Why I Did Not Vote For Hillary
Late last night and this morning, I was working on a piece about why I didn’t vote for Hillary. (Jason has a great piece on why he voted for Bernie. You should read it.) So I got my post done and then I found this new editorial by Shaun King, If voting for Hillary Clinton means voting against my core beliefs, I’m not sure I can do it.
What King believes:
I’m against the death penalty.
I’m against SuperPACs and the unfair influence of billionaires on elections.
Sanders supporters stay fervent, even as Hillary Clinton seems poised to take the nomination.
JOHN MINCHILLO/AP
Sanders supporters stay fervent, even as Hillary Clinton seems poised to take the nomination.
I’m for a $15 minimum wage.I’m for free college tuition.
I’m for closing every tax loophole for the rich and corporations.
I’m for avoiding war at all possible cost.
I’m against private prisons.
I’m for universal healthcare.
I’m for a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system.
What Hillary does:
She supports the death penalty.
She is deeply funded by SuperPACs.
She has been wishy washy on the fight for a $15 minimum wage.
She has made millions of dollars speaking to the big banks and super rich.
She voted for the war in Iraq.
She received money from private prison lobbyists.
Photograph by Nathaniel F and is licensed CC BY ND.
Tags: Hillary Clinton
“I’m for a $15 minimum wage.”
If you can explain the rationale for $15 instead of $16 or $17 or $18, I might get on board that train. Why $15?
Why I Did Vote for Hillary:
Supports a woman’s right to choose
Supports equal opportunity for women and minorities
She is for reversing gun manufacturer immunity
She admits her Iraq vote was wrong
She admits that the Clinton era crime bill caused the AA community a good deal of harm that needs to be addressed
Bernie Sanders got SuperPac help from Karl Rove.
Hedge Fund Billionaires have created SuperPACs against her.
I’ll let Robert Reich explain.
“I’m against the death penalty.
I’m against SuperPACs and the unfair influence of billionaires on elections.
Sanders supporters stay fervent, even as Hillary Clinton seems poised to take the nomination.
JOHN MINCHILLO/AP
Sanders supporters stay fervent, even as Hillary Clinton seems poised to take the nomination.
I’m for a $15 minimum wage.
I’m for free college tuition.
I’m for closing every tax loophole for the rich and corporations.
I’m for avoiding war at all possible cost.
I’m against private prisons.
I’m for universal healthcare.
I’m for a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system.”
—––—————————–
Rose Izzo sounds to much like a Bernie Sanders supporter:
She is against the death penalty.
She is NOT funded by SuperPACs. (Spent only $2000 in 2014 election)
She supports the fight to Get Money Out of Politics
She supports the Fight for $15.
She is supports No Cost Community College & Trade school education.
She is for avoiding war at all possible cost
She is against private prisons.
She is for universal healthcare.
*** I won’t vote for Rose Izzo because she is a “registered republican”!
Luckily my vote for Bernie was also a vote for women’s reproductive rights as well as equal opportunity for women, minorities and the LGBT communities.
This was from Gabriel Arana (Salon writer) on his FB page some days ago, and speaks for me:
And I’ll add to my list that I don’t have to participate in the recycling of Newt Gingrich-era Clinton bullshit in order to justify my vote.
Well, that didn’t actually answer my question since I ask why $15 and not $16, etc. Reich’s answer was an argument for $15 versus something less than $15. I’m looking for the argument of why $15 and not something more.
It should be considerably higher
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage1-2012-03.pdf
http://www.epi.org/publication/given-the-economys-growth-the-federal-minimum-wage-could-be-significantly-higher/
I ultimately supported Hillary because she understands that the presidency doesn’t come with a magical “change” button – that you have to work to support and yes, raise money for, other Democrats in order to get anything done. She’s worked within a party to build the party, and while I agree big money is bad, it is the current path to change. She’s consistently voted with Bernie on many, many issues and will fill the Supreme Court vacancy (vacancies) with qualified justices with a chance of getting approved who will cement the current liberal victories while finding more through a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. I also supported her because she understands that the world is dangerous and complex and foreign policy isn’t always about being moral. Should it be? I don’t know, but we were sure glad to have Stalin on our side in WWII, and he may be history’s biggest asshole. Bernie has brought a ton to the conversation, but I think at times he has focused too much on HIS issues and has tried too hard to tie other tangential but consequential issues back to his core platform. I also think that the change in tone away from the positive hurt him in the final weeks and months, and he has done nothing to tone down his supporters, many of whom are radical and uncompromising at a time when we as a nation face our greatest threat from within, namely a candidate who could truly take us to the precipice of disaster.
Hillary is far from perfect, but I believe she is the best we’ve got right now, and really the only candidate left. It is time for those who think otherwise to swallow the pill and realize the other option is unimaginable. We cannot have a President Trump; we as a nation must be better than that.
