Eight years ago, progressives and liberals rallied behind an eloquent first-term senator who called himself a “skinny guy with a funny name.” Barack Obama won hearts and united the left like never before. He was to be our first black president and would succeed in rescuing the country from eight disastrous years under President George W. Bush. Bush had been selected by Florida’s Secretary of State (under the then governor, Jeb Bush, W’s brother) and a 5-4 decision from our conservative Supreme Court. Al Gore had won the popular vote but they handed it to Bush. We went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, a catastrophic vendetta disguised as retribution for 9/11. Wall Street collapsed under the weight of greed and lack of Federal regulation. The economy tanked 5 months before Bush slipped out the back exit. Things could not have gotten much worse for Americans who had become accustomed to a well oiled empire. Obama came in to take the country in a different direction, or so the narrative went anyway. Obama’s supporters came from far and wide, from all sides of the liberal spectrum. He had the African-American vote, no question. He had the moderate liberal vote. He fired up the progressives, who seemed to believe he could single-handedly do things that no president can ever actually do in office. No one expected President Obama would have to confront the most hostile Congress in US history. That hostility created continual roadblocks to his platform of hope, change and reform. Obama had to act outside Congress on many things, thus got called a tyrant and a fascist. They called him a liar during his State of the Union Address. By the end of his second term our American government would consist of a Democrat in the White House in lone opposition to a Republican Congress and Republican-leaning Supreme Court.
With the Supreme Court finally making gay marriage legal, and trying to finally convince stubborn Republicans that the Affordable Care Act is here to stay, there is much upset on the conservative side of our country. So much so that the GOP are brewing a perfect storm for an all-out takeover of the U.S. government, with plans to take the presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court. With that kind of alignment of power they could finally enact all the legislation Obama has stopped them from jamming through. That Presidential VETO vote has been gold these past few years. Historically, two consecutive terms of a Democrat in the White is usually followed by a Republican president in office. That’s largely because the eligible voters who sit out elections every year (a staggering number) begin to feel angry enough to go to the polls to unseat the powers that be.
The Democrats have a formidable frontrunner in Hillary Clinton. She would be, at last, the first female president. She is still polling with higher support than anyone else in the race, Democrat or Republican. But now come the laments of respected trendsetters like Bill Maher on HBO, and more dubious armchair quarterbacks like Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere. Publicly they claim that they just don’t feel excited about Hillary — and privately they know if her nomination at the Democratic Convention is accepted as a done deal it will never drive conversations, TV panel disputes, site traffic, heated debate or ad money. As answer to their prayers to see a dramatic hero/villain scenario set in motion, Bernie Sanders came along, a good man and self-proclaimed socialist who can boast that he isn’t taking PAC money but is raising his campaign cash the old-fashioned way, with thousands of grassroots donors. Never mind that Hillary has enormous grass-roots support of her own in addition to impressive funding from essential major players. Bernie has positioned himself as the anti-Hillary.
All at once, loud voices on left have begun to attack their own party, with eager assistance from GOP operatives who’ve been continually feeding negative stories about Hillary through leftist Twitter accounts for months, according to the New York Times. Many complacent liberals have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker. Now we not only have Bernie Sanders supporters — we have Hillary Clinton haters on the left to do finish the hatchet job Republicans have been orchestrating ever since they tried to make Benghazi stick. That accomplishes two things. It helps to disillusion less-devoted Democrats, to ensure fewer votes for Hillary Clinton come election time, and it makes the Republicans look good because they can point to wobbly Democrat pundits. The Republican saboteurs no longer have to get their hands dirty trying to ruin her chances because the Democrats are doing it for them. And there is no stopping it now. A barrage of traffic-generating thinky-pieces on Salon, Huffington Post, DailyKos, Matt Taibbi are seeding the discontent, firmly in the Sanders camp, trying to get him, and not Hillary, the nomination next summer.
But those Republicans, they are just getting started. Obama has spent two exhausting terms defending himself against accusations that he was a closet socialist. Now there is a proud self-confessed socialist actually running? This is the GOP’s wet dream. It’s manna from heaven and they know it. Bernie Sanders will need to raise taxes to pay for his elaborate raft of programs and he naturally wants to raise them on the rich. While I personally think is a beautiful thing, because who with any sense of humanity wouldn’t, we all know how most Americans respond to that kind of talk. They hear “taxes” and they assume Democrats want half of everybody’s paycheck to pay for silly things like infrastructure. So yeah, do the math. Not a pretty picture. As John Steinbeck said, “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Though, in my worst nightmares, I fear we can pretty much stick a fork in it for Democrats this election cycle — divided we fall — there is hope on the horizon. Young people are fired up for Bernie Sanders, which could mean that further down the road someone as revolutionary as Bernie, might really get elected. No one wants to put a damper the involvement of young voters or their kill their spirit, so cynics like me will have to just hide out in our dark corners and wait for it all to be over. Even though deep down I’m thinking: Please don’t risk another conservative being appointed to the Supreme Court, please don’t let a climate change denier take control of the White House. I personally will fight for whomever gets the nomination but more and more I hear fervent liberals say they will only vote for Bernie Sanders and not for Hillary Clinton. I want to believe that devotion will shift once the dust settles and sensible people weigh the Clinton Dynasty against the Bush Dynasty. But for now, it’s a discouraging and nerve-racking situation. Nicely done, GOP. Nicely done.
Meanwhile, let’s look at how all of this — human nature, voting and campaigning — resembles familiar patterns in the Oscar race.
Early campaigning, candidates announcing = Film Festivals
The same way the presidential race feeds on the manufactured drama of divisive heroes and villains, so does the Oscar race for Best Picture. In 2012, 12 Years a Slave landed with thunderous acclaim in Telluride, was heralded as the de facto Best Picture winner, preordained as it were. That set into motion a divisive awards race that pit Gravity (a billion dollar juggernaut somehow morphed into the scrappy underdog) against 12 Years a Slave (the mean ol’ frontrunner who must be defeated). The pre-nominations phase offers up many opportunities for potential winners. Each film has its own lobbyist, an awards strategist who dutifully works the press, the blogs, twitter, doing damage control. As soon a film seems like a potentially viable contender a really good strategist is attached to it.
From this point, it is a matter of how each option plays in the real world. How did Hillary Clinton play in New Hampshire? How did Bernie Sanders play in Iowa? How did Jeb! Bush play in Texas? How did The Artist play in the Toronto? How did Birdman play at that Academy screening? How did The Wolf of Wall Street play at a special DGA screening? The process is the same.
It is all sunshine and roses until one film is positioned as the winner and one film the underdog. That’s when fickle public opinion can begin to shift.
Campaigning and fundraising – you pay to play with politics and the Oscars.
One of Hillary most potent advantages, like Obama’s last two terms, is her ability to fund-raise amid corruptive forces in the era of Super-PACs. Jeb Bush racked up $100 million in donations before he even announced the official launch of his campaign, exploiting a loophole in the Citizens United decision that says money counts as speech and is therefore covered under the 1st Amendment. Meanwhile, the deep-pocketed Koch brothers are backing Scott Walker who is now polling ahead in Iowa. Needless to say, the GOP have their guys more than covered. Seems every billionaire in America is ready to adopt his very own pet Republican candidate. They won’t be outspent by anyone except maybe Hillary Clinton. With the help of Bill Clinton and perhaps Big Hollywood, Clinton is the only Democrat on the horizon who’s able to compete with those guys — except for the fact that many the left are being fed the nonsense that any big money must be “dirty money.” Obama assembled the same sources of funding, but somehow he was cheered on while Hillary is seen as a MEAN OLD CORPORATE STOOGE for raising lots of fuck-you money.
This is similar to the charges leveled against The Social Network’s ad campaign vs. The King’s Speech in 2010. Somehow, someone got it out there that Sony was spending record amounts of money on the Social Network so that it was insinuated they were trying “to buy” a Best Picture victory. The same thing happened to Lincoln in 2012. As someone who is often the recipient of FYC money I can tell you that it’s really hard to win Best Picture, or even get an Oscar nomination at all, if you don’t pay to play.
The amount of money it costs to launch either a presidential campaign or an Oscar campaign often helps clarify one’s intentions, and by any sane evaluation monetary support should be a measure of confidence. Studios and distributors have to ask themselves do they really want to spent that money? Do they want or need to demonstrate loyalty to their talent? For what reason? To what end? What is in it for them? Likewise, in politics, there is a sense that everyone has a right and a responsibility to get involved in remaking our country with candidates of our own choosing lifted aloft with our own money. Everybody raises it, everybody spends it, but it still comes down to perception. Good guys vs. bad guys (and girls).
Bernie Sanders just sent out an email that reads:
Yesterday afternoon, Jeb Bush announced that a relatively small number of wealthy donors have contributed over one hundred million dollars to his Super PAC.
This is not a democracy. This is oligarchy.
Unfortunately, Jeb Bush is not alone. Almost all of our opponents have embraced this model of fundraising — begging billionaire benefactors who have bought up the private sector to try their hand at buying a presidential election.
One of those Super PACs is already running ads against our campaign.
Let me be clear: I am more than aware our opponents will outspend us, but we are going to win this election. They have the money, but we have the people.
This, before asking for another donation. In the months and days counting down to the election, anyone who’s ever visited a political site will have his or her inbox bombarded with emails asking for money. I’ve already donated, but they will keep asking and asking and asking and begging and begging and begging. Everyone will want something in return. It’s an illusion to think that only corporations are involved. So why do they need so much money? For advertising, of course.
I learned a hard lesson last year when Gone Girl did no advertising for the Oscar race. There was maybe one ad for Rosamund Pike I saw. Without advertising you can’t get nominations. You need to show voters that you want it, and you need to remind them that you’re out there — they need to remember the movie.
In politics, ads shape the message — here is a breakdown of where the money went in 2012. Obama spent $57 million in June to Romney’s $27 million. Of that, Romney only used $39 million for media buys to Obama’s $67 million. You can see that money drives everything. In politics, as with the Oscars.
As we can see by the way liberals are positioning Clinton this year, no one wants to be on the side of corporate money. That’s perception. Maybe Bernie Sanders really is the scrappy underdog that could. He still needs to raise lots and lots of money and without PACS or billionaire patrons he simply can’t compete with Bush or Walker.
Smear Campaigns — works for politics, works for Oscars
One of Hillary Clinton’s best hands to play at this table is that there isn’t much more people can dredge up about her past that hasn’t already been laid out there. She’s still standing. The latest accusation against her was the kerfuffle over private emails, and before that the one word accusation lobbed at her by many people who probably have no idea what it even means: BENGHAZI. Note: As of May 29, 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Defense casualty website, there were 4,425 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 32,223 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom. How many Americans were killed during the terrorist attacks in Benghazi? 4.
Conservatives are continually trying to turn liberals against Hillary. A recent example was this college photo doctored to look like she had a confederate flag in the background. (Source? Our old pal Dinesh D’Souza).
Why try to turn the left against the left? The GOP learned the strategy from the 2012 election:
Conservative strategists and operatives say they are simply filling a vacuum on the far left, as well as applying the lesson they learned in 2012, when they watched in frustration as Mitt Romney was forced to expend time and resources in a protracted primary fight. By the time he secured his party’s nomination, President Obama hardly had to make the case that his opponent was a cold-hearted plutocrat; Republicans like Newt Gingrich had already made the argument for him in the primaries.
Few Republicans are more familiar with that nightmare than Matt Rhoades, who was Mr. Romney’s campaign manager. He founded America Rising in response to a recommendation contained in an autopsy of Romney’s failed presidential run that was ordered by the Republican National Committee. The group’s original goal was to compete with American Bridge, the Democratic opposition research group, but its focus under Mr. Rhoades has been to subject Mrs. Clinton to an ordeal similar to Mr. Romney’s.
