Tuesday Open Thread [2.2.2016]
NEW HAMPSHIRE–UMass Lowell/7News: Sanders 61, Clinton 30
NEW HAMPSHIRE–Trump 38, Cruz 12, Kasich 9, Bush 9, Rubio 8, Christie 7, Fiorina 2, Carson 3, Paul 3, Santorum 1
Jason330 has come out for Sanders, though he is happy to vote for each candidate in the end, especially if the primary produces a battle tested Hillary Clinton. I, as you know, am a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and I am not going to change my mind on that nor apologize for it. I believe Bernie Sanders would fail as our nominee, leading us to a Mondale or Dukakis-style defeat. And if you don’t see that possibility, and the risk inherent in nominating someone who pledges to raise taxes on the middle class, not the wealthy, but the middle class, by 20%, then you are a, what is the term Jason used to describe me, oh yes, a puerile irredeemable naive misanthrope. It’s like you have learned nothing at all about Republicans and Independents and even Democrats your entire life. I mean, the commercials write themselves.
And the worst part is Bernie Sanders has pledged that he will be another Michael Dukakis and John Kerry in that he will not fight back with negative campaigning against the Republicans to defend himself. Fuck that. I’ll go with the fighting Clinton.
I will of course support and vote for him if he is our nominee, if only because to do otherwise will make me responsible for whatever Republican wins, but that does not change the fact that the Democratic Party will be wiped out in Congress and every where else, not that Bernie cares, since he is not a Democrat nor does he support any Democratic candidates with his campaign money.
So game on. The Battle is joined.
Now let’s get back to the politics of it. Hillary got the win, albeit a close one, but she will no doubt take it and be happy. And Clinton supporters should be happy, and Bernie supporters should be concerned. Why? Because the worst case scenario for her campaign and the best case scenario for the Sanders campaign occurred in that the turnout for Sanders was higher than even the Sanders campaign expected, and Hillary still won. She took the punch and kept standing.
Now Bernie faces a no win situation in New Hampshire. Current polls have his lead there anywhere from 15-30 points. He better win by 20-30 points to have his win deemed a win. In fact, I am not sure he should even be campaigning in New Hampshire right now. He should be in South Carolina and Nevada. Because what happens if Hillary gains on him in New Hampshire to finish strong there, losing by 5 instead of 30? It means she will have “won” the New Hampshire primary in terms of momentum. And then she will go steamrolling into Nevada and South Carolina. Bernie needs to be there now to see if he can make inroads in states where Hillary is leading by significant margins, to show that he can win where white progressives are not 90% of the vote.
Today's front page: @realDonaldTrump beaten out by @TedCruz in Iowa, nearly lands 3rd place https://t.co/f9cq9fQEG1 pic.twitter.com/NcOlypbcnv
— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) February 2, 2016
As we discussed a few weeks ago, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver published a piece back in July noting that Sanders is strongest in states where the universe of Democratic voters is very white and very liberal. Based on previous performance, that means the three best states in the Union for the senator are, in order, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa.
In other words, Iowa was a natural for Sanders. His message was poised to land on fertile soil.
The Vermonter believed he could take full advantage of the beneficial calendar – given its demographics, the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire go first was the equivalent of Sanders pulling an inside straight – and win both of the first two nominating contests, becoming only the third Democrat to do so, following Al Gore and John Kerry.
At that point, the theory went, the Democratic establishment would enter a full-blown panic and Sanders could present himself as the legitimate frontrunner for the nomination – complete with the wind at his back as the next round of primaries and caucuses got underway.
An Iowa loss, even an incredibly narrow one, prevents him from making that pitch. If the senator wins New Hampshire – which seems extremely likely – Sanders will face less-friendly terrain in Nevada and South Carolina without the benefit of two wins in his pocket.
The conventional wisdom has long held that all the pressure in Iowa was on Clinton, but I’ve always thought that was backwards. With her broad institutional support, and state-based strength following New Hampshire, she could survive a setback in Iowa. For Sanders, however, the road ahead just got even more difficult.
The polling community that polled Iowa definitely suffered a black eye, since they all missed the Cruz and Rubio surges, though I would argue that Ann Selzer’s DMR/Bloomberg Poll pegged the Democratic race. Remember, she had Clinton’s lead at 3% (45-42), and O’Malley at 3%. But caucuses are not like primaries where O’Malley gets to keep that 3% of the vote. No, in precincts where he did not become viable (i.e. did not get to 15% of the vote), his voters had to choose Sanders, Hillary or Uncommitted. Looks like most of them went to Sanders, which makes sense, and hence the closeness of the race.
Meanwhile, Jason330’s and my prediction of a Cruz nomination remains alive! And my theory re Donald Trump was proved right (that his support was fickle, that he had no ground game). I can’t wait to see what happens to his poll numbers now that he is a loser, both nationally and in New Hampshire. I can see the GOP race becoming a two man Cruz v. Rubio race pretty soon. Go Cruz!
Dylan Matthew’s winners and losers from last night: 1) Winners: Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio; 2) Losers: Donald Trump, Martin O’Malley and Jeb Bush.
Donald Trump lost. That mere fact, for a candidate whose persona is so built around being a winner, about crushing and humiliating his opponents, is damaging in a way it’s not for anyone else.
The situation is made worse still by Trump’s healthy lead over Cruz in the polls heading into the caucuses. Trump didn’t just lose — he lost when he was expected to win. And given that Iowa is nothing more than an elaborate scheme to manipulate media narratives, that’s particularly rough.
