dagblog - Comments for "Obama's Wall Street Speeches Don't Outrage Democratic Leaders"

This is just a dumb ass

ocean-kat — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 21:16:44 +0000

This is just a dumb ass attack on Hillary which is your MO and doesn't even attempt to define what you mean by the democratic base. All women who didn't vote for Hillary are part of the base? Most of the women who didn't vote for her are republicans and voted for Trump. Female republicans who voted for Trump are part of the democratic base? Sanders primary voters automatically are part of the base? Why? Just because Hillary "attacked" them? Everyone who Hillary "attacked" is automatically the democratic base? The establishment DNC is part of the base? If so Sanders supporters are a minority faction of the base as the vast majority of the DNC establishment supported Hillary and disliked Sanders. I guess we could include Biden and Obama as part of the base. They both supported Hillary and disliked Sanders.

You'll never define what you mean by the democratic base because any rational definition would exclude many Sanders supporters and include mostly those who did not support Sanders in the primary.

But you will continue to attack and slander Hillary. The defining characteristic common to Sanders supporters and Trump supporters is an intense abiding hatred of Hillary.

can we agree that her attacks

ocean-kat — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:28:48 +0000

In reply to I think it's obvious that

can we agree that her attacks are divisive and harmful to the party she claims to love.

I haven't read the book yet and I'll guess you haven't either. All you're doing is going to biased articles that cherry pick quotes from the book to attack Hillary. I could do the same, go to biased articles that cherry pick quotes to praise Hillary. I don't see much value in that. I'll wait until I read the book.

But here's a fact. Book sales for Sanders Our Revolution have been lackluster while book sales for What Happened have been robust, the biggest first week sales for a non fiction book since 2012. The fact is that large numbers of people want to read what Hillary has to say and few are interested in what Sanders wrote. That must be a tough fact for you to swallow.

Hal, I refuted every one of

CVille Dem — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:03:03 +0000

In reply to I think it's obvious that

Hal, I refuted every one of your points, and your constant and flimsy repetitions do not make them any more factual.

To which particular

HSG — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 19:55:28 +0000

In reply to Do you find Bernie Sanders

To which particular statements are you referring?

Do you find Bernie Sanders

rmrd0000 — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 19:53:03 +0000

In reply to I think it's obvious that

Do you find Bernie Sanders comments about Democrats unifying messages?

I think it's obvious that

HSG — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 19:38:19 +0000

In reply to How do you define the

I think it's obvious that attacking 1) all women who didn't vote for her, 2) Sanders primary voters, 3) working-class voters, 4) the establishment DNC, 5) Vice President Biden, and 6) President Obama, is attacking the Democratic base. You are obviously free to disagree. Regardless, can we agree that her attacks are divisive and harmful to the party she claims to love.

How do you define the

ocean-kat — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 19:36:12 +0000

In reply to CVille - Clinton's "explained

How do you define the democratic base? Clearly all registered democrats and independents who usually vote democratic aren't the base so some democrats are part of the base and some are not. How you define the base would determine who is included and who is excluded. One common definition is that the base is made up of those groups that a majority consistently votes every two years for the democratic party.

In 2008, for example, the only groups who voted for Obama by a margin of 2-1 or better, a good measure of a true demographic base, were African Americans (95%), Latinos (67%), voters under 29 years old (66%), Jews (78%), gays and lesbians (70%). Interestingly, union members only voted 60% for Obama, meaning that among white union members it was probably closer to 50%.

In 2004, which was a much closer race, only African Americans (88%), Jews (74%), and gays and lesbians (77%) supported John Kerry by a margin suggesting that they were part of the Democratic base, as support fell off among voters under 29 (46%) and Latinos (53%).

Some suggest democratic primary voters make up the base. Democratic primary voters vote consistently every two years in both primaries and general elections for democrats and are 30 to 45% of those who vote democratic in general elections.

Neither of these definitions would specifically define or include Sanders supporters as the democratic base though some Sanders supporters would probably be included in other groups as part of the base. In these definitions of the democratic base many Sanders supporters would not be included as part of the base. In fact in both of these definitions a majority of the base would be made up of those who didn't support or vote for Sanders.

So how is it that you define the democratic base such that it includes the vast majority of Sanders supporters while excluding the vast majority of those who did not support or vote for him?

What percent of Bernie's

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:41:00 +0000

In reply to CVille - Clinton's "explained

What percent of Bernie's backers "pounding on her" were actually Russian bots on the internet? A serious question that at some point should be acknowledged. Did they use special messaging to get young women dissatisfied with Clinton?