“The idea is to make her life difficult in the primary and challenge her from the left,” said Colin Reed, America Rising’s executive director. “We don’t want her to enter the general election not having been pushed from the left, so if we have opportunities — creative ways, especially online — to push her from the left, we’ll do it just to show those folks who she needs to turn out that she’s not in line with them.”
Worked like a charm, at least so far. A similar dynamic played out when Kathryn Bigelow directed Zero Dark Thirty and last year when Ava DuVernay directed Selma. It’s apparently a lot easier to try to undermine someone’s integrity when a woman is in the driver’s seat. The idea that these female directors were irresponsible with their message orignated from the left. Martin Sheen and Ed Asner with Zero Dark Thirty and various journalists attacking Selma. The debate over torture rages on but the so-called Selma scandal was a joke. Doesn’t matter because perception is everything, at the Oscars, in politics and especially during presidential elections.
Voting for the winners – the eternal dilemma of whether to vote with your heart or vote for the winner
Academy voters are always conflicted about whether to vote for a film that has no chance of winning or whether to vote for one of the two or three films that really have a chance. Does your vote count if it’s thrown away just because you voted with your heart? Idealists would say yes. Vote how you want or else the entire system of voting is pointless. While I can’t render an opinion on what Academy members should do (though I would hope their decision goes beyond what they merely “like”), it’s a certainty that elections are always won by those who turn out to vote at all. With the Academy, that means they should at the very least see all of the films. They traditionally have a pretty high turnout when it comes to voting. Unlike many other Americans, Oscar voters know their ballot is a privilege.
Where Americans at large are concerned, things get trickier. Only a little over 50% of the voting age population even votes at all. An estimated 93 million eligible voters dfailed to show up at the ballot booth in 2012. Most of the people who do vote do so because they feel personally invested in something. They care about something. The rest of them dwell in apathy. They’ve checked out of the system because they either think the system is rigged or they don’t think their vote will count. Idealists would tell you that their votes DO count, especially if everyone was required to vote as part of their citizenship. Anyone who has watched the presidential election for several decades might tell you that you should throw your vote behind the one who can win or else risk losing.
Once the Producers Guild announces their winner, the DGA and SAG follow suit — the cumulative weight of those kinds of numbers in the thousands cannot be shaken up with one or two votes here or there. It has become a massive, unshakable consensus since the Academy expanded their Best Picture contenders from five to more than five. The PGA mostly decides Best Picture now.
We’re lucky that in America we have a choice whether or not to vote. We’re lucky we have so many wonderful films to see every year. But the Oscars, like American politics, tend to make the race towards the winner about one or two choices rather than a multitude. I fear that this year the Democrats have already lost the election before we even get started. At the same time I don’t want to disillusion potential young people who are fired up to vote, even if they are ultimately voting for someone who can’t win.
I don’t think any one president can change this country into a liberal utopia. It’s just not possible under the current structure on Capitol Hill, riddled with systemic bureaucratic malady. For me, the choice is clear and the reason why was made crystal clear last month: it’s the Supreme Court, stupid.
Alec,
I agree, Obama 2016! I can’t focus on the race when I’m dreading the fact that he’ll be gone soon; our closest president to FDR!
Ryan,
please start a political blog, go on CNN, write posts on FB that I can share, etc… I NEED you to speak on behalf of us less articulate folks about how to properly analyze FACTS.
sincerely,
someone who would vote for you
Let the GOP nominees trash each other for the next year; let the rest of us focus on keeping a democrat in office for 12 consecutive years for the first time in modern history.
.
Yes, Yes, YES!!! Trashing each other (amongst Democratic nominees for POTUS) is for feeble-minded, paranoid, and childish people like the GOP. It is possible to support any Democratic candidate without trashing the other (whether it be Bernie or Hilary or Martin or whatever). The only candidates that deserve to be trashed are the house of horrors known as the Republicans. We’ve got to focus on the PRESENT, learn fron the mistakes of the past, and prevent another GOP disaster from the mercy of the world.
.
At least it’s not name-calling.
.
That’s the reason why folks like Ryan Adams are careful in choosing their words regarding criticism (as noted in the Dustin Hoffman post a few days earlier). It is a more mature response than other comment threads in political blogs where it is often a freak show of trolls.
I thought this was a very interesting and informative discussion.
The first election I was old enough to vote in 2000 was the Bush/Gore one and I lived in FL(still live there now). I also remember hating anyone who voted for Nader because I felt it was as good as a vote for Bush.
I’m much older now and understand more why people voted for Nader and support Sanders. I wish we had more choices than just two parties who don’t always reflect what we want/need out of society. However, it is the only one we have and I will support Hilary 100% as a result, because I am even more terrified of a Bush presidency today than I was 15 years ago. I don’t mind people supporting other candidates in the Democratic party at this stage, but I do mind the trashing of Hilary as it does nothing but help the opposition next year when Hilary is the only democrat left standing. Let the GOP nominees trash each other for the next year; let the rest of us focus on keeping a democrat in office for 12 consecutive years for the first time in modern history.
@Ryan
“She is the FRONTRUNNER way ahead of Bernie in EVERY state and also in every nationwide poll. That is not “narrative”; it is a fact.”
That’s like predicting ‘Dreamgirls’ as the Best Picture frontrunner in February when it doesn’t come out until December. Hillary is the more popular political figure so of course she was high in the polls. But her lead is slipping and Bernie’s is increasing. Why? Because more Americans are starting to see and hear Bernie for the first time. A lot of people at Bernie’s campaign events haven’t necessarily been die-hard progressives who’ve loved him ever since he got to Vermont. A number of them are Democrats who are frustrated with Clinton and happy there’s a viable alternative. Others feel a strong connection with Bernie.
“But I will become frustrated with people like you if you continue to try to undermine Hillary when she inevitably becomes the Democratic nominee.”
I wouldn’t be like that once the primary is over. I can face reality. But, given that it’s only July 2015 and the campaigns have just begun, it’s fair game. The race isn’t over yet. And if Bernie continues to gain in polls and get the large crowds he’s getting, I hope Hillary supporters will admit that he’s a serious candidate and not just a “spoiler.”
“Here is your plan: Convince 45 million or 47 million current Hillary supporters to abandon a candidate that we have rallied behind for the past 8 years and get them all to vote for Bernie instead.”
I feel like a lot of people abandoned Hillary for Obama in 2008, though. Why wouldn’t it happen again? I mean It sucks that you’ve all been working so hard since 2008 to get her elected, but I’m not sure why when the election was so far away. Why put all your eggs in one basket? No judgement there, I’m honestly just curious because Bernie wasn’t even on my radar until he announced his candidacy.
Anyway, good discussion. At least it’s not name-calling like other sites.
“That’s like predicting ‘Dreamgirls’ as the Best Picture frontrunner in February when it doesn’t come out until December”
Well, not exactly a 1:1 comparison, because
1) predicting Dreamgirls in February was imagining something great, sight unseen, and there are millions of people who do not have the qualms about Hillary that you do, so they have been seeing her for 20 years and they love what they see.
2) predicting the Oscar winner involves asking nonvoters to guess what real voters will do. While a poll that shows Hillary has 7x the actual support of Bernie is based on asking actual voters: “who do you want for President?” and actual voters say: “I want Hillary.” People being polled are not making a wild guess; they are expressing their real intentions.
3) Hillary will not chose Eddie Murphy to be her running mate (probably)
4) We love Bernie. Bernie is great. I am proud that Democrats can claim Bernie as one of our smartest pals. But in February 2006 nobody had seem The Departed and Bernie Sanders is no Martin Scorsese.
5) “frontrunner” means one thing: the person who is running in front of the others. It is not a made-up thing. It is based on counting numbers. It is based on tangible measurements. Anyone in Feb 2006 who said Dreamgirls was frontrunner was basing that claim on nonexistent things they pulled out of their asses.
At least it’s not name-calling.
We like heated discussions around here 🙂 That’s why we post controversial outspoken options and are glad to see outspoken reactions. But we have ways of fixing things so that name-calling and personal insults vanish so that no bullies get to bully anyone. Because we moderate those things like a goddamn socialist tyrant would. 😉
My mistake about saying Bernie was elected into senate in 1990. Don’t know how I mixed that one up.
Obviously there’s a lot we’re not going to agree with. But we’re in the very beginning of the campaign, and everyone acts like it’s all been settled with Hillary. That’s problematic. Bernie is surging and gaining momentum. Many Americans are learning about him for the first time, and a lot of them like what they see. Yet the media has created a narrative that Hillary is the frontrunner. Hillary supporters are reinforcing this narrative. They haven’t even heard what she has to say on all of the issues this time around, all they have is her past voting record, which, compared to Sanders, is bad, even if it’s better than an extreme right-wing Republican’s voting record. And yet they’re still supporting her. Anyone who legitimately criticizes her is called out for “trashing” her (as I have been in the comments here). Anyone who supports an alternative candidate is blamed for ruining Hillary’s chances and therefore indirectly voting for the GOP. Am I the only one who sees the problem with this? And if all of you do see the problem, why just go along with it?
As I said before, shouldn’t the Democratic establishment give me a better choice if all they care about is winning the election? Maybe I’m the idiot here, but I would think that the more electable candidate is the more honest, transparent, trustworthy, consistent. If the Democrats are so hell-bent on keeping the Republicans out of the White House for all the reasons you’ve all highlighted, why do they insist on getting behind Clinton when they have other options who aren’t AS corrupted by establishment politics? I’m not completely naive and I understand that Bernie is also a politician. He has his motives. But right now, they’re not as overt as Clinton’s. I’m sure that he, like Clinton, is “playing politics,” but it’s not as obvious to me. He seems genuine, or at the very least, MORE genuine, than Clinton. So right now, if I’m given the choice between the two, I’m going with the “lesser of two evils.” See what I did there? The “lesser of two evils” argument shouldn’t only apply to the general election between Republican and Democrat. It should also apply to the primary when choosing which democrat we want in the White House.
I think the big difference is that a lot of you see a difference between Democrat and Republican, and obviously those are differences, but to me, it’s more about establishment versus non-establishment. I know I’ve been criticized for being idealistic, and I obviously haven’t become complacent and cynical yet, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Otherwise, everyone would just vote for the people they’re told to vote for without every thinking for themselves. I can’t do that.
“Yet the media has created a narrative that Hillary is the frontrunner. Hillary supporters are reinforcing this narrative.”
.
Joseph, you are still a little bit mixed up. None of your enemies are “creating a narrative” — nobody needs to fabricate any fictionalized optimism “narrative” about Hillary’s unquestioned frontrunner status.
.
In the latest CNN poll, Hillary stands at 68%. Biden 17%, Bernie 15%.
.
That is not a “narrative”; that is a fact. Those numbers mean Hillary IS the frontrunner. The latest NBC/WSJ poll has Hillary even further out in front and Bernie way down at 11%.
.
If there was an Oscar frontrunner 50 percentage points ahead of her nearest rival? We could just lock things up and stop speculating and daydreaming..
.
(….so, see? I do understand the fun of daydreams and pie-in-the-sky speculation… but the Oscars are often nuthin but a glamorous game; Presidential Elections affect millions of lives. Presidential Elections can end up massacring 1.5 million Iraqis or they can end up providing affordable health care for 15 million Americans for the first time in US history. No matter how dumbasses like Chris Matthew squirm and squee, Presidential Elections are not a game.)
.
What’s “surging” with momentum right now are Hillary’s poll numbers vs ANY Republican.
.
In Pennsylvania Bernie Sanders has 8% support among Democrats. He has the support of 10% of Democrats in Ohio. Single digit 9% in Florida.
.
That’s not a “narrative” — those are actual factual numbers of real people.
.