Trump didn’t help matters with his surprisingly civil and normal concession speech, in which he graciously congratulated Cruz, praised all the other candidates, and meekly suggested that he beat the initial expectations set when he entered the race in June 2015, when “Donald Trump for president” was treated by most media as a publicity stunt, not a serious candidacy. He wasn’t wrong. But commentators weren’t judging against June’s expectations; they were judging against January’s.
The speech also made Trump seem like something he hasn’t resembled all campaign: a normal politician. The media, and his supporters, expect him to subvert every norm expected of leading candidates, to be meaner and more brazen and less predictable than the competition. He wasn’t. Who knows if this will matter in a couple of days — it wasn’t memorable enough to be a “Dean Scream”–style debacle that actually hurts Trump’s campaign — but it certainly didn’t do anything to recover his lost momentum.
It’s important to not overstate things. Trump still leads in New Hampshire. He still leads nationally. He still leads in South Carolina.
Gwyneth Kelly and Emma Foehringer Merchant at the New Republic have five takeaways regarding the results from last night’s Iowa Caucus.
Hillary Clinton Didn’t Get a Coronation, but is Still Looking Strong
At about 3 a.m. local time, the count in Iowa was finally done, and Clinton had eked out a narrow victory over Bernie Sanders. One of them:
The Clintons are reportedly disappointed with the result, but as the New Republic’s Alex Shephard wrote, even this narrow victory is important for Hillary. “If Sanders had beaten her decisively tonight, it would not only have given his surging campaign another boost, but fueled a narrative that 2016 was 2008 all over again.” Instead, the results reaffirm Clinton’s own viability as a candidate, giving her a cushion of delegates she can build on into March.
The near-draw in Iowa indicates better things to come for Clinton in primaries in the more racially diverse states of Nevada and South Carolina. Sanders couldn’t topple her in a state whose demographics—overwhelming white, less affluent, liberal—seem tailor-made to Feel the Bern. The broader Democratic electorate is likely to be much more favorable towards Clinton, especially given that she holds a massive lead over Sanders among black and Latino voters.
Clinton will probably face a loss in New Hampshire, where some polls show her trailing Sanders by half, but her campaign is robust enough (financially and in terms of popularity) to continue into March, where she expects to see big gains. Her campaign has been building a “political firewall” in the Southern states for months, and the close finish in Iowa doesn’t derail her plans so much as underscore the importance of those states.
Timothy Lee at Vox wonders if Bernie Sanders will do what ordinary candidates do to win:
Sanders is trying to achieve the same goal as Barack Obama achieved eight years before, but his strategy is very different. Obama campaigned as a post-partisan uniter who could bring “change you can believe in.” Much of Obama’s appeal came from his personal biography as a biracial man who could — it was hoped — heal the nation’s racial divide.
Sanders, in contrast, is a self-described socialist who is campaigning on a specific and fairly radical set of reforms to America’s economy. Those reforms — including dramatically higher taxes on the wealthy, single-payer healthcare, and free college for many — are generally considered to be outside the mainstream of American politics. But Sanders is betting that after a decade of disappointing economic performance, voters can be persuaded to broaden their horizons.
But while Sanders’ left-wing agenda has significant support among Democratic voters, there wasn’t enough support to secure him a majority of voters — even in a state rich in the white voters who have been most receptive to his message. An equal number of voters preferred Hillary Clinton’s own mix of more moderate policies and hard-headed pragmatism.
An ordinary candidate — faced with a tie in a state whose demographics favor him — would look for ways to retool his message to win over a few more marginal voters in later states. But Bernie Sanders isn’t a normal candidate. To him, the message is as important as the messenger — and he probably didn’t expect to come this close to beating Clinton in the first place. So we can expect him to continue hammering away at the same themes in future states, hoping that the inherent appeal of his message will ultimately power him to victory.
Bryce Covert provides some much-needed perspective on the race between Hillary and Bernie.
[T]he largest difference between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders is not over policy. … There is scant daylight between them on most issues and certainly almost all of the causes near and dear to Democrats’ and progressives’ hearts. The largest difference, and therefore what the Democratic Party is truly grappling with, is not about two different visions of the party. The choice is between two theories of change. It’s the difference between working the system and smashing it.
[…] If Mr. Sanders embodies idealism, then Mrs. Clinton is pragmatism incarnate. Mrs. Clinton’s message of how to get things done takes the lessons of President Obama’s eight years in office — that Republicans will mostly unite against anything, even policies that they once supported — and, rather than change the system, she promises to work it. At the same early debate where Mr. Sanders explained his revolution, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she was a progressive. “I’m a progressive,” she responded. “But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.”
Part of that is continuing Mr. Obama’s practice, most evident in his second term, of calling for Congress to pass legislation while taking executive action when Congress stalls. On issues ranging from gun control to marijuana regulation to corporate tax policy, she has released policies that she would like to see enacted alongside outlines of executive action she would take on her own without Congress. […]
Here is a partial list of the policies that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders largely agree on: The country should have paid family leave; the minimum wage should be substantially increased; college students shouldn’t have to take on so much debt; parents need more affordable, quality child care and preschool options; Wall Street needs further reforms; health care should be universal; the wealthy should pay substantially more in taxes. Many of these are new policies even for Democratic presidential candidates. Despite using the socialist label, Mr. Sanders sounds a lot like many prominent Democrats. Mrs. Clinton is a tried and true liberal.