” Sanders, on the other hand, is running a monochromatic campaign populated by white, woke libs who feel morally superior to the rest of us because they learned about inequality in college. ”
The me who decided he was done having this battle yesterday would take great exception to that. It’s a false characterization of the campaign, and does a real disservice to people pushing for the platform Sanders put forward who do not fall into that very small media-driven pigeon hole.
Especially that last part. Since when did Democrats use having been to college as a bad thing? It’s wrong, it’s distasteful, and it’s not the way to mend the fence.
It’s a false characterization of the campaign, and does a real disservice to people pushing for the platform Sanders put forward who do not fall into that very small media-driven pigeon hole.
According to you.
I have been subject to white (mostly young) Bernie supporters lecturing me about racial and gender inequality (among other things) as if I don’t wake up on the daily living with this. No need for *me* to be working at mending any fences here.
That’s fair. We have different lives and know different people.
What about the part using having gone to college as some sort of disqualifier? I always though that was the way of the Repukes.
Cassandra_m, your point is that you’ve been subjected to a few dumbasses, so you are done with all Bernie supporters?
It’s not a few.
And my point is that there are multiple reasons to stop supporting Sanders (I sent money, you know) and that was ONE of several noted.
Hurt feelings. Got it. Excellent reason. 😉
This is the updated version of Mr. Clinton feeling your pain. Christopher Hitchens’ main complaint about Mother Teresa was that she would tend to the dying, but wouldn’t do anything to prevent the illness.
Sanders, for whatever reason, could not incorporate BLM into his “revolution.” For a true progressive to succeed, he or she must not just acknowledge but embrace that movement, for while it is of particular import to blacks and other minorities, as well as the poor, it is in everyone’s best interest to hold police and those authorizing use of force accountable for their actions and decisions.
cassandra: your list of why you voted for hillary seems to be mostly about social issues where great progress has already been made, and some screw-ups she apologized for. nothing about income inequality, which is a bigger problem than anything you mention (not counting out-of-control cops). but, yeah, you’re down with the identity politics that gives hillary her coalition.
Cassandra’s link above speaks for me.
Other than announcing who I was endorsing, I have never written a post in support of Hillary because I didn’t want to deal with the comment section and constantly being called a corporatist, establishment, a shill, a high D, a lover of corporate whores, not a progressive, a warmonger, a DNC lover, etc..
And on this blog I received a very clear message that Dems spent too much time on social issues – at the expense of economic ones. There was a valid argument there, but the messengers didn’t make it. I completely understand the main demographic of DL and why Bernie’s message appealed to them, but I did feel that Bernie wasn’t speaking to me. BTW, that really wasn’t my problem. It was the candidate’s. And just like Hillary has to reach out to Bernie supporters, Bernie should have reached out to those groups he didn’t connect with.
And in comes ex-anonymous to make my point.
glad to be of service.
but hey, i’m listening to carly fiorina on msnbc right now and she makes me want to throw up. she and cruz are the creepiest team ever. makes hillary look pretty good.
By the same token Hillary needs to speak to me to get my vote.
“BTW, that really wasn’t my problem. It was the candidate’s.”
So true. If a progressive speaks about economics to people who prioritize social issues, does he make a sound?
Yep, it makes a sound. From the very beginning I wondered why Bernie wasn’t folding social issues into his message – they went together perfectly. But let’s dig into income inequality/the economy being the most important issue. Are you saying that a black man who becomes wealthy no longer faces racism? or a woman’s increased paycheck won’t be impacted by her being forced to give birth? Of course not. You guys need to accept that people’s economy is different depending on who they are and what they face.
@Nemski, Did you even read what I wrote? Here’s the quote, “And just like Hillary has to reach out to Bernie supporters, Bernie should have reached out to those groups he didn’t connect with.” See? I said that.
Not hurt feelings. Just no availability of thoughtful genuine allies.
And while income inequality is a *very serious* issue, as long as the Congress is GOP and/or conservative, there isn’t going to be any real progress in that arena.
And I do think that she’ll be able to run the government well. She’ll put people around her who will at least try to get some initiatives accomplished. She does get coalition-building, which will cause the purity police some angina and she’s embraced Obama and his accomplishments.
Edit to add: I like politicians who apologize and revise their views based upon experience and actual lessons learned. It is very hard (for me) to trust people who never learn from their own experiences or to trust politicians who never listen to constituents.
I hear Hillary saying “You will continue to live off the crumbs from the table of Wall Street and the 1%, but by God women are going to get half those crumbs.”
How can I disagree with that?
What you said and what is happening are two different things. Look at the results in Delaware with the nomination almost sewn up and the state party behind her, Bernie still did very well. If she was reaching out to Bernie supporters it hasn’t happened yet. That’s a problem.
Some of you guys don’t hear us.
Yeah, go back and read what I wrote, Nemski, and not how you want to spin it.
Wow, Pandora, wow. You don’t get Sanders and that’s his fault. I don’t get Hillary, but that’s my fault.