Yes, you can certainly blame Hillary supporters. Blame us for OUTNUMBERING Bernie supporters by a factor of 7 to 1.
.
True, Bernie is polling a little stronger in Iowa and New Hampshire but he is still far behind Hillary in those states. She is the FRONTRUNNER way ahead of Bernie in EVERY state and also in every nationwide poll. That is not “narrative”; it is a fact.
.
(You remember who else was strong in Iowa and New Hampshire? Hillary. In 2008. The year she failed to win in the primaries. Iowa and New Hampshire are pretty shitty at playing Guess Who Will Be President.)
.
You tell us silly things like:
“I could easily say: why don’t Hillary supporters throw their support behind Bernie instead of the other way around?”
.
Let’s examine that, shall we?
.
Here is your plan: Convince 45 million or 47 million current Hillary supporters to abandon a candidate that we have rallied behind for the past 8 years and get them all to vote for Bernie instead. “Voila! President Bernie!” (Assuming GOP voters don’t turn out in massive numbers to prevent America from becoming a Socialist country. Pretty big if.)
.
Here is my plan: Remain perfectly calm while Hillary inevitably becomes the Democratic nominee. Then welcome with open arms all the current 5 million Bernie supporters as they see their man has no chance, and he loses the primaries. And then all the Hillary supporters and sensible ex-Bernie supporters can band together to defeat the real catastrophe: Bush III.
.
Your mission: Force your candidate down the throats of 45 million Hillary supporters.
.
My mission: Remain calm and keep my fingers crossed that a very small percentage of Bernie supporters are petulant fit-throwers who vow to not vote for Hillary and would rather see President Bush III than vote for Hillary.
.
Your team has to convert 45 million Hillary supporters.
.
My team has to only hope that there are not more than 100,000 Democrats or so who will pout and allow the GOP to take control of all 3 branches of government.
.
Sorry your mission is so much impossibly harder than my mission.
.
You want to think it’s a media conspiracy of some sort.
.
I tend to believe the factual numbers: when 45 million of the “everyday democrats” you admire so much are asked who they want for president, and their answer is Hillary.
.
You think the Democratic party is “out of touch” with those 45 million Democrats? No Joseph. We are not “out of touch.” We are in agreement.
.
The ones who are out of touch are the 100,000 hardcore stubborn Bernie Democrats who can’t see that Clinton is infinitely better than Jeb.
.
You think you’re an “everyday” Democrat. So how do explain that you are outnumbered by 45 or 50 million clear-eyed Democrats who recognize reality when we see it?
.
===
.
I like you, Joseph. I admire your devotion to you current cause and it’s nice to have other voices in the conversation with different points of view. I’m not mad about it.
.
But I will become frustrated with people like you if you continue to try to undermine Hillary when she inevitably becomes the Democratic nominee. Because if you’re still carping about how Hillary changed her mind on marriage equality a year from now, then you will have become a glassy-eyed pawn of the GOP scheme to divide Democrats. I won’t be so patient a year from now. Please try to get this out of your system now, before you start trying to do real damage to Democrat’s chances to win the White House.
@Birdienest: I know, and I agree with you. My contention lies with trying to paint Republican candidates as bought-and-paid-for without acknowledging that Hillary is in the same boat. It’s one thing to acknowledge the prevalence of corporate hands in the cookie jar that is American politics, but at least be honest about it.
@UBourgeois
*
You can complain about corporations donating to Hilary, but the truth of the matter is, she needs to outspend the GOP if she wants to defeat the GOP. Did you read Sasha’s article above? Until SCOTUS or Congress intervenes against money (which probably won’t happen until at least another decade or so), any candidate who wants to be competitive must know how to play the money game.
Excellent points birdienest. There is too much entitlement and expected rights when they are hard fought and easily taken away. Just let the next Republican president appoint two conservative judges to the Supreme court because democrats are splitting hairs…
Whoever is on the Democrat ticket needs to be embraced and championed and the more mainstream She is the better because believe it or not all democrats are not socialists.
Wake up. Citigroup. JP Morgan. Goldman Sachs. ALL contribute to ALL the major candidates of BOTH parties in order for nationwide banks to hedge their bets for ANY eventuality.
I’m talking about INDIVIDUAL BILLIONAIRES who adopt their favorite GOP candidates. The Sheldon Adleson, Koch Brother types who virtually SPONSOR their pet GOP candidate with blank checks from ONE PERSON that can approach as much as $100,000,000 per INDIVIDUAL billionaire.
That Get-Adopted-By-a-Billionaire arrangement does not happen for Democrats.
Okay, so Hillary’s top five campaign contributors are, in order, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper, JP Morgan, and Emily’s List, contributing ~3.3 million to Hillary total. If you look up any of the major Republican candidates, you find none of the three you singled out even in their top TWENTY donors, and they’ve both raised a lot less than Hillary over time, so this seems either incorrect outright or only half-true – Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan have certainly given a substantially more money to Hillary than the major republican candidates.
For the record, Bush’s top five are State Farm, Flo-Sun, Appliance Direct, AS Austin, and Huizenga Holdings, while Rand Paul’s are Club for Growth, Mason Capital Management, Alliance Resource Partners, the Senate Conservatives Fund, and the National Right to Work Committe, with Koch Industries as a close sixth. For completion’s sake, Bernie’s are the Machinists Workers Union, the Teamsters Union, the National Education Association, United Auto Workers, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.
tl;dr, if we’re going to accuse anyone of being in anyone else’s pocket, Hillary has to come into the conversation.
The point that Marshall is trying to make is that even the most idealistic politicians can make bad decisions. Not even Bernie Sanders is immune to them. The good news is that our leaders can chose to learn from there mistakes. I have deep confidence that BOTH Clinton and Sanders have learned from the mistakes of the past compared to Bush, Graham, etc. Even then, as Ryan pointed out, what matters is the present.
*
I’m fairly certain that Sanders HIMSELF would disapprove of his supporters constantly bashing Clinton. A good and fair Democratic candidate would at least direct his criticism to the Republicans, not Clinton. Read it below.
http://reverbpress.com/politics/bernie-sanders-cnn-negative-hillary-clinton-video/
*
Are you seriously willing to risk what we have fought for and achieved such as Obamacare, same sex marriage, etc. because your candidate did not get the nomination? Can you say that to the victims of 9/11, Iraq War, Katrina, and the global economic crisis. Really?
As UBourgeois hints at, there’s a lot more evidence to suggest that someone like Sanders actually believes what he says and isn’t just saying it to get elected
Riddle me this then – do you find any incongruity with Sanders caucusing with the Democrats in the Senate and running for the Democratic nomination for POTUS? He was an Independent in the House. If he truly believes that the two parties are hopeless and that we need to tear down the system, why not run Green? Why not support the Green Party or other third party candidates?
You can’t tell me that there’s zero political calculus involved in his decision to identify as a Democrat after he became a Senator when he has the option not to. Sounds to me he cares about getting elected too, just like every other politician.
As UBourgeois hints at, there’s a lot more evidence to suggest that someone like Sanders actually believes what he says and isn’t just saying it to get elected. That’s the difference, and it’s a big one in my view.
*
Even if he does get elected, do you think that he can get over a Congress that is likely still in GOP waters? You can’t just force people to accept revolutionary change overnight. Remember that Repubs have the largest House majority since Herbert Hoover. The word progressive means progress (slow but steady change).
*
In 1990 he became senator of Vermont, so if anything, he’s partially responsible for all the pro-LGBT legislation.
*
He did not become a senator until 2007 when he replaced Jim Jeffords. He wasn’t even in the House of Reps until 1991.
.
Wrong. False. In 1990, Bernie Sanders won a seat in the US House of Representatives …from Vermont, not of Vermont.
.
In 1990, Sanders became one of several United States Congressmen (not Senators) from Vermont. In Washington DC. Way far away from where Vermont’s gay-friendly legislation was being crafted by Vermont legislators, with no help at all from Sanders.
.
How much influence does a junior US Congressman (or ANY US Congressman) have on state politics and state legislation, Joseph? None. Please read up about how government works and study how Real Life works before you give Bernie Sanders “partial credit” for inventing Vermont Maple Syrup too.
.
I hate to break it to you, but good things have happened in Vermont for decades without the help of Bernie Sanders. Vermont’s status as the most forward-thinking, most gay-friendly state in America in 1990 would still have happened whether or not Mr Wizard Bernie Sanders had ever been born.
.
Sanders could have been hit by a truck and gone directly to Socialist Heaven in 1985, and Vermont would still have been the most progressive gay rights state — with no assistance whatsoever from Bernie Sanders.
.
You know what would have been the stupidest thing Bernie Sanders ever did? If he DID NOT say he was pro-gay rights when his entire state was leaning pro-gay rights all around him. If Bernie Sanders had not said the POPULAR thing in the 1990s he would NEVER have been elected to the US House of Representatives from Vermont.
.
Sanders moved up from his seat in the US Congress to become a US Senator in 2005, but that office still has zero sway on the internal workings of Vermont state government.
.
You’re trying to tell us that Bernie Sanders was risking his neck by taking an *”UNPOPULAR”* stance on Gay rights in the 1990s? That’s ridiculous. In Bernie Sander’s state, gay rights WERE ALREADY POPULAR before he was even elected piss-ant major of piss-ant Burlington.
.
Sanders spoke up in favor of something that was ALREADY the POPULAR prevailing attitude in Vermont.
.
By the way. Vermont’s State Supreme Court ordinarily makes decisions all by itself without the need to go ask Bernie Sanders how they should rule on issues of marriage equality.
.
===
.
Here’s how it works, Joseph: People’s values are a product of the influences in their backgrounds. Not the other way around. We don’t retroactively get credit for the way we were raised, and we don’t get to take credit for influencing the environment into which we were born or educated.
.
Bernie Sanders was not born in a manger in Vermont and he was not known as the Messiah of Vermont when he was growing up.
.
He wasn’t born in Vermont, period. He moved there (I’m guessing, cynically) partially for political expediency. Because it’s easier to move up the political ladder in a tiny state than it is in New York.
.
Not born in Vermont. Nor did he help create Vermont’s gay-friendly attitude. He was born in Brooklyn and went to the University of Chicago. So did I. And trust me, it’s pretty darn hard to not be a gay-friendly liberal if you’re a student at U of C. As part of the many services they offer students there in Hyde Park, they turn you gay-friendly at the University of Chicago during Freshman orientation. (And sometimes they will even try to turn you gay if you’re not careful who you party with.)
.
Bernie Sanders is a product of his very cool upbringing. He does not get “partial credit” for Vermont being a cool state. He does not get partial credit for turning the University of Chicago gay-friendly.
.
(Although there is a plaque in my former dorm on the shore of Lake Michigan honoring me, Ryan Adams, for making the U of Chicago “Gay-Friendlier.” I worked my little ass off to earn that fucking plaque.)
.
Dude, please ease up. Please? This Bernie-worship is becoming a bit silly, don’t you think?
That’s cool and all, but given her history, there’s no reason to believe that she’ll even bother to follow through when she’s elected.
Clinton has been far more successful in getting legislation she (co)sponsored in the Senate approved than Sanders has ever been. Sanders track record in the Senate has actually been fairly lackluster. Yes, he has a lot of great ideas and good intentions – neither of which amount to a hill of beans in effective governance.
I would also invite you to read this left-wing critique on Sanders after he was elected to the Senate: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov06/Smith15.htm
Some highlights: this quote about the 2004 election – “Not only am I going to vote for John Kerry, I am going to run around this country and do everything I can to dissuade people from voting for Ralph Nader… I am going to do everything I can, while I have differences with John Kerry, to make sure that he is elected.”