Covert’s point is that what separates Clinton and Sanders is not those goals, but the issue that is taking up a lot of ink from liberal pundits lately: their different theories of change. We did the Bernie theory of change in the first two years of Obama’s term, with much more favorable conditions, and progressives still left disappointed because not enough was accomplished. The only way Bernie gets anything done as President is if his revolution elects 260 like minded Democratic socialists in the House and 60 like minded Democratic socialists in the Senate. And right now, I see no evidence that Bernie is recruiting any candidates to join him.
Sanders needed a great showing in Iowa to build the kind of momentum he will need going into South Carolina, Nevada and the Super Tuesday states where Clinton has the advantage right now. That didn’t happen last night. When it comes to the race going forward, the Iowa caucuses gave us a bit of a game-changer for Republicans and more of the status quo for Democrats.
In the wake of Iowa, the Democrats are still a house divided almost down the middle. Yet ideologically, the direction of the party is clear: The resilience of Sanders movement is pulling the Democrats in a progressive direction. Without the challenge of Sanders, Clinton might be pivoting toward the center in preparation for the general election. Certainly Clinton has made gestures in that direction. But Sanders has shown that his message has a passionate audience in the party, which is creating a center of gravity that is tugging Hillary Clinton to the left.
Clinton is still the likely winner of the nomination, but the party she is trying to unite behind her is being transformed by Sanders. That, as the final delegate counts trickle in, is the legacy of Monday night’s vote.
Harry Enten agrees, Bernie needed more than he got last night:
The results in Iowa suggest that polls in New Hampshire may tighten. That’s because the states look similar demographically. Even taking into account that Sanders lives next door in Vermont, Clinton probably shouldn’t be behind by 17 percentage points in the New Hampshire polling average right now.
Assuming Sanders holds on to win in New Hampshire, would that be bad news for Clinton? Although I’m not sure that anyone wants to lose a primary, how she frames a loss in New Hampshire will matter a lot. If she is seen as doing better than expected, she could get a bump (something she is now unlikely to get coming out of Iowa). If, however, Sanders gets good press, he may improve his chances despite the demographic challenges facing him in other states.
We’ve said for months that Iowa and New Hampshire are two of the best states for Sanders demographically. You can see why in the entrance poll taken in Iowa. Sanders won very liberal voters over Clinton by 19 percentage points, but he lost self-identified somewhat liberals and moderates to Clinton by 6 percentage points and 23 percentage points, respectively. That’s bad for Sanders because even though 68 percent of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers identified as liberal this year, only 47 percent of Democratic primary voters nationwide did so in 2008. We’ll need to see if Sanders can do better in a state that is more moderate than Iowa before thinking he can win the nomination.
But, as Matthew Yglesias says, Bernie’s success should be a wake up call to the Democratic Establishment:
[T]he hearts of America’s young people — including, crucially, young women — are with the crotchety, 74-year-old socialist from Vermont. This both tends to confirm Washington, DC, Democrats’ conviction that demographic headwinds are at their back and complicates their hazy sense that faith in demographics is a substitute for political strategy.
The problem is that the young progressives the party is counting on to deliver them to the promised land are, as Sanders has shown, really quite left-wing. They aren’t going to be bought off with a stray Snapchat gimmick or two. To retain their loyalty and enthusiasm, party leaders are going to need to offer some kind of theory about how Democrats intend to deliver change and get results.
That is why I welcome the Sanders campaign and its challenge to Hillary Clinton, so long as it doesn’t win. Because Hillary Clinton can do what all good winning candidates can do: co-opt and adopt. She will need to move to the left to keep these voters in the party.
I know we are sick of Hillary’s damned emails, but is the public as a whole? Could the Republicans turn this into something that hurts her, particularly this last round? I get the concern over Bernie, especially if the Republicans unleash the full power of their attack machine on him, but the negatives of Hillary are a real concern as well. She doesn’t need ALL of the Bernie supporters to win, and I think her upside would be more than Bernie in the general….UNLESS they find something that actually sticks.
Clinton supporters seem so eager to make it ugly. very distasteful. As far as Bernie “not defending himself”… im not naive. That is what superPacs are for. He can maintain his appearance of “being above it” while MoveOn and such take the shots.
I’ve seen Sanders’ supporter be just as ugly going after Clinton. Both sides need to be careful not to alienate the supporters of the “other.” There is way too much at stake.
Excuse me, Ben, but no, Bernie supporters in general have been the ugliest I have ever seen, even worse than the PUMAs of 2008. They screamed “you liar” at her speech at the Bernie event last night, and they repeat all the Republican talking points about her. BernieBros need to clean their act up immediately before you can ever claim that Clinton’s supporters want to make this race nasty.
And Ben, I will point out, that Jason330 started the name calling first on DL here this morning. So criticize him as a Sanders supporter rather than me.
DD said: “Bernie supporters in general have been the ugliest I have ever seen.”
I call total bullshit. You need to keep it rational. Has anybody been beaten up at a Bernie rally?
True enough. Trump’s supporters are the worst, but I was talking about the Democratic primary and was not including the Republicans.
But my point remains: Bernie’s supporters cannot complain about Clinton going negative or her supporters being nasty to them when they at the same time call her a liar and rely upon all the very same Republican smears against her. You want to say she is too close to Wall Street? Fine, that’s fair. To call her a liar, that feeds right into the GOP narrative on the emails and Benghazi.