Gloria Steinem actually apologized for her comment. Killer Mike just said he was "taken out of context" because he was just quoting a "feminist" who said the cringeworthy ‘A uterus doesn’t qualify you to be president of the United States. You have to be — you have to have policy that’s reflective of social justice.’ Why exactly Steinem needed to apologize but the millennial "feminist" didn't, I've no fucking clue. Imagine I'd said "being black" or "being a Jew" or "being gay doesn't qualify you to be president". But we can just dismiss women all day long in nasty as fuck terms and it's pretty copacetic.

As for noting that Biden was out campaigning for her & talking about jobs in those disgruntled white heartland states, well, it's hard to see how that's a rough attack or even an attack, just contradicting his contention re: her jobs messaging. Certainly I've had much much worse things to say about Biden, especially floating a death bed message from his son in an attempt to get himself drafted to run? Pretty arrogant unethical trickery.

What I don't get is why

artappraiser — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 16:37:10 +0000

In reply to Obama's Wall Street Speeches Don't Outrage Democratic Leaders

What I don't get is why "Democratic leaders" should be "outraged" at Obama clearly being what he has always been: a strong believer in capitalism. He strongly reiterated his beliefs in an essay in the Economist Oct. 16: "The Way Ahead."

...."the world is more prosperous than ever before and yet our societies are marked by uncertainty and unease"...."it is important to remember that capitalism has been the greatest driver of prosperity and opportunity the world has ever seen."..... "While some communities have suffered from foreign competition," he said. "Trade has helped our economy much more than it has hurt."...."Wherever I go these days, at home or abroad, people ask me the same question: what is happening in the American political system?" he said. He described the view of a polarized American public, where both conservatives and liberals are veering toward more extreme views. "Why have some on the far left and even more on the far right embraced a crude populism that promises a return to a past that is not possible to restore -- and that, for most Americans, never existed at all?"

"Some of the discontent is rooted in legitimate concern," the president said, pointing to "declining productivity growth and rising inequality" that he said has squeezed lower and middle income families by slowing income growth.

But the president said that much of the anxiety was "driven by fears that are not fundamentally economic," saying that "anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim and anti-refugee sentiment" harkened back to "eras in which Americans were told they could restore past glory if they just got some group or idea that was threatening America under control."

Though the president did not mention candidates Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton by name in the article, he said that "much of it [is] fanned by politicians who would actually make the problem worse rather than better."....

He never tried to fool the public about the fact that this is what he believed. And he got elected and re-elected. If anyone believed different, they were juding wrongly by some other criteria, like presuming he would be more socialistic because of the color of his skin or his community organizing jobs in his Chicago years, or something like that.

The point now should be: he and others like him like the Clintons chose to be very active members of the Democratic party. They are the faction that believes in capitalism. When those from that faction run for office, these beliefs attract votes from certain Independents and swings and also turn off votes from other Independents and swings who have more populist beliefs. Those active in the Democratic party with more socialist beliefs can attract votes from independents and swings who have more populist beliefs and turn off votes from those who have more capitalist beliefs.

It is nothing to be outraged about! If the politician is honest about it and doesn't dishonestly try to pander with something he/she doesn't believe. Rather, it is something to debate.

I reiterate that I think what should outrage people is when a politician is dishonest about what he or she believes in order to get votes. People should know and understand what they are voting for. We have the worst example of a con artist in the presidency right now who doesn't seem to believe in anything and has virtually done the historical ultimate in spinning to get popularity. It makes it more clear that this is what we shouldn't want, this is what should outrage: spinning to suggest something that the person is not in order to get votes.

CVille - Clinton's "explained

HSG — Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:17:47 +0000

In reply to Your examples are ludicrous.

CVille - Clinton "explained" why many young women didn't vote for her by referencing Sheryl Sandberg's statement that they wouldn't have empathy for her because they'd be under pressure from men not to. Clinton is saying that she agrees with Sandberg that such women did not vote rationally. Indeed, she is rejecting out-of-hand the notion that they might have had any legitimate reasons for not being inspired by her. That is clearly an attack. It also tracks perfectly Gloria Steinem's dismissive reaction when it was pointed out to her that a majority of women under 30 preferred Sanders. Steinem, as you know, said that they were going where the boys are.

Regarding the attacks on Bernie's supporters, Clinton said:

When we started the campaign we had every reason to believe that we had a path forward that relied on how people felt about me and how they thought about my work over many years. But it's absolutely true that between the consistent pounding on me, first by Bernie Sanders, but more consistently by his supporters, and the theme that Trump stuck with, it really was hard to break out from under that.

As I noted previously, the percentage of Bernie's primary voters who voted for her in the general election was higher than the percentage of her primary voters in 2008 who voted for Barack Obama. Bernie's backers are the Democratic base.

You are free of course not to perceive Hillary's criticisms as attacks. But calling them ludicrous examples, well we'll have to agree to disagree on what's ludicrous.

Okay, this is my last comment on this thread. Enjoy the weekend!