“Like Al Gore’s attempt to rehabilitate himself through environmentalism, Sanders has begun to trumpet green issues, especially global warming. But while his voting record is good on this issue, Sanders has long antagonized environmental activists. After getting elected mayor with the slogan “Burlington is Not for Sale,” Sanders attempted to cut a deal with developers for hotel construction on the city’s waterfront and other projects in its wetlands. Activists built a campaign with the slogan “Burlington’s Still Not for Sale” that effectively halted the worst development plans.
Once in the House, Sanders made one of his worst environmental decisions. He worked with then-Texas Gov. George Bush to lead the charge for dumping nuclear waste from Vermont’s Vernon reactor in Sierra Blanca, an impoverished town inhabited mainly by Chicanos on the border with Mexico.
Together, they worked to pass the Maine-Vermont-Texas nuclear waste compact, and then took advantage of Bill Clinton’s decision to allow interstate transportation of low-level nuclear waste. Sierra Blanca, already a toxic waste dump, has thus been poisoned for generations. However much Sanders may oppose the transportation and dumping of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain for threatening the health of people in Las Vegas, he and the Toxic Texan, George Bush, established the precedent for this with their compact in the 1990s.”
You are spot on Ryan. Thanks for all of your insightful commentary on this issue. It will be a shame if Democrats do not get behind Clinton if she is the candidate because they are miffed that she is not “left” enough. She is smart enough to know that she needs a mainstream appeal to win.
Haven’t Oscarwatchers learned anything from Oscar politics? The cool indie cerebral flick does not win. Hillary in the white house is a great thing. Voting third party or not at all is a vote to change SCOTUS which is reason enough to champion her and cast a vote that will matter. In our two party system it’s pointless to do anything else.
@Mashall: “Of course Bernie is way further left than Hillary on the economy, but the preview for Hillary’s economic plank indicates that she is going to take a pretty progressive tack.”
That’s cool and all, but given her history, there’s no reason to believe that she’ll even bother to follow through when she’s elected. As UBourgeois hints at, there’s a lot more evidence to suggest that someone like Sanders actually believes what he says and isn’t just saying it to get elected. That’s the difference, and it’s a big one in my view. Even Clinton supporters are worried that she’ll move further to the left than she’s ever been for this election, and they say that she’ll do it because she wants to capture the support of progressives. Clinton changes her positions to capture votes. Sanders doesn’t do this and it’s a recorded fact.
@ Ryan: I’m not buying your spin on Sanders’ point of view about same-sex marriage. In 1990 he became senator of Vermont, so if anything, he’s partially responsible for all the pro-LGBT legislation. When you compare that to Clinton, who took until 2013 to support same-sex marriage, then yeah it’s a pretty big deal. But once again it’s dismissed because god forbid anyone starts to look at this objectively.
but I can’t help feeling that the two are only do many degrees apart.
This would be true for Hillary and Bernie. It is emphatically *not* true between either of them and *any* of the Republicans running. Most obvious differences will be abortion rights and environmental policy, but you can’t seriously read the economic policy prescriptions of either and conclude “there’s not much difference with the Republicans.”
Of course Bernie is way further left than Hillary on the economy, but the preview for Hillary’s economic plank indicates that she is going to take a pretty progressive tack http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/07/hillarynomics-a-sneak-preview-000142
I think the implication I keep seeing here that the GOP have their “billionaire overlords” and that’s why we should all vote for Hillary is pretty laughable. Who are Hillary’s primary financial supporters? Citigroup. DLA Piper. JP Morgan. Goldman Sachs. Like, if you want to say that’s okay, that’s just how politics works, fine, I can accept that, but don’t act like a Jeb Bush in the pocket of the Koch Brothers is any less comfortable than Hillary in Goldman Sach’s or Monsanto’s.
And it’s easy to say that it only matters what a politician supports /now/ as opposed to a couple years ago, but that just gives political opportunists like Hillary (and Bush, for that matter) more credence. I appreciate a candidate like Bernie (hell, even someone like Rand Paul to some extent) because I can actually believe that he wants what he’s campaigning on and will fight for it. I don’t believe that with Hillary – I am entirely unable to. I have no idea what Hillary will do beyond bending to the demands of her own “billionaire overlords,” and that scares about as much as giving the GOP free reign. We keep setting up this dichotomy of “Vote Hillary or you’ll get another Bush in the White House!!!!!” but I can’t help feeling that the two are only do many degrees apart.
I think the implication I keep seeing here that the GOP have their “billionaire overlords” and that’s why we should all vote for Hillary is pretty laughable. Who are Hillary’s primary financial supporters? Citigroup. DLA Piper. JP Morgan. Goldman Sachs.
Wake up. Citigroup. JP Morgan. Goldman Sachs. ALL contribute to ALL the major candidates of BOTH parties in order for nationwide banks to hedge their bets for ANY eventuality.
I’m talking about INDIVIDUAL BILLIONAIRES who adopt their favorite GOP candidates. The Sheldon Adleson, Koch Brother types who virtually SPONSOR their pet GOP candidate with blank checks from ONE PERSON that can approach as much as $100,000,000 per INDIVIDUAL billionaire.
That Get-Adopted-By-a-Billionaire arrangement does not happen for Democrats.
@Marshall: You’re absolutely right about Bernie’s voting record on gun control. If he does a 180, I’ll lose some respect for him. But in all the interviews he’s given in response to his gun control record so far, he’s stood by his votes and explained them, and the explanations seem pretty rational to me.
Could the problem with politics also be that politicians constantly change their positions in order to get the most votes instead of standing by their principles and dealing with the consequences. I understand that some politicians may “evolve” but too many of them simply don’t take a stand because it’s unpopular, and then when it gets popular they say they’ve “evolved.” Bernie isn’t one of those politicians.
I understand that some politicians may “evolve” but too many of them simply don’t take a stand because it’s unpopular, and then when it gets popular they say they’ve “evolved.” Bernie isn’t one of those politicians.
I see. So the fact that gay marriage was POPULAR and accepted in Vermont before ANY other state in the nation has NOTHING to do with Bernie Sanders realizing that his favorable position on gay marriage would be POPULAR with his own constituents?
Bernie Sanders’ earliest senate position on gay marriage was 1996 — a mere 3 years before Vermont’s Supreme Court legalized same sex unions (1999).
So let’s do the math. For the past 18 years Bernie Sanders has held a position that WAS POPULAR in his own state for 16 years.
Wow, He really went out on a limb, didn’t he? He’s so radically ahead of everybody! I wonder how he ever got elected in gay-bashing anti-gay Vermont… oh, wait.
1990 — Vermont enacted gay-bashing hate crimes legislation.
1994 — Vermont became the first state in America to provide benefits to same-sex partners of state employees
1996 — Bernie Sanders is all of sudden saying: “Hi there, Vermont citizens! I agree with the POPULAR position here in my own state.
What a maverick.
I get that but when another candidate for the Democratic nomination, i.e. Bernie Sanders, has been long supportive of LGBT rights before it was popular (he voted against DOMA), the “well everyone else voted for it” argument doesn’t work for me.
I don’t know what universe you live in, but no politician has an immaculate voting record. Bernie Sanders has been very pro-gun (and anti gun control) – one can easily demonize him for caving to the popular gun interests in his state in supporting and perpetuating a never ending cycle of gun violence in this country. If Bernie suddenly goes 180 on it, by your standards he’s a disingenuous, opportunistic flake and the true gun control advocates should call him out for it.
No offense, but this type of doctrinaire, absolutist thinking is everything that’s fucking wrong with politics. It’s bullshit.
has been long supportive of LGBT rights before it was popular
.
I care more about NOW than I care about past
.
If you want a candidates who stubbornly never exhibit any evolvution in their thinking, you might be a republican
My last responses before I move on, as this debate can go on forever and probably shouldn’t:
@ Marshall:
“As someone who has been long supportive of LGBT rights, I have to say I’m getting pretty fucking tired of liberals using Hillary’s past support for “traditional marriage” to bash her brains in. Newsflash: around 2/3rds to 75% of the country was against gay marriage as recently as 1998. DOMA passed Congress with huge bipartisan majorities – even the great liberal lion Paul freaking Wellstone had voted for it. The rapid change in public opinion on a social/cultural touchstone like gay marriage is pretty much unprecedented in our entire history. In the end, Hillary, Obama, and many Democrats ended up evolving and being on the right side of history, while many Republicans did not. Seriously, who the hell are you to judge and condemn for past views? Everyone has skeletons in their closet with opinions. Progress is progress. “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?”
I get that but when another candidate for the Democratic nomination, i.e. Bernie Sanders, has been long supportive of LGBT rights before it was popular (he voted against DOMA), the “well everyone else voted for it” argument doesn’t work for me. When Clinton was passionately arguing that marriage should be between a man and a woman, Sanders supported marriage equality and LGBT rights. It’s not the most important issue but it matters to me and says a lot about the person’s integrity.
@ Birdienest81:
“You may not be Hilary bashing to the degree of the Teapublicans, but by emphasizing on her faults too much, you’re potentially scaring away other voters or making them apathetic. She will already be trashed by GOP; why add salt or butter to the wound?”
Because I’m sick and tired of the Democratic Party establishment shoving her down my throat and then getting mad when I can’t digest it. I’m not the only one, either. A lot of us are annoyed that so many so-called liberals defend her when she has an abysmal voting record. I don’t care if that scares other voters away. Maybe they should get behind Sanders or another progressive candidate instead. If Clinton had been a little more consistent throughout her long political career like Sanders, she wouldn’t get such criticism. But that’s the way it goes when you want to be president. You have to answer for all the past political decisions you made. Again, I don’t care about her personal life or all the other scandals the Republicans want to create. I care about the choices she made as an elected official, and I’m not satisfied with a lot of them, especially compared to Sanders. If those fair and reasonable criticisms are too much for the Clinton camp to handle, then maybe she should give up on the presidency.
@Ryan:
I can just as easily turn that argument around, though. Why are so many Democrats supporting an inconsistent, untrustworthy candidate like Clinton over Sanders? The thing is, if all you Clinton supporters are so upset that progressives aren’t excited about her, why not join us and support Sanders? Of course because he’s unelectable. But he’s only unelectable because you all still support Hillary. Well now’s your chance. The momentum is building. It’s not too late to switch sides and get behind Bernie. I won’t be mad if you don’t, but I refuse any responsibility for a GOP victory simply because I didn’t get behind Hillary. It’s not fair for the establishment to blame independents and progressives for turning away from the establishment’s choice when the establishment doesn’t offer an appealing choice. That’s the establishment’s fault, not mine.
Bernie Sanders has been long supportive of LGBT rights before it was popular
.
“First!” what is this? ONTD.com?
.
I care more about what a candidate says and does NOW than I care about 15 years ago
.
If you want candidates who stubbornly never demonstrate that they are able to evolve in their thinking, you might be a republican
.
And, as Marshall says, if you want a candidate who’s soft on gun laws, Bernie Sanders is your man.
.
Quick Quiz. Who Said It:
.
.
A) Hillary Clinton 15 years ago?
B) Bernie Sanders, yesterday.
.
Answer: B, Bernie, (July 10, 2015)
.
Yes, Bernie said the C word. Sorry. Because he understands how Washington works.
“But in all the interviews he’s given in response to his gun control record so far, he’s stood by his votes and explained them, and the explanations seem pretty rational to me.”
.
Bernie Sanders, explainig his postition on NATIONAL gun laws, July 10, 2015:
“I come from a state that has virtually no gun control and it turns out one of the safest states in the country.”
.
How nice for him. Is he inviting 300 million Americans to come live in Vermont where we’ll all be safe? Is that like when the Senator brought a snowball to the Senate floor to prove: “Lookie here! Snowball! What Climate Problem?”
.
We’re not talking about people who needs to hunt squirrels. (btw, who ARE these people who NEED to shoot squirrels??) We’re talking about TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE GUNS.
.