If Bernie’s supporters continue a Republican campaign against her, Bernie will be treated in kind.
supporters are one thing. The candidate/campaign getting nasty and personal is another. (HRC has not done that…. yet. Her supporters really seem to want her to) I think it was a big reason she lost to Obama. She tried all that “shame on you , Barack Obama… just like Karl Rove” line and it really damaged her. It makes her look like “just another politician”, which turns off way more people than I think you think.
Besides, DD… the “well they do it too” argument is weak. If i speak out personally against a Clinton supporter, it’s because they write off BernieBros (i like that) as “young”, “naive”, “blindly idealistic”… etc. You want to convince a “young person” to stick to their ideals and lose respect for yours? Tell them they are wrong because they are young. Works like a charm every single time.
Actually, I consider BernieBros as sort of a liberal extension of other types of “Bros”. The guys that are cocksure that they are right and refuse to hear how their actions might be borne of privilege. I am certainly not saying that anyone around here meets that description.
The BernieBros are happy to go along with the economic plan without any concern for the lack of any other plan. For example, foreign affairs, BlackLivesMatter, immigration are all areas of interest to the rest of us (non-bros). Bring up that Bernie doesn’t have a plan for HOW to approach any of those areas beyond mottos (Police brutality is bad!) and the questioner is a heretic that is trying to paint Bernie in a bad light.
And trying to convince Hillary’s supporters that they need to abandon the “criminal bitch” and feel the bern is a good way to ensure I won’t vote for him in the general.
Fortunately, both candidates are keeping it polite and civil, and that’s good. I have a blurb from a story that will be in tomorrow’s open thread, ah screw it, I will post it here now, that addresses this:
JP Green says a close Iowa vote helps Dems:
I’m against the name calling. The “electability” argument is simplistic, even childishly so, and to make that the centerpiece of your support, you’d have to be an irredeemable misanthrope. Is that name calling? If so, my apologies.
And yet, that argument is weak.
LG…Economic equality wont benefit black (or other economically oppressed) people?
and, DD… YOU said “criminal bitch”. Dont lay that at the feet of Sanders. Id be interested in which Sander’s supporter (other than a internet comment section) said that, so I can be wrathful at them. I probably have more of a problem with that than you do, since I see it as a threat to a cause I support.
Im also not trying to convince you to abandon the incredibly successful former Senator and Secretary. Im trying to convince you to stop writing off support for Sanders as something born of ignorance of the ‘real world”. I know about the “real world” enough to know it needs to change drastically.
I think a difference is, I KNOW both HRC and BS (hmm, he needs better initials) can beat the Republican. Why not send a message? Of COURSE nothing will get done. The House will still be solidly republican until we can have another census, hopefully followed by fairly drawn district lines… that’s a long way off. What makes you think President Clinton will have an easier time with the House than President Sanders? Ya think they will accept the mandate and work with Hillary Clinton? every single shithead in the GOP caucus has built their entire career on being against her.
It is startling to listen to someone like Rubio (the establishment guy) speak. Two-thirds of any speech is nothing but shrill attacks on Hillary Clinton. The GOP literally has nothing to run on other than blind hatred.
Ben – While that may be true about Sanders’ economic plan, it doesn’t resonate with the people that don’t look like Sanders. It’s hard to get excited about free college tuition if you are afraid that every interaction with the police (in a likely more aggressively policed neighborhood) could end in death. To pretend that you don’t need to have a plan to address it beyond “give everyone a job” is insulting to people that saw Sandra Bland die on the way to her new job.
For the record, the people making this argument are also making a similar argument against Hillary. But she has spoken more concretely about her plans to address the issue.
I don’t speak for Sanders, but if the Senator’s worldview can be reduced to say… “social justice flows from economic justice” then I’d pretty much agree with that.
I think that’s a pretty cynical view. One who hasn’t been reading your opinions for a few years might misconstrue your comment to mean that you think black voters aren’t informed enough to support a candidate who doesn’t “look” like them. The fact is he HAS spoken about police brutality and unjust police enforcement. He just hasn’t done it on Twitter…
No, Ben, the “criminal” quote is from random Bernie supporters on Facebook, but that’s not really fair to pick just random supporters out so I will withdraw that complaint. My point though is, in your and other Bernie supporters’ criticism of Hillary, be very careful how you do it. If you sound like you should be on Fox News, stop, reevaluate your life, and think of a different criticism. That is all I am saying. Because you are not going to win over Hillary supporter otherwise.
To your other points:
I KNOW both HRC and BS (hmm, he needs better initials) can beat the Republican.
Yes, that is a difference between us. I know Hillary will win. I fear, and expect, Sanders will not.
Why not send a message?
I don’t want to send a message. I want to elect a Democratic President who will protect and then advance all that President Obama has accomplished. Sanders and his supporters are uninterested in that. They just want to send a message. Screw that. This is the big leagues. We don’t send messages. Message senders lead to Republican Presidents.
The House will still be solidly republican until we can have another census
Maybe. If Trump or Cruz is their nominee, the Dems will make it very close in the House. Perhaps a pick up of 20 or more seats (they need 30 for majority). So I am not ready to write off the House just yet. And if we do make big gains, the House will be more workable, and the Senate will have a D majority.
What makes you think President Clinton will have an easier time with the House than President Sanders?
That is a good point. Point taken, but even then, Hillary would still have more of a shot. Sanders would have a negative shot.
