 

    "I asked you whether voters have an obligation..." - no, voters have no obligations. They can do as they please. It's up to the candidates to inspire and educate in the absence of enough audience forming.

    We have a basic disagreement about one's duties as a citizen.

    If they dont read and vote anyway, or just dont vote - what happens? Jail? Lashing in city square? Public service? Scarlet letter? 

    Maybe Hal would have people . . .

    Six months supervised poop pickup...


    Where did you get this tens of millions of dollars bit? And how do you create jobs without stimulating exports, and how do you do that without trade deals?

    "Since '01, the Clintons collected $35 million from financial businessess."

    You create jobs by stimulating demand.  You stimulate demand by raising wages of workers - who spend nearly everything they are paid - and by making domestic production relatively cheaper than foreign production.  Since our labor force is more expensive than labor overseas, unless government raises the price of imports through tariffs, we will lose relatively high-paying jobs to countries overseas where workers are paid a pittance.  Not a tough one by the way.


    Latest Comments