Where does Vermont rank in gun OWNERSHIP? 24th in the nation. Low. States with lowest GUN OWNERSHIP will have the LEAST gun deaths. Thanks, Prof Sanders.
.
Bernie should please stop saying silly shit like this:
.
Bernie Sanders, July, 10, 2015:
“People in rural America have got to understand that in an urban area, guns mean something very, very different.”
.
Right. Because nobody with a gun in rural areas ever murders anyone? Or does Bernie mean in rural areas it tales a lot longer to find the bodies.
Bush III or any GOP as next president: American Horror Story meets Jurassic World.
🙁
On free trade/globalisation, as a Keynesian of the Paul Krugman/Joe Stiglitz stripe (although I did obtain my Econ degree from a school diametrically opposed to Keynesianism), I support the fundamental ideas. Comparative advantage is a real thing, and attempting to optimize it can result in overall welfare increases for multiple parties, although some losses do occur.
The problem with free trade deals nowadays is that they aren’t really about reducing tariffs – it’s about “regulatory harmonization,” which is just fancy speak for gutting consumer/financial/environmental regulations to foster a more pro-business environment. TPP, for instance has very little to do with lowering (already low) tariffs – much of it has to do with intellectual property rights. Krugman breaks down the TPP here http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/opinion/paul-krugman-trade-and-trust.html?_r=0.
In the end, free trade and globalisation are by no means bad in itself. But we have shockingly mismanaged globalisation over the past 50 years due to a misplaced belief in laissez-faire economic polices, generally resulting in greater global inequity and poverty.
@Ryan Adams
Maybe you and Sasha doing a political blog, perhaps? 🙂
Nevertheless, I felt I had to speak from the heart. I just felt it too important of an issue to just read and pass by. It’s folks like you who inspire my to speak my mind (I’m a 26 yr old about to enter into college at Cal Poly Pomona).
When you add her past support of the Patriot Act and its reauthorization, the TPP, so-called “traditional marriage”, and the Wall Street bailout, I can’t get behind her.
Speaking of the TPP and other free trade deals, did you know that 25 million jobs were created as a resulted of NAFTA and that the job loses from that agreement were negligible based on economic research? Don’t believe me? Click below:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/naftas-impact-on-employment/
What do you mean when you say “please don’t trash Clinton”? I’ve looked over my comments and I don’t think I’m doing that.
You may not be Hilary bashing to the degree of the Teapublicans, but by emphasizing on her faults too much, you’re potentially scaring away other voters or making them apathetic. She will already be trashed by GOP; why add salt or butter to the wound?
Read this post by Milt Shook (who by the has a degree in politics ):
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/why-hillary-bashing-is-a-stupid-idea/
Mass protest movements don’t always succeed, as you point out, but the alternative is no progress at all.
Technically the South seceding over slavery was also a mass protest movement. And the result was 4 years of bloodshed. Be careful what you wish for – sometimes revolution works (American Revolution), often times it doesn’t change a damn thing or makes things worse (the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Revolutionary War, Arab Spring, the two People Power revolutions in the Philippines). In the end, evolutionary progress (as painfully slow as it may be in the democratic process) is preferable to often bloody revolution.
,A 2 % reduction in social security taxes is nice and guaranteed 99 weeks of jobless benefits to the unemployed is undoubtedly beneficial to those people, but it’s a pittance compared to the tax breaks for the wealthiest at a time of grotesque income inequality, especially when you consider all that could be accomplished if the wealthiest actually paid their taxes and the government was able to use that money.
You want to tell the millions of workers who lost their jobs during the recession that 99 weeks of jobless benefits while we were still recovering is a pittance? Or poorer people that as much as an additional $2000/year in available income from 2011-2012 when the temporary payroll tax cut was in effect is just pocket change? For someone who is railing against the wealthy elite, that is a pretty elitist thing to say. The Fiscal Cliff compromise of 2013 restored the pre-Bush 43 tax rates for the wealthiest anyways, so I don’t know what you’re bitching about.
You say that’s how legislation works, but only because our leaders want us to think that’s how it works so we don’t get angry when they offer lame compromises. Notice that it’s the Republicans that get the better half of the deal. So to put it another way, if that’s how legislation works, then it’s not working and we need a different approach. Sanders offers one such approach that I can get behind. If it doesn’t work, so be it. At least he’ll have tried.
If you want to fundamentally alter the separation of powers in the Constitution that gives Congress primacy in all matters related to the purse, write a Constitutional amendment and get it ratified. Otherwise, if any President is facing a Congress so diametrically opposed to him, he’s going to have to compromise and eschew any grand sweeping victories in favor of smaller ones. The two times we saw major expansions of government programs implemented as part of a progressive policy agenda (the New Deal and the Great Society) were only possible because the Democrats annihilating the Republicans in a national election.
Bernie Sanders had the luxury of filibustering for 8 hours and only answering to the people of Vermont. POTUS does not.
When you add her past support of the Patriot Act and its reauthorization, the TPP, so-called “traditional marriage”,,
As someone who has been long supportive of LGBT rights, I have to say I’m getting pretty fucking tired of liberals using Hillary’s past support for “traditional marriage” to bash her brains in. Newsflash: around 2/3rds to 75% of the country was against gay marriage as recently as 1998. DOMA passed Congress with huge bipartisan majorities – even the great liberal lion Paul freaking Wellstone had voted for it. The rapid change in public opinion on a social/cultural touchstone like gay marriage is pretty much unprecedented in our entire history. In the end, Hillary, Obama, and many Democrats ended up evolving and being on the right side of history, while many Republicans did not. Seriously, who the hell are you to judge and condemn for past views? Everyone has skeletons in their closet with opinions. Progress is progress. “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?”
@Joseph
I think it’s a cop out because it’s a compromise at the expense of the poor. A 2 % reduction in social security taxes is nice and guaranteed 99 weeks of jobless benefits to the unemployed is undoubtedly beneficial to those people, but it’s a pittance compared to the tax breaks for the wealthiest at a time of grotesque income inequality, especially when you consider all that could be accomplished if the wealthiest actually paid their taxes and the government was able to use that money.
If he waited to pass the budget during January 2011 or so, Obama would have probably have pass an even shittier budget without those benefits thanks the GOP jihadists took over the House and have reduced the Democratic Party’s Senate grasp. In life, you can’t get everything you want, you have to make use right now. And that’s why there is something called compromise.
Oh, BTW, did you sit out of the midterm elections in 2010 or 2014? Then you are part of the problem (asking in a blunt, but polite way).
@Ryan: I don’t know how we would force Obama’s detractors to stay home. But maybe then we’d have a clear idea of who cares enough to show up when it counts (and not just to vote). Think about the recent debates about the Confederate flag in South Carolina. According to all the polls I heard in the media, the majority of South Carolinians wanted the flag to remain, but these people didn’t show up at the protest. Instead, the protest was filled with people who wanted to take it down. A recent broadcast of Democracy Now! did point out that there were a small amount of pro-Confederate people at the protest, but they were significantly outnumbered by the people who wanted the flag removed. Not on social media with a trending hashtag. But outside where the flag was flying. As a result, many Republican politicians who previously supported the flag’s presence were pressured to call for its removal. A few exceptions still fought to keep it, but for the most part, the politicians listened to the people and they voted to take it down. Residents in South Carolina who supported the flag’s removal said they never thought the day would come, and yet it did come. Other factors were involved, of course, such as the businesses that began to reject the flag, but it started with the protests in South Carolina after that terrible church massacre. So to your point, I’d say that for every failed Arab Spring in other countries, there are examples of success in this country, such as women’s suffrage, the Civil Rights movement, the LGBT movement, and this small but significant Confederate flag example. Has every problem been solved by those movements? Of course not. But nothing would’ve been solved if those disenfranchised groups didn’t take to the streets and organize for what they wanted. Mass protest movements don’t always succeed, as you point out, but the alternative is no progress at all. To me it’s worth the risk, and better than any half-assed compromises politicians make behind closed doors.
@Ryan and Marshall: I think it’s a cop out because it’s a compromise at the expense of the poor. A 2 % reduction in social security taxes is nice and guaranteed 99 weeks of jobless benefits to the unemployed is undoubtedly beneficial to those people, but it’s a pittance compared to the tax breaks for the wealthiest at a time of grotesque income inequality, especially when you consider all that could be accomplished if the wealthiest actually paid their taxes and the government was able to use that money. You say that’s how legislation works, but only because our leaders want us to think that’s how it works so we don’t get angry when they offer lame compromises. Notice that it’s the Republicans that get the better half of the deal. So to put it another way, if that’s how legislation works, then it’s not working and we need a different approach. Sanders offers one such approach that I can get behind. If it doesn’t work, so be it. At least he’ll have tried.
@Birdienest81: What do you mean when you say “please don’t trash Clinton”? I’ve looked over my comments and I don’t think I’m doing that. Unlike a lot of her other critics, I’m not that interested in the emails or any of her personal life scandals. I’m just talking about her voting record and positions that she’s taken in the past, which should be fair game. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to criticize someone who wants to be president for voting for the Iraq invasion when other politicians who had just as much information (i.e. Bernie Sanders) didn’t vote for the invasion. If you want to make a case in support of the Iraq War, I’d love to hear it. I certainly appreciate her willingness to admit the mistake in retrospect, but that doesn’t negate the poor decision, and it’s a reasonable criticism because it speaks to her judgment. History will and should record this as the Bush Administration’s war, but her vote in support of the invasion leads me to believe that if she were president, she would have done the same thing. That worries me. I don’t think we should punish her for the rest of her life for it, but I also don’t think that “I’m sorry for supporting the worst foreign policy decision in modern US history” cuts it, especially when other politicians at the time didn’t support it. It’s not like EVERYONE was behind it. To me, her vote in that instance matters because judgment matters, and it’s almost a deal-breaker. When you add her past support of the Patriot Act and its reauthorization, the TPP, so-called “traditional marriage”, and the Wall Street bailout, I can’t get behind her. But this is based on my views. Others who disagree with my views and support the Iraq invasion, the Patriot Act, the TPP, etc., are more inclined to support Hillary. That’s fine. But I’m not sure why people are so quick to support her if, for instance, they didn’t support the Iraq invasion, the Patriot act, the TPP, etc. That’s where I get confused and assume that people only support her for reasons that have nothing to do with her leadership decisions. Again, they have the right do that, but I don’t know why they would when there are other choices.
I appreciate that this discussion has been civil. I understand that some like Hillary for a number of reasons, whether it be her centrist stances on a lot of issues or the idea of voting for the first female president. That is their right to vote however they want. But it is important to know the differences between Hillary and Bernie, because there are many and they are significant. Some adore the Clintons. I’m one of those annoying progressives who believe that they brought the Democratic party too far to the right. I don’t know what others do, but I like to vote for the candidate I trust and agree with, as opposed to the one who will get the most votes. If I don’t like either the Republican or the Democrat, I’ll pick a third party candidate because then at least I can sleep better at night knowing that I voted for someone who meets my standards. As of right now, I don’t trust and agree with Hillary, and I’m not certain anything she says, given her long track record of votes, can change that.
I can’t get behind her.
.
Just a few hundred Democrats in every state who think the way you do, and you’d better get ready for 8 years of a 3rd President Bush then.
.
I’ve been trying to be nice, but your idealism is a sad excuse for the sickening looming reality people like you are about to create.
.
Bernie Sander is dead in the water as the Democrat’s nominee. No way. He’s in 3rd place behind Joe Biden in Ohio and Florida. He has less than 9% of Democrat support in Florida and Ohio.
.
If by some freaky kink in the the weirdest eventuality of political accidents he somehow squeaks through to the nomination (ha, I feel like science fiction writer to even type this fantasy sentence) then Bernie Sanders will be eviscerated in the general election.
.