^ yes. The systemic and institutionalized racism are bigger than a trending hashtag. The way i see it…. Clinton has done a lot of talking and given a lot of lip service. Sanders has spent his career doing the things that would actually benefit people.. (all people…. that arent 1% white guys)
ok, so it WAS comment on a website (facebook)… meaning it is meaningless. Facebook is the train station bathroom wall of civil discussion.
I support Sanders, but only to push Hillary to the left. That strategy is only successful if Hillary makes specific commitments to positions to the left of where she was before.
For all of you who are paying closer attention that I am – Can you think of any specific position, apart from rhetoric, where Bernie has pushed Hillary to the left? If not then I may have to rethink my rationale.
She has tried to make herself seem significantly more to the left of Sanders on gun control…. which is, ad far as I’m concerned, a lost battle.
If you assume gun control is a lost battle, meaning you don’t what to fight for it, then what is the whole point of Bernie Sanders’ campaign? You think Single Payer is a “winnable” battle? You think Free College Tuition for All is a “winnable” battle?
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/7/10725422/clinton-sanders-shadow-bank
Hillary is to the left of Sanders on Financial Regulation.
Ben – the cynical view is the one you have presented here. Economic justice will eventually ameliorate some issues, but that doesn’t help the people suffering now.
One of the people that I listen to on this has pointed out that Bernie has a plan to break up the big banks in the first year of his presidency. This is all well and good, but what’s the plan for dealing with police brutality? Is that a 5 year plan? 3 year? We don’t know. But taking on Citibank with their million dollar lobbyists and a reticent Congress? Totally doable in the first year…
Bernie has not made as many fans among the African-American and Latino communities because he is largely a one-trick pony for an issue that is near and dear to a lot of white middle-class liberals (of which I am one).
And for what it’s worth, minorities have not benefited from economic tailwinds (pretty much ever) so promises of a rising tide lifting all boats probably sounds like an old song they have heard before…
Not doing everything in the first 100 days, isn’t the same as doing nothing. It seems like you are holding Sanders to an unrealistic standard on this issue.
You can take or leave the argument that social justice flows from economic justice, but you can’t say that he isn’t addressing social justice.
True. Give out a plan with some dates on it. Not even having a goal is pretty close to doing nothing.
I added the second part of my comment to address that point. That you don’t agree with a strategy doesn’t mean a strategy doesn’t exist.
Which is fine as far as it goes. But if your strategy doesn’t address the concerns of large swaths of your party, don’t be surprised when they vote for your opponent or opt out altogether.
And how hard is it to say “In the first year we will stop the flow of military grade technology to civilian forces. My AG will pursue federal charges against police that violate the rights of people. We will invest $300M in training and procedural guidance for police forces with special attention to troubled departments with large numbers of complaints.” etc. ?
This is what holds me back from feeling the Bern:
Yes, I 100% support his position on the economy, but there is more than this issue that concerns me… and Bernie doesn’t really address any other issues. I really hope that he expands his message because I agree with what he’s saying about the one issue he talks about.
1) I am surprised by nothing. 2) “In the first year we will stop the flow…etc, etc.” was so easy to say, he could still say it. The night is young.
Pandora, I would suggest you go to YouTube and watch Sanders discussion with Killer Mike (Run the Jewels). It’s in 6 parts each is less than 10 minutes.
Perhaps past it around. Talk about it with friends.
I’m not going clog the drain pasting a video here, but you know how to do it.
“Yes, I 100% support his position on the economy, but there is more than this issue that concerns me… ”
That viewpoint is a luxury some can’t afford. Where you stand depends on where you sit.
“and Bernie doesn’t really address any other issues.”
He has a long voting history in the Senate, which (with the unfortunate exception of guns), is probably more in line with your viewpoint than Hillary’s Senate record.
That viewpoint is a luxury some can’t afford. Where you stand depends on where you sit.
Indeed it is. Too bad you can’t see that social justice is a serious economic issue. And for many of the people that LG and Pandora are talking about.
I’ve watched most of those videos, Dorian, but they sorta make my point. I want to hear more from Sanders on different topics. I’m glad you liked the videos. I found them to be more of the same issue. Which is fine!, but hardly enlightening.
Yeah, saying I agree with Sander’s issues on the economy but want him to talk about other issues as well is a luxury. But I’m kinda use to people trying to set my priorities. 😉
And may I point out that some of the people here supporting Sanders were some of the same people trashing Obama (early in his Presidency) for not fulfilling every promise or goal. I can’t imagine what happens when Sanders can’t get single payer or free college enacted, or, god forbid, has to compromise on something.
“Too bad you can’t see that social justice is a serious economic issue. ”
What are you saying here? On exactly which social justice issues does Bernie fail in comparison with Hillary?
Great thread. It appears that unease with Sanders and unease with Clinton can be framed in many ways. What I think it comes down to it whether or not you think Democrats can more the Overton Window (OW), or whether you think only Republicans are allowed to do that.
If you think OW moving is for Republicans only, you can find a lot of conventional punditry to support that viewpoint. If you think Democrats can move the OW, you are a bit of a heretic.
Here’s another iteration of the same argument we’ll be having over and over in the next few months.
So the Delaware Dem, Pandora, Cassandra argument is made by, you guessed it!, Chris Matthews the fucking MSNBS circus act. The counter point is provided via commentary from Esquire writer Charles P Pierce.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41754/chris-matthews-hillary-clinton-interview/
Now read this (it’s short) and ask yourself, deep down, who seems to be making the argument that resonates with you?