It’s the candidate’s fault. That’s what I said – that both of them had to reach out to each others supporters to get, you know, VOTES. That is how it works.
“both of them had to reach out to each others supporters to get, you know, VOTES.”
How does that work after the convention?
Not sure what you mean by that question, puck.
*very serious* issue?
So you don’t actually think it’s an issue?
I guess when some people pick an enemy, the must do some mental gymnastics lest they accidently agree with something that enemy said…well, Sanders has been defeated. There’s no longer a need to pretend that addressing the growing income gap means we have to overturn Row v Wade.
Look at the results in Delaware with the nomination almost sewn up and the state party behind her, Bernie still did very well. If she was reaching out to Bernie supporters it hasn’t happened yet. That’s a problem.
Anyone remember when it “was a problem” when Obama couldn’t sew up the nomination until the very end? Against Hillary? Because PUMAs? Good times! It was a problem then too for the folks who don’t get that primaries and generals are different.
So you don’t actually think it’s an issue?
It’s like you just showed up here or something. I *do* think it is an issue and using asterisks for emphasis *really is* different than quotation marks.
Sheesh.
“Are you saying that a black man who becomes wealthy no longer faces racism?”
Of course he does. But is his life better or worse than a poor white single mother on welfare? Whether you realize it or not, you are playing a game of dueling privilege. Given equal economic circumstances, blacks have it worse than whites, women have it worse than men. Which leads us to…
“or a woman’s increased paycheck won’t be impacted by her being forced to give birth?”
No woman is forced to give birth. I’m guessing that you’re talking about the “mommy track” excuse for the gender pay gap. I’m entirely in favor of the full slate of remedies for the gender pay gap.
“You guys need to accept that people’s economy is different depending on who they are and what they face.”
And you need to understand that fixing economic inequality will help us all, including those who are worse off now.
The 1% will be very happy if we prioritize bringing everyone to equality under our inherently unequal system. They really don’t care that much if the female peasants and bourgeousie get equal pay, as long as their own wealth isn’t jeopardized. They aren’t So in that sense you are probably right in thinking this is the more achievable goal.
Unfortunately, like the ACA, it’s only a partial fix. The good news is you now have health insurance. The bad news is you now have to wrestle with insurance companies to get what you’re due.
Memories! from 2008.
“Whether you realize it or not, you are playing a game of dueling privilege.”
Nope, that’s not what I’m doing. I’ve consistently said Bernie should include social issues with his income inequality message. Not that they were more important, simply that they should be acknowledged and included. No dueling here.
“No woman is forced to give birth. I’m guessing that you’re talking about the “mommy track” excuse for the gender pay gap.”
Nope, not what I was talking about. When the GOP defunds Planned Parenthood, makes laws that forces clinics offering abortion to close they are denying reproductive access to women (and the men who love them). In essence, they are forcing women to give birth by denying access.
“And you need to understand that fixing economic inequality will help us all, including those who are worse off now.”
And I’d say, again, that while fixing income inequality will help everyone, it wouldn’t help everyone equally. I don’t understand why there isn’t room in the income inequality message to include racial and gender inequality? You seem to think this isn’t an important (wrong word?) issue to include… or that we’d get to that eventually and that some people need to wait?
The 1% doesn’t care about abortion or birth control or the gender of the 99%. They just use those things to divide us while they scoop up the money.
So… my consistent request to merge social issues with economic issues is me being played and missing what really matters?
Clinton vs. Sanders is over. Sanders won’t be the nominee or even the VP pick. He will make the usual noises about supporting the candidate who won and then he will effectively disappear. Clinton cannot afford to have him stay around in any capacity. Instead, the Clinton campaign strategy is to “win” over the die-hard Sanders’ partisans by portraying Trump as so bad we must stop him. I did not use to believe this, but by about a 4-1 margin the Clinton sponsored ads popping up in my social media feeds are now all variations of “Donald Trump must be stopped” instead of “Here’s why we’re ready for Hillary.”
Right now in the general public reporting Clinton’s message for the General is almost all about responding to Trump, not advancing her own agenda. Bill Clinton had “It’s the economy, stupid”–and I have not seen paraded across the press any Clinton economic program. Trump may be an idiot for wanting to build a wall, but exactly what is Clinton proposing to do about job loss to Mexico? Where is a strong Clinton speech detailing why her beliefs of TPP and NAFTA will lead to a resurgence of the American economy?
It really is going to be the economy again, not international affairs and not social issues. Both of them will assure us that they will bomb the shit out of our enemies, or enemies’ children, our enemies’ remote relatives’ wedding parties, and anybody else in a small country with mountains and a name that ends in “Q” or “N.” Trump will moderate so fast on social issues that it will make your head spin because (and I still think people don’t get this) he is NOT running as a Republican. He’s going to be running as an Independent Outsider with GOP ballot access privileges. And the GOP will go along with handing him their franchise because (I already see it on social media), “Yeah, he