Either way, say hello to President Bush. You say you can’t get behind Hillary, the only Democrat who can win against Bush? Christ. Then get behind the mountain of shit Bush has in store for us. Because you’ll have caused it.
.
===
.
We all sneer and smirk about the hillbilly Tea Party gang because we see that their marionette strings are being pulled by unseen power players — and you are right about that — but you fail to see that those same power players are pulling YOUR strings too. Are you so blinded by idealistic fervor that you can’t sense how these people play the long game? They are orchestrating just enough money for Bernie Sanders to get inside your head. The rabid Tea Party goofballs are being played. The Bernie Sanders idealists are being played the same way.
.
You’re the kind of person who would vote for Nader, because your idealism won’t let you get a good night’s rest if you don’t support the Green Party.
.
Gore “lost” to Bush by 630 votes. Nader got 97,000 votes.
.
Everyone who voted for Ralph Nader instead of Gore put George Bush in the White House.
.
Like you, Joseph, their self-satisfied unattainable idealism blocked the ONLY Democrat who could win. The Democrat who would have honorably used many billions of dollars to set America on a steady course to ditch fossil fuels.
.
But nope, like you, they told themselves: “At least I can sleep well at night knowing I voted with my heart.”
.
Sleep well at night? Lucky for them. They sleep well at night knowing they CAUSED THE DEATHS of 1.5 innocent Iraqis? They sleep well at night knowing they ruined the lives of millions of American soldiers and their families, causing physical and mental anguish beyond fucking comprehension? They sleep well at night knowing that their idealistic vote for a GUARANTEED loser like Ralph Nader is responsible for ROBBING America of $4 trillion dollars?
.
It’s all about the money, nothing but money — surely you’re not too starry-eyed to see that.
.
===
.
The Koch Brothers and billionaires like them DO NOT GIVE ANY FUCKS about gay marriage or confederate flags. Those issues mean NOTHING to the real people in power. They’re fine with Democrats being tossed social-issue bones like that — (for one thing they know it only serves to enrage many Republicans and get them to the polls to pull that GOP lever).
.
It’s all such an OBVIOUS shell game to get what they’re really after: Power to Steal Billions and Trillions of dollars from the American Treasury.
.
Yikes, Joseph. You go right ahead and DON’T vote for the frontrunner candidate, “just because she will get the most votes.”
.
Waste your precious vote on your precious dream of idealistic America Utopia. That’s exactly what the Koch brothers want you to do.
.
Then go to bed, and sleep well. Sleep comfy knowing that you voted “with your heart”. Sleep tight when Bush III drains the country of another 4 trillion for him and his billionaire overlords. Sweet dreams in your warm bed when Bush III starts another series of American war-crime conflicts based on nothing but feeding the greed of war profiteers. Have yourself a nice refreshing night’s sleep while another 1.5 million innocents in a faraway land are slaughtered because you wasted you vote on somebody who cannot possibly win.
.
Get yourself a good self-satisfied night’s rest, the same way the pawns who voted for Nader did. Those ignorant puppets of the Nader fantasy, duped progressive voters sleeping and dreaming their unfulfilled dreams of “pure idealism” while millions of children in another country were getting their arms and legs blown off, paid for with YOUR money, in a system designed to distract you with gauzy dreams of socialist utopia while America’s coffers are being plundered.
.
===
.
“I’m not going to vote for somebody just because she can get the most votes.”
.
Yeesh. Do you not understand the basic MATH of how elections work?
.
It’s not about giving your tender conscience sweet dreams, and it’s not about you feeling good about yourself in internet comment-thread speeches.
.
It’s about PREVENTING another 8 years of Bush catastrophes.
.
Bernie Sanders is a fine man. But he’s a loser when it comes to fighting the forces of dozens of greedy billionaires on the national stage.
.
Bernie cannot even top 10% of Democrat support in the two most crucial states in America. Joe Biden has TWICE the support of Bernie Sanders in Ohio and Florida, and Biden (constantly assaulted by unimaginable tragedy, bless his soul ) has not even been out of the house for months.
The difference between Joe fans and Bernie fans? Biden supporters are not trying to tear Hillary down, and we don’t hear any of them saying that they won’t vote for Hillary if Joe isn’t the Dem nominee.
(I had about 20 typos in that last comment, and too much cussing. So I cleaned up the grammar and washed my mouth out with soap, to patch it up and tone it down.)
@Marshall
There’s a song that goes “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.”
@Joseph
I love Bernie Sanders ideas, myself. And if he gets nominated in the general election, I will chose him in a heartbeat over any GOP. I would say the same thing for Clinton, O’Malley, etc.
That being said, please don’t trash Clinton. Don’t be one of those Progressive Unicorn Brigade (as blogger Milt Shook calls these overly idealistic people who think one person can magically solve problems overnight). I understand about money and elections, but until the day that either SCOTUS rules against SuperPACs and/or Congress passes laws that restrict such egregious donations, Clinton is gone have to raise money like hell if she wants to fight the likes of Bush III or Walker. And if you’re gonna bring up her yes vote for the Iraq War, she at least admitted her mistake (unlike some other folks).
You know that no matter what Democrat will be in office (Bernie, Hillary, etc) they would have to face a GOP hijacked by the Tea Party ship of fools who is controlling Congress right now at least until 2020. Remember all those town hall meetings regarding Obamacare that involved the shouting cries of socialist, Marxist, facists? Wait til you see that when Bernie holds a town hall meeting to promote his idea to tax the rich. There are still plenty of people who are still frightened by the word ‘socialism’ to the point they would scream in your face if you attempt to explain the plan. Even during 2020, can you convince the moderate folks in flyover country about taxing the rich without getting called a liar or Marxist by some pea-brained, gun-totting nincompoop?
Birdienest81
What it will it take to get you to stop by and leave smart comments like these every day?
🙂
That’s a cop out, in my view, but I’ll respectfully disagree.
That is not a cop out. That’s how legislation generally works. A compromise measure involves, well, compromise between two sides. Because sometimes (often times) something is better than nothing in terms of governance.
Excellent piece!
This is probably too much of an outlandish claim for someone who doesn’t post too much on here/can defend himself to make, but this whole Bernie Sanders-push reeks of an embarrassing combination of retaliatory sexism and unchained idealism on part of my generation’s naive and unformed youth. I believe in the former since our society doesn’t value women as much as their male counterparts (in terms of fair pay, widespread access to sensible female-centric health services, rampant sexual assault in the military, etc.), as well as simmering resentments among many men against women due to their gradual ascendency towards gender equality and leveling the historical gender dynamic; and the latter, since I know too many twenty-somethings (I’m a self-professed twenty-four year old myself) who live their lives through their iPhones and MacBooks, spending a couple of hours each day consuming pontificating think pieces from Politico and Salon (and subsequently sharing them on Facebook) stoking their age-old inclinations to rail against government authority/their parents, and never pausing to consider the practical realities of voting, history, and governing because they’re too busy glazing over factcheck.org since the current political climate has convinced them there aren’t any jobs for them to do.
*watching “Lincoln” on a daily basis as therapy for the next sixteen months.
@Marshall
That’s a cop out, in my view, but I’ll respectfully disagree.
When Bernie was giving his nearly eight-hour pseudo-filibuster in protest of Obama’s continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, where was the Democratic establishment? (obviously some were there, but you get my point).
You forget that when Obama signed the bill extending the Bush tax cuts in December 2010 that bill also contained a 2% point reduction in Social Security taxes for workers as well as guaranteed 99 weeks of jobless benefits to the unemployed. We don’t get everything we want in legislation.
@ Ryan, fair enough, and thanks for sending those Obama quotes. Perhaps the people who supported Obama should have been more involved after the election, which probably was Bernie’s point. Imagine if all of Obama’s supporters answered his many calls to action and took to the streets until something was done? But how do you achieve that when people lead their busy lives? I’m not certain.
I just hope that if Hillary is chosen in the primary after she inevitably runs on more progressive principles, she’ll be pushed to follow through. I don’t want the same “But Hillary is trying and it’s the Republicans!” rhetoric we had with Obama. Even though it’s a fair point, I felt like a lot of Obama supporters were too busy making excuses for him and blaming Republicans when they should have joined the small minority of progressives who fought to bring about the changes he promised. When Bernie was giving his nearly eight-hour pseudo-filibuster in protest of Obama’s continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, where was the Democratic establishment? (obviously some were there, but you get my point).
Yes, just imagine if all of Obama’s 50.5 million supporters took to the streets
Now explain to me how you will manage to force Obama’s 49.5 million detractors to stay home and not interfere with everything we want while the Democrats in the street override both houses of hundreds of legitimately elected Republican congressional shitheads.
Please bear in mind, most of the Obama haters are the ones who have stockpiles of automatic weapons and ammunition. How are you going to keep them indoors? Marathon re-runs of Duck Dynasty?
Remember when millions of people “took to the streets” in Syria? in Ukraine? even in Ferguson? Everything turn out the way the street-marchers wanted in all those instances? Occupy Wall Street was a rousing success?
Sorry, Joseph, in all honesty the last time any population of mobs of people were able to create massive change in a nation’s government simply by “taking to the streets,” I think was 1917, in Russia. You’re aware of what life was like in Russia after that? From 1917 to roughly 1991? 74 years of what? Is that your idea of people rising up in revolution to enforce a Sandersonian socialist redistribution of wealth? (watch Dr Zhivago for a sanitized prettified 3-hour summary of how such a thing transpires).
And please don’t forget the THE OTHER HALF of the country who DO NOT support what Obama and Clinton and Sanders want to achieve. What are your plans to subdue those people and bend them to our will?
You say to Marshall:
Please elaborate. I’m sincerely curious to know what you think Marshall said that is a cop out.
And if you have time or inclination, please tell me how you think Bernie Sanders is going to be able to unilaterally do everything he is promising? (Assuming the very remote chance that he even gets elected.) (He won’t).
What tricks do you think Bernie Sanders has up his sleeve that President Obama did not think of?
This is beginning to sound like Donlad Trump: “Oh, don’t worry about China. I have a plan to deal with China… Isis? No worries. I have a plan to deal with Isis.”
Coolio. Let’s hear it. Let’s hear the plan.
Lots of people taking to the streets… and then? …and then what?
Joseph, you’re idealistic and that’s great. Don’t ever stop being idealistic.
But please be aware that world history is littered with stories of idealists who did not have the realistic wherewithal to ever do anything except dream about their ideals and then be mad at everybody when the ideal world did not materialize.
A Democratic president can get his legislative agenda enacted when Republicans do not have control of Congress. That can begin to happen as early as 2020.
You are not going to get rid of Republican obstructionists in Congress by having millions of Democrats “take to the streets.” Especially not unless you have a secret plan to keep an equal number of millions of furious hothead gun-toting Republicans off the streets.
Hillary did this to herself. Poor thing
Cameron
Your comment got hung up in the spam filter. Not sure why. Maybe you flicked the Patronizing Trigger.
I’ll try to make this brief as I’ve already posted way to much about Hillary vs. Bernie by hijacking the comments on Sasha’s many posts on this topic on Facebook.
On most policy, I’m much closer to Bernie than Hillary. I admire Bernie as being a progressive, lion-hearted successor to the great Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy. But practically speaking, the differences between Bernie and Hillary on policy are splitting hairs, whereas the difference between either of them and *any* of the Republicans is a huge fucking chasm. And as a student of American history and politics, I also know that in order to enact any dramatic shift in policy, to nudge the country in a certain structural direction, you need to be in power – you need to significantly fill the river with water before talking about manipulating the currents and eddies in which said river flows.
Hence, I am supporting Hillary 100% this year. I have no problem with Bernie (or other Democrats) running in the primaries against her – in fact, I encourage it. But I do have problems with progressives trying to one-up the Tea Party in dissecting Hillary with a crude ideological questionnaire and determining she’s a Republican in disguise.