But who has a bigger megaphone, Chris Matthews or Charles P Pierce?
That Matthews cartoonish characterization of Sanders is nauseating. People of his generation were so scarred by McGovern that they can’t think straight.
Yep, you caught me. I’ve always listened to Chris Matthews.
Cartoonish, yeah, exactly. I understand making the argument, but this insinuation that Sanders is somehow un-American. That somehow he doesn’t understand something fundamental. It’s really vile and stupid. Yet it’ll continue to be made here somehow without irony or embarrassment.
So if you see how dumb Matthews looks here you can understand how silly I think Delaware Dem, Cassandra and Pandora’s arguments are.
If that’s the way you feel, P, stop making the same silly shameful argument.
Everyday I read DD saying Sanders isn’t even a Democrat! And that phony political “expert” Cassandra has to teach us all how many votes the Republicans have in the House (as Matthews did). And Bernie supporters are insulting!
If you see how shameful and stupid the argument is stop making it.
Once concern I have with Bernie is when they ask him about how to fix the Middle East, his answer is usually something along the lines of “I didn’t vote for Iraq; income inequality is our greatest concern and corporations love war.” While I agree with him, it is a complex world and answers / policies will be necessary. Putin doesn’t care about our income inequality, even though most passionate Democrats do.
I’ve seen a lot of comenters here talk about how the Democratic party needs to be better. Sanders is what better looks like. Clinton is what the same looks like. Both Clintons ARE the Democratic party of the last 20 years. It has been a golden age of social justice, (albeit 3 steps forward, 1 step back). Economic justice, however, has continued it’s downward trend that started with Reagan. Democrats who are in the pocket of Goldman Sachs… and I know even Sec Clinton’s staunch supporters don’t deny that… will never be able to make that change.
Ask yourself this… If laws designed to curb police violence and targeting of black people (for example) get to his desk, do you you think President Sanders will veto that law? Conversely, will President Clinton sign a law that re-instates Glass-Steagall or breaks up the insurance companies and replaces them with single-payer?
This is all a mental exercise. The day Clinton says something that could even be remotely construed as “Even though I have gotten money from, I am in no way loyal to wall-street and they need to be better managers of the Nation’s wealth” is the day I switch my yard-sign. I just want to see her break with her Carper/Markell/(every other corpricrat) side publicly and forcefully. She’s going to be the nominee and I’ll do all I can for her then.
The inevitable republican House of 2017 will needs to be given daily beatings and President Clinton will do that. Also, expect an impeachment circus. I dont think there is anything that is impeachable, but you have to know the GOP is childish enough to try on day 1.
There have been countless DL posts and comments dealing with the 60 vote (new GOP) requirement. To pretend otherwise isn’t fair.
Good point.. The D’s wont get 60 senators and a majority House this year. It’s impossible. I wonder which President (Sanders or Clinton) could drive a bigger 2018 mid-term. The people who stay home for mid-temrs might come out for Sanders. Clinton could be dealing with 2 years of obstruction and fake scandals. Republicans will MAKE SHIT UP about her, Fox will report it as fact, CNN will helplessly report that there is a scandal and they are powerless to find the truth, and no one will watch MSNBC.
It is really difficult not to see the GOP as a rising violent tide and the Dems as a failing seawall that was never built strong enough in the first place.
Mike… Sanders has answered that foreign policy question in greater detail. I suggest you poke around. He has articulated quite clearly he is not a pacifist. He has no issue ordering the US military to do violence when violence is what’s called for. (I agree with him on this.) The details are the thing. Why is military action needed? Who else will fight alongside us? Etc…
Pandora, am not saying Cassandra is the only one making this argument. Just the most recent and loudest (and most childish) example. A few days ago she used the Twitteresqe slogan ‘King of America’ (as if I didn’t know there was a Congress). Then she suggested I get a lesson in the US Constitution. It’s the Chris Matthews argument and anyone making it should be very embarrassed for themselves.
Having read all 51 comments, I find myself left with the feeling/though of “This shit is depressing… I’m going to go watch Blade Runner to cheer myself up.”
As for who can drive a better turnout for 2018 (is it even reasonable to speculate on this shit?), I saw more excitement across-the-board from Obama people in 2008. People were standing in line on election day, proud to be voting for Obama, for hours. Yet, 2010 happened.
I’m not sure that a dynamic candidate can drive mid-term election turn-out. Let’s take that one off the table.
Jason – Does one have to be the nominee to move the Overton window? I’d argue that Howard Dean, John Edwards, Pat Buchanan and now Trump have all moved the Overton window. Bernie is doing it too. I thank him for that.
You’re welcome.
Pandora, am not saying Cassandra is the only one making this argument. Just the most recent and loudest (and most childish) example. A few days ago she used the Twitteresqe slogan ‘King of America’ (as if I didn’t know there was a Congress). Then she suggested I get a lesson in the US Constitution.
Well, yes. When you are investing in a candidate who has pretty serious roadblocks to getting the stuff you want done some magic that bypasses how government actually works, you get reminded of this kind of thing. It’s inconvenient, but it is still true. Which is what you are objecting to, I gather. But Presidential candidates make all kinds of promises and policy proposals they can’t deliver on, e.g., closing Guantanamo. Candidates who get into office are often accused of their former supporters of just not working hard enough to get their promises done, c.f., The Green Lantern Theory of government.
And even though I’ve stated multiple times here that I have written checks to Bernie, I am still a resume voter. I’m going to vote for the person who I think will be more successful in advancing a progressive ball down the field. I don’t mind incrementalism, because that is the history of this country. And me and my family can’t afford to take the kind of risks that you and your privilege can. You may find that childish, which is why I’m going to continue to call into question your self-proclaimed intellectual abilities.
LG asks a great question. Because I would argue that the Overton Window has been moved the most over the past decade by the Occupy Movement, and they weren’t candidates for anything. You can see some of their work in both the Sanders’ and Clinton campaigns, and I suspect is one of the biggest reasons that the GOP is working overtime to engage their voters on fear of foreigners.
You can see the work of Occupy reflected in the Clinton campaign? That’s the funniest shit I’ll read today. Clinton is a blatant reactionary and an opportunist. The idea that she’s aligned to or a catalyst for, even in the smallest way, anything Occupy stands for is nonsensical. She’ll add stronger language to her stump speech. Big deal. You’re trying to convince people the HRC is something she clearly is not. At least Prof Newton has the clear mind and honesty to admit it plainly.
Again, I have no issue with proper debate, but arguments like the ones Chris Matthews made, which are rampant here, are shameful. That’s what I object to.
If you don’t wish to be called a mindless lackey hack stop making these arguments:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41754/chris-matthews-hillary-clinton-interview/
Occupy? c’mon they accomplished nothing and were unwilling to commit to standing for anything. It’s the great movement that could have been.
Ben – I disagree a little bit. The framing idea of 1% versus 99% is accepted context now thanks to Occupy. It’s a small thing, but important.
Do you think that Clinton would be using terms like 1% or discussing income inequality if Occupy hadn’t added them to out political lexicon? For that matter, do you think Bernie would even be on the board if Occupy hadn’t moved the Overton window?
Bernie’s been on board with that economic argument for about 50 years. It’s on record. Years and years and years. Clinton is reacting to Occupy and Bernie. This is so clear.
You’re arguing Occupy influenced Sanders? I thought Cassandra’s comment was the funniest thing I’d read today… guess not.
I can see the point that occupy made a Sanders run more viable. You get that, right?
Yes, yes. Agree with that. No doubt. But Sanders’ held the “Occupy” position before some of the Occupiers parents were born. So it goes to authenticity and consistency.
That is not even remotely the point. Of course he has been on board with it. The point that has been made repeatedly on this thread is that it is pretty much all he has been talking about.
Hillary is being moved (or finding that there is room to move) in that space now. And she has. I don’t think that there is anyone on this thread that disagrees that Bernie’s candidacy is bad or damaging.
The argument, proven here, is that his supporters are falling all over themselves to promote the idea that Hillary is unacceptable. I could give you a list of people who have promoted that tired argument except that I don’t know many of the names of the talking heads at FoxNews.
I’ll give it that was a pre-cursor to the movement behind Sanders, but having personally watched OccPhilly and De devolve into something indistinguishable from the last day of a music festival has really soured my opinion on the whole thing. Let’s not give them any more credit than they deserve. The frustration was there, the feelings were there.
” I don’t think that there is anyone on this thread that disagrees that Bernie’s candidacy is bad or damaging.” I dont agree that his campaign is bad OR damaging. I think it will ultimately turn HRC into a more progressive candidate. I think having one candidate the entire nominating process is bad and damaging.
Bad English there (by me). Probably should have read something like “I don’t think anyone above thinks that Bernie’s candidacy is bad or damaging”. We like Bernie. Thanks for doing some of the heavy lifting Bernie!
I take your point. I don’t go that far. I think HRC has strengths (many). I take issue with the idea that Sanders isn’t viable/electable. Furthermore, I’m not going to let a Trump candidacy scare me into supporting a Democratic candidate who doesn’t better represent my beliefs.
This will all be settled in hindsight. If president Clinton governs as if she has been moved and changed by Sanders/occupy/a large chunk of the Dem party (who will be voting longer than any other chunk).. it will have “worked”. If not, and she acts like Markell, I predict really bad troubles ahead for the D party as Millennial ( by then, most of whom will be over 25, will not be reliable support.) It will no longer be enough to just advocate for social justice and racial equality, while giving it all away to the banks/pharma.
Notably, I have not taken the position that Bernie is unelectable. That is probably not true. It would be even more untrue if he translated some more of his core beliefs into policy statements about how he plans to address issues without a direct link to his economic plans.
As for how reasonable it is to think that he will be able to actually implement any of his plans, I think his actual strategy is that if he moves America enough to elect him, a more compliant legislative branch would also be elected at the same time (or shortly thereafter). That strategy is certainly worth critical analysis.
About 95% of the policy ideas that come from the candidates during campaign season are not implementable, both GOP and D. This is the way it always is. It was this way for Obama. I guess I don’t understand why this argument is applicable to Sanders only.
In reality, there is no way a more compliant legislative branch will be elected. Based on the senate election map, there arent enough vulnerable R’s to flip it… the House will stay GOP even though the Dems will get more votes overall.
I agree, Ben.
As for the 95% number (pulled from thin air, I’d guess) is not quite accurate.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/
But it would be interesting to review this list, and see which of the “promises broken” can be attributed to an oppositional Legislative branch.
I haven’t put forth the electability argument either. In fact, I called it out on another thread. When I say Sanders needs to broaden his platform what I get back is how terrible Clinton is – that supporting her is being a corporate shill and that I’m parroting Chris Matthews.