@Ryan
To the point about Bernie “spoiling” Hillary’s moment, I was referring a comment that may have been deleted, not Sasha’s original point. I swore I read it on this site. If not, my mistake.
And you’re absolutely right about Bernie not being able to change anything on his own. He’s said as much. He said that in order to change things, the American people need to organize after the election and let their representatives know what issues they want addressed. This, too, may be idealistic, but at least it’s a realistic response as opposed to the other politicians like Obama who told the American people that he alone could make the changes. Unlike Obama, Bernie wants the voters to be involved in the process even after the election. He doesn’t want to just sit and talk with some Republicans and try to work things out when they have no intention of working things out from the get-go. This is why, for better or worse, he’s being described as the “protest” president.
To each his own of course, but I still think there’s value in supporting the Democrat with integrity over the Democrat who’s more electable. I’m still young though and I’m still an idealist. We’ll see where I am in 20 years.
I still think there’s value in supporting the Democrat with integrity over the Democrat who’s more electable.
Understood, Joseph, no matter where you saw what you saw, I’ve seen it said too. Other places. If it was here and got deleted, I don’t know by whom or how that happened.
For the record, I too support almost everything Bernie Sanders stands for. Also, for the record, I don’t believe that Bernie Sanders is the only Democratic contender with integrity.
He [Bernie] said that in order to change things, the American people need to organize after the election and let their representatives know what issues they want addressed.
I have heard President Obama ask Americans to do the very same thing, in more than one address to the nation. I don’t know if I can find quotes to prove it. I just know it’s a fact.
EDIT: well. turns out it’s not hard at all to find quotes:
Obama once again urges Americans to push Congress to pass jobs bill
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/08/1024040/-Obama-once-again-urges-Americans-to-push-Congress-to-pass-jobs-bill
Obama urges Americans to work together
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/21/obamas-inaugural-day-celebration/1850901/
President Obama Urges Americans to ‘Speak Out For What’s Right’.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/selma-50th-anniversary-president-obama-urges-americans-speak-29479329
Obama urges Americans to keep pressing Congress
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-85263-Obama-urges-Americans-to-keep-pressing-Congress
Barack Obama inauguration: president urges Americans to ‘answer the call of history’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9816798/Barack-Obama-inauguration-president-urges-Americans-to-answer-the-call-of-history.html
Took me actually about 15 seconds to find those. [Magic search words: “Obama urges”] Give me a little time and I’ll find 50 more occasions when Presdient Obama has asked Americans to never stop pushing Congress. Or maybe you can just take my word for it now? 🙂
Also, the complacency of American voters. That so many people here on this board are so quick to give up on Sanders is part of the problem. He’d have a bigger chance if more people voted for him in the primary and contributed to his campaign than complained about him “spoiling” Hillary’s moment as if she somehow earned the presidency. The arrogance is astounding.
@ Lily: The last thing I want is a Republican in the white house, but after the Obama years, the last thing we should all want is another corporatist “moderate” Democrat in the white house. People like Nate Silver can say that Bernie Sanders only speaks to a small portion of white liberal voters, but the reality is that his policies will benefit the minority working class in this country more than Clinton’s ever would, regardless of what she says in the campaign. Let’s give it some time and see who endorses him. So far, Al Sharpton, Elizabeth Warren, Bill de Blasio, and others have said kind things about him, and have expressed reservations about Hillary. We all have to remember that there will be primary debates, and Hillary will have to answer to a lot of past policy decisions, and come up with an agenda that pleases voters more than Sanders’ highly appealing, if somewhat difficult to achieve political revolution.
I don’t hate Hillary and don’t think a lot of the attacks by the Republicans are fair, but it is absolutely legitimate to point out her atrocious voting record and past policy positions which, in my view, show her lack of judgment as a leader (she voted in support of the patriot act and its reauthorization, in support of the Iraq invasion, as secretary of state she led the disastrous intervention into Libya and perpetuated America’s warfare in the Middle East, she voted to bail out Wall Street, until 2013 she used to passionately argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman, she supports the death penalty, she voted to create a border fence between US and Mexico, the list goes on and on). It’s absolutely legitimate to point out the fact that she changes her positions in order to attract the most voters. By contrast, Sanders has remained consistent with his beliefs. The only questionable votes on his record involve gun control, and even in regards to that issue, he’s been pretty reasonable.
So I’d love to hear why all of these Hillary supporters want her to win the presidency, other than because she’s a woman or a Democrat. What virtues does she have that Sanders doesn’t?
complained about him “spoiling” Hillary’s moment as if she somehow earned the presidency.
if that’s how you feel, fine, but let’s make clear: you’re mad about something that doesn’t exist in this post.
So I’d love to hear why all of these Hillary supporters want her to win the presidency
this particular post is more about why we’d like to see Hillary be the Democrat’s nominee in 2016 and the answer to that is pretty obvious: she’s the only Democrat running who has the machinery in place to beat the GOP machinery.
sorry, but policies schmolicies. Policy positions don’t amount to a hill of beans when it’s ONE president of one party being obstructed by House and Senate and SCOTUS of the other party.
Bernie has great ideas. I can think of few things more depressingly devastating that watching him sit in the Oval Office with all his folders full of great ideas and have every one of them blocked by Congress.
2020, we get another chance to redraw the congressional district gerrymandered mess that has saddled us with this Congress. We have to dig in and stay in the trenches till then. Meanwhile Hillary gets veto power to stand in the way of GOP Congressional disasters and she gets to appoint the successor to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Any of you who think Bernie Sanders is some kind of Mr Wizard who can wave his wand and make all his adorable policies magically appear with the power of his charisma have not been paying very close attention to how hard it is for President Obama to blow his own nose without the Congress grabbing hold of his wrist to stop him and brand him a socialist tyrant.
Here’s what David Halberstam has to say about Bernie Sanders: “He’s an elegant campaigner who raises the political discourse..”
Hang on, nope, that’s what David Halberstam said about Adelai Stevenson, 60 years ago.
I’ve read about all the cool policies Adlai Stevenson had too. They look great on the pages of history books that nobody looks at anymore.
“Policies.” Yeesh.
This post makes specific electric connections between the presidential race and the Oscar race. How much do grand idealistic policy statements figure into which noisy gimmick wins Best Picture?
At the Oscars, we have to be nervous about whether or not the eternal “policies” of “slavery is not cool” and “the bond between mother and child is fundamental to humanity” can beat the impulsive “policy” of “Squirrel!”
Very interesting article.
It baffles my mind that Hillary Clinton, given her conservative voting record, would even be considered the first choice over Bernie Sanders, but that shows how out of touch the Democratic Party Establishment is with everyday people. The same goes for the Academy and everyday moviegoers, of course.
Great post, Sasha! Honestly, I have much respect for both Clinton and Sanders. That being said, I’m voting for Hilary given that she is someone who can get the job done and can artfully jab against the nonsense the GOP will hurl at her. However, I will support the Democratic presidential candidate whether it be Clinton, Sanders, or O’Malley (if it’s Zell Miller, I’ll puke). I believe it is possible to support Bernie WITHOUT trashing Clinton.
Read this about why Clinton bashing is a lose-lose situation: http://pleasecutthecrap.com/why-hillary-bashing-is-a-stupid-idea/
There’s no way Bernie Sanders gets the Democratic nomination. He’s kinda like the Ron Paul of the left, imo. He has passionate fans, but they’re hardly the majority of the Democratic base. Read Nate Silver’s recent article on this- his people are white, wealthy, educated, liberal elites. That is not the base of the party. At least two thirds of the base is made up of African-Americans, Latinos, and women. Bernie could win Iowa and New Hampshire, and lose every state after that in the primaries. You think he’s going to win South Carolina? Nevada? Look who votes in those states. There’s nothing to worry about here. Him getting crowds just shows that the party as a whole has moved left in the last eight years, which is a good thing, because it’ll push Hillary to the left on her own positions.
But Sanders will not be the nominee, Hillary will be fine, and Democrats will vote for her because they want to win. The panic in this article is extraordinarily overblown, especially this far out from the election. Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama. And the so-called “hate” for Hillary on the left is a fringe thing. Look at her actual numbers in how she polls with Democrats overall, not just people you personally talk to. She has extremely high ratings and there are so many women who wanted her to win last time who are going to show up this time, no matter that she doesn’t have Obama or Bill Clinton’s charisma. They will want to make history. Plus, she’ll have Bill campaigning for her, and if she’s smart, Obama too, because he’ll bring his coalition with him, and Democrats still love the president. I’m not worried about any of this, it reads like hysteria.
Even ignoring the spurious logic of blaming Supreme Court justices for the war in Iraq on the grounds of their decision on a voting dispute some years prior, this seems like something that’s hard to fault them on. Their ruling was pretty sound, constitutionally, and nearly all serious analyses of the election say that Bush would have almost certainly won anyway, especially if the recount only applied to the counties Gore asked for. It’s entirely possible there was a conflict of interest (the partisan split of the decision is fairly suspect), but not only does that road go both ways (were conservative judges trying to fuck over Gore? liberal judges Bush? both?), it also doesn’t really mean much if the decision makes sense, which, many years on from the heated atmosphere immediately following the election, the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that it does.
“Even ignoring the spurious logic of blaming Supreme Court justices for the war in Iraq on the grounds of their decision…”
President Gore = No War In Iraq
Logic has nothing to do with it. We don’t need Pythagoras to draw a straight line.
How about forget logic and simply use some common sense.
I will go a step further. President Gore = No 9/11.
A president with a brain would not have been asleep at the wheel when he read the report “Bin Laden determined to attack the U.S.”
The only possible drawback to having President Gore instead of President Cheney is that The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty never get written and never get made
so Kathryn Bigelow wins her Oscar for directing The Social Network and David Fincher wins his for directing the 3rd part of his Dragon Tattoo trilogy.
Best of all, American Sniper doesn’t exist because Chris Kyle is still alive and Clint Eastwood wins some more Oscars directing a movie about some Texas guy who killed a record number of 500 deers. It’s called American Bambi Slaughter and earns $400 million domestic.
“the partisan split of the decision is fairly suspect”
No shit. I think that’s a major point that Sasha and every sensible person is trying to drive home.
“the partisan split of the Supreme Court is fairly suspect”
“the partisan split of the Supreme Court is fairly suspect”
What is it exactly that we suspect?
I suspect Conservative justices make mostly shitty partisan decisions about virtually EVERYTHING, most notably (in regards to elections), I suspect conservative justices catered to corporate ownership of the government in the sick Citizens United decision that Money = Speech.
Logic tells me that this is the reason “Democracy” has turned into a bidding war to see which conservative billionaire gets to set the country’s agenda every 4 years.
“the partisan split of the decision is fairly suspect”
Exactly. Everyone enjoying marriage equality? How would that ever have happened if Democrat presidents had not had a chance to appoint judges who could stand up to idiots like Scalia and Alito who were appointed by one of the Bush brother idiots.
What kind of judges would President McCain have appointed? What kind of judges would President Gore have appointed?
Want more Scalias and Alitos deciding the most crucial legal issues in American society?
Keep undermining Hillary Clinton’s chances to become president (or shrug as if it doesn’t matter much when others do), and see what American society looks like with a SCOTUS of 7 conservative judges and 2 liberals on the bench for the next 40 years.
Logic.
Just one Supreme Court vote also legalized gay marriage, saved Obamacare in 2012, etc. That’s just how the court works, for better or worse.
As for the Florida recount, it’s a bit more complex. There have been different studies. These studies cited on Wikipedia show Bush winning in three scenarios, Gore in one (depending on what counting method is used). Ironically, if ballots had been recounted the particular way Gore wanted them to, Bush would have won (I know it’s “Wikipedia”, but you can check the citations).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Media_based
Just one Supreme Court vote also legalized gay marriage, saved Obamacare in 2012, etc. That’s just how the court works, for better or worse.