What I don’t get is Sander’s platform outside the 1%. If your argument is: Vote for Sanders because Clinton is horrible, just say it. Because that’s really all I’m getting from this conversation. And I’ll remind everyone that I haven’t really chosen a candidate (notice my lack of blogging on the subject). I stated my concerns with Sanders (and have done the same with Clinton is the past) and what I get back from Sanders’ supporters doesn’t address my questions.
I’m not really sure what the argument is. And if it is policy driven then I’ll need to see how that policy will be implemented. If we can’t have that discussion, or if we say that 95% of what a candidate promises won’t ever be enacted then I’m left wondering what the hell we’re doing here.
Obama got an amazing amount of things done. Not perfectly, but he definitely moved the ball down the field. That matters to me.
@Dorian: “I’m not going to let a Trump candidacy scare me into supporting a Democratic candidate who doesn’t better represent my beliefs.”
I’m a bit puzzled by the statements… One could infer from that statement that were Clinton to be the nominee, you may well vote for the GOP nominee, fringe party candidate, or not vote at all? Curious for clarification…
OK. I should have said the vast majority. And again I wasn’t speaking about Obama only. I’m talking about presidential candidates in general.
And you and I both know that the general principle of this argument is true. All manner of unachievable ideas are touted on the campaign trail. Almost all are some degree of unrealistic. Yet only Sanders supporters get the sanctimonious schooling on the Constitution.
“… I’m left wondering what the hell we’re doing here.”
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I come here to waste time 😉
I don’t generally make hypothetical decisions based on dozens of assumptions. I don’t know what I’ll do yet. Babies will be born before the general election that have yet to be conceived. I prefer to argue first.
I won’t be voting for a GOP candidate. That’s certain. Right at this moment, Sanders is on offer so why would I not support him and rather support a candidate I like less because of a set of assumptions I disagree with?
@Prop Joe I also come here to waste time. I thought that’s what everyone was doing…
I would argue that, generally speaking, Clinton’s ideas are more tempered to what might be achievable. This would certainly explain why she doesn’t seem as leftward as one would hope. Bernie certainly has BIG IDEAS, but if those ideas don’t have political or popular support (let alone both), they will be harder to implement.
I will add that if you have tied all of your social issues on to the yoke of your precarious economic policy, can people really expect that their needs (some of which I detailed above) are going to be met?
Just to be clear, I don’t think that very much of Sanders’ platform would be implemented. I think it’s a better place to start because the concepts are correct. Plus he’s proven to be a genuinely consistent and sincere on these issues, whereas Clinton hasn’t. That’s really it.
And if I’m going to be spoken to like someone who ‘just doesn’t understand’ I’m going to take real exception.
Where’s today’s Open Thread? I’m bored with this subject.
I want to discuss this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/02/the-college-where-martin-luther-king-is-problematic.html?via=twitter_page
When I say I support Sanders, I assume Hillary will be the nominee, and when that happens I will support her too. I just want to see some of Bernie’s planks hammered into Hillary’s platform. I want the Dem primary to go on until Hillary sweats and makes concessions to win the support of Sanders voters.
I’m fine with that, Puck. I’ve even said that. 🙂
Puck, you’re probably right. I just think it’s difficult to hammer those planks into HRC’s platform when those planks are immediately dismissed out of hand. That’s the fight I’m in. See what I’m saying?
Dorian – If you felt like I was speaking to you that way, it was misconstrued.
Puck – I agree. That is what I hope that Sanders and Clinton both walk away with.
So don’t shit on the planks now if we need to use those later in the other place. That’s where I’m coming from.
@LG – No, that doesn’t apply to you. You didn’t do that.
Come on, Dorian. You’re hardly known for your “polite” comments. Which is fine, but calling out people for tone/lecturing isn’t fair when you’re guilty of the same thing. THAT is not a criticism. It’s an observation. 🙂
I sorta want to talk about:
*** Trump reportedly nominated for Nobel Peace Prize (http://bit.ly/trump-nobel; http://bit.ly/trump-nobel-uk) ***
I don’t support Bernie because I think he’ll get this stuff done. I support him because he’s the only candidate, unless you count Trump, who will say it needs to be done.
Maybe HIllary would agree, but only in private. She wouldn’t say anything in public to ruin her chances.
Support Hillary, fine, but please don’t pretend you have any clue about how progressive she will or will not be in office. I’m willing to bet, for example, that she’s four-square behind the TPP; I don’t see her as progressive on the issues that matter most to me (economic ones).
Just acknowledge it: You think the country is scared of progressivism, so you won’t vote for someone who stands as its embodiment — at least not this someone.
Anyone who cites McGovern wasn’t alive and voting at the time.
Polite has nothing to do with it. It’s the childish embarrassing shit like Chris Matthews last night. (The thing that kicked this back off today.)
As an example, Prof Newton can really get into me sharply. I enjoy that because Steve very often has a reasoned, intelligent argument and it’s supported by some scholarship, etc.
Be a shitty as you want to me. I can take it, but don’t give me bullshit internet slogans or hashtags or “BernieBros” (whatever those are) or some trending clever Instagram meme. I’m not standing for that.
And I’m not clicking on that link Joe posted. All indication is that’s a virus from Russian hackers!
I like BernieBros. We all know REAL “bros” and fratboys are supporting Trump. no question.
http://theweek.com/articles/603127/hillary-clinton-evolved-since-90s-probably-have