.
oh rilly? I’m glad that you seem to know there’s a difference between better and worse.
.
I guess my point is:
.
yay, gay marriage. we’re all beyond thrilled.
.
But what I’m talking about is 1 too many Conservative Supreme Court votes causing:
– the death of thousands of American soldiers
– the permanent maiming and lifelong psychological torment of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers
– the death of 1.5 million mostly all innocent Iraqis (unless you think lots of Iraqi women and children had a hand in 9/11)
– the siphoning of $4 trillion away from U.S. programs that could have been spent benefiting millions of Americans for generations to come, but instead it was used to destroy the lives of roughly 2 million people and…
– …and that $4 trillion wasn’t taken out back and burned in a bonfire. Nope, it went into the pockets of repulsive war profiteers.
.
so yes, yay gay Marriage. (nice work, Liberal Supreme Court justices. Thanks.)
.
but sort of Please Burn in Hell, you 5 Conservative Supreme Court justices who gave us the Bush catastrophe.
.
to sum up: Great news about the wedding cakes! Pity about the 2 million destroyed lives
.
any more crude insulting fake equivalencies you want to share with us, Jon?
.
(btw, are you Jon, or Bee, or Smee, or Dave? How many names do you get to use when you go vote in November?)
.
What part of “Let’s please try NOT to pack the Supreme Court with any more Conservatives” do you not understand?
They Republicans may well have been embarrassed, but they were more embarrassed than saying how many would vote for a Catholic president (93%), an Evangelical Christian (84%), and an LDS/Mormon (84%). And Democrats were less embarrassed, with only 91% saying they’d vote for a Jewish president (in full disclosure, in 2007, 93% of Democrats said they’d vote for a Jew, vs. 91% of Republicans, then, so the number has shifted somewhat).
It’s really the independents who are screwing us here, as only 86% of them said they’ve vote for a Jewish president. What’s wrong with you, independents? Why do you lag so far behind your party-affiliated friends?
As for Sanders and Jewish voters, Jews don’t really vote by ethnicity. For example, in England, Jewish Labour leader Ed Miliband got only something like 20-30% of the Jewish vote in the recent election, with the majority of Jewish voters going for Conservative David Cameron (who is only a minor fraction Jewish). So Sanders’ background is not going to swing anyone.
I think that Al Gore had a chance to save this country when he “lost”. That was our opportunity to get rid of the electoral college. Had he fought it, he could have started a movement that would have saved the nation. But he just grew a beard and got fat instead.
But he just grew a beard and got fat instead.
That’s not all he did. He won an Oscar, for one thing. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for another thing.
But I agree with you, Antoinette, he gave up the Florida fight too easily.
I was rooting for Hillary 8 years ago and I am rooting for her now. I consider her the most experienced candidate therefore the best one for the job. The disgusting bullshit she had had to put up with for the last 20 years (“she wasn’t good enough for Bill so she can’t be good enough for America” kind of digusting BS), is cruel, soul crushing and dumb, but I guess that’s what you get if you dare to go into politics WITH a vagina. Well…men hav been ruling our world since Day 1 and look where we are now… sure, it’s not that bad, but until we give a few women actual power, we won’t know if it couldn’t be much better. I guess there is only one way to find out.
In a Gallup poll in June, 95% of Republicans said they would vote for a Jewish President (compared to 91% of Democrats).
Out of all the groups listed (i.e. would you vote for a woman president, Hispanic president, black, etc.), Jews scored highest with Republicans (at 95%).
Republicans also nominated Barry Goldwater, whose father was Jewish, in 1964, and he won most of the South.
BTW, Dylann Roof was not an old man, so the comment about waiting for old racists to die is odd.
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/hhzazbdkm0qzbme-wyh9la.png
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx?utm_source=Politics&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles
so the comment about waiting for old racists to die is odd.
I didn’t say they had to be old. Plenty of young racist gun nuts shoot themselves in the face when they’re cleaning their own guns. Darwin Awards.
Out of all the groups listed (i.e. would you vote for a woman president, Hispanic president, black, etc.), Jews scored highest with Republicans (at 95%).
I’m having trouble wrapping my head around the theory that this poll proves 95% of Republicans would be willing to vote for Bernie Sanders.
I have a theory: Republicans are liable to say any silly shit when responding to pollsters.
This particular post is not about what Republicans plan to do next November. It’s about Democrats.
In a Gallup poll in June, 95% of Republicans said they would vote for a Jewish President
Willing to bet they were too embarrassed to tell the truth on that but yeah you know the lowest thing that got any votes was a “socialist.”
Kennedy won the popular vote 34,220,984 to Nixon’s 34,108,157.
Old-school Democrat Samuel J. Tilden did win the popular vote against Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 (Hayes became president).
I’m just saying the campaigns would have been run very differently if the popular vote mattered.
“Al Gore had won the popular vote but they handed it to Bush.”
Just curious, why do people keep mentioning this? The popular vote doesn’t elect presidents, so it’s unfair to bring it up.
If the popular vote was the one that counted, then obviously, presidential candidates would campaign differently than they do now. They would go to states that are heavy in voters that lean toward their party and try to bring out more of them to vote.
For example, had the popular vote counted, George Bush may have abandoned Ohio and campaigned heavily in Texas (where I imagine he barely campaigned at all), trying to bring out as many voters in Republican-heavy Texas as possible. Similarly, Republican Texans who probably thought there was no point in coming out to the polls (because Bush winning there was obvious) would have come out and voted.
So however you feel about the Florida results, citing the popular vote is irrelevant, because it’s impossible to know who would have won it had it mattered.
So however you feel about the Florida results, citing the popular vote is irrelevant, because it’s impossible to know who would have won it had it mattered.
That’s a good point. I just read today, for instance, that Nixon won the popular vote against Kennedy but Kennedy won the election. So yes, point taken.
Just curious, why do people keep mentioning this? The popular vote doesn’t elect presidents, so it’s unfair to bring it up.
It’s a good idea to bring it up in case people get too accustomed to the idea that it’s perfectly normal for 1 single conservative on the Supreme Court being able to cast one of 9 votes that gives us a conservative president for 8 years. Maybe you skipped over the part of this post that emphasizes: “It’s the Supreme Court, stupid.”
So however you feel about the Florida results…
oh? Here’s how I feel about the Florida results. I’d like to have fucking KNOWN the results before the whole thing was handed over to the Supreme Court.
We found out the results months later. And that’s when we discovered that Gore should have taken all 21 of Florida’s electoral votes.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
We fully understand how the Electoral College works. It wasn’t allowed to work.
I like Bernie even though I don’t subscribe to many of his prescriptions. I’ll support Hillary too. Always liked her. She’ll be a strong President. Love her strength. But I gotta be honest here, I lost 80% of my political junkie petrol reserve when Betty Warren dropped out before ever getting in…and that was months ago. GOP freakshow should be entertaining as ever though.
So that Ryan can hate me properly, I admit I didn’t vote for President Obama the first time. I felt like he was a secret Republican. He didn’t seem like a liberal at all. All I knew was Oprah liked him, but she’s not a very good judge of character. So I voted for McCain because at least I knew who he was and the level of crazy I was going to get. I don’t think President Obama has proven me wrong at all in his time in office. It’s cute though when they call him a socialist. A socialist would have given people universal healthcare not forced them to pay for health insurers who allow doctors to over treat and over prescribe people so that they can die faster and in debt.
I voted for President Obama the second time because there was no way in hell I was voting for Romney anyway, but in his nomination speech Mitt started going bananas on how evil Russia is and we gotta hate them again blah blah blah. That scared the crap out of me. I like Russia. I like being friends with the Russians. I didn’t want to go back to the bad old days when we were enemies. But wouldn’t you know it, right around the time of the Sochi Olympics because everyone was getting along and nothing is worse to the industrial military complex than that, there was President Obama telling Russia who they could and couldn’t invade. Somehow, we were backing the Nazis against the Russians. I’m still not sure why people didn’t flip out about that.
So here we are training ISIS faster and getting hacked up the ass, and it’s apparent to most of us that it really doesn’t make that much of a difference which team gets a person into the White House. The Washington Elephants and the Washington Donkeys will always be in the White House finding new ways for us to fight and die and keep our pretend economy running.
I’m voting for Hillary because she did all the heavy lifting and she deserves to be in the history books as the first female President of the United States. I love Bernie Sanders but that will never happen so he should just stop trying to ruin her history moment. It doesn’t matter who is actually the President. Our government is on auto-pilot.
So that Ryan can hate me properly, I admit I didn’t vote for President Obama the first time.
no, but if President Obama had lost by one vote I’d be peeved at you.
A socialist would have given people universal healthcare
If you’re looking for a leader who has the dictatorial power to unilaterally “give” people something, you could move to the country where you can vote for Kim-Jong Il. You won’t get over-treated for any physical ailments there, I promise you.
Anyone who EVER voted for ANY Republicans for ANY office in Washington DC has to share the blame for making the ACA as imperfect as all the GOP compromises forced it to be.
It doesn’t matter who is actually the President. Our government is on auto-pilot.
It’s basically being run by the supreme court at this point. And that’s why, to me, the democrats have to win this time. Unlikely that they will but…
It is articles like these that I as a supporter for Bernie will never vote for Hillary!
It is articles like these that I as a supporter for Bernie will never vote for Hillary!
And that is a vote for Jeb Bush. Godspeed.
Never mind that Hillary has enormous grass-roots support of her own in addition to impressive funding from essential major players.
Having some grass-roots funding as a supplement to the usual Super PACs, banks, and general corporate backing can’t be compared to an all-grassroots campaign, at least if we’re talking about which one is more commendable (and, in this case, impressive).
I wouldn’t worry too much about people turning their backs on Hillary, honestly. She’s a decent figure to rally around (a woman in the white house is almost too good to pass up), but she’s a political opportunist of the highest order and the very model of a corporatist Democrat – not exactly my first choice for president. Bernie at least has consistency and ambition on his side, and I’m just as enticed by the notion of our first Jewish president. If the Republican strategy is to push people away from Hillary and towards someone more radical, I thank them.
I also wouldn’t worry too much about Bernie’s supposed unelectability if he does get the nomination. On the Repub side, sure, Jeb Bush is pretty agreeable, but if they go for Paul? Walker? Trump?? It’s not exactly looking like a nice year for centrists. I think the ideological divide of a Sanders-Paul election would be refreshing.
I’m just as enticed by the notion of our first Jewish president.
🙂
Yes, I remember how exciting it was to witness Americans being enticed by the prospect of VP Lieberman.
I think for now I would rather hang my hopes on the 50% of Americans who are women helping to elect our first female president rather than endure the anxiety of relying on the 2% of Americans who are Jewish helping to swing the election for Bernie.
Plus, maybe I would just as soon wait for several thousand redneck racists to die and go straight to hell before we have to see a bunch of hate crime maniac massacres in synagogues throughout the South.
I have as much admiration for Bernie as Sasha does. But I feel less trepidation. Bernie Sanders is not going to be the Democrat’s nominee for president.
I think for now I would rather hang my hopes on the 50% of Americans who are women helping to elect our first female president rather than endure the anxiety of relying on the 2% of Americans who are Jewish helping to swing the election for Bernie.
It’s just never going to happen. If there are any two words that will energize the Right more than “socialist jew” I don’t know what they are.
If there are any two words that will energize the Right more than “socialist jew” I don’t know what they are.
+1
x52 million
The people dreaming about President Bernie Sanders are almost as adorable as the people who dreamed about Best Picture winner Tree of Life.*
*[same year The (neo-con)Artist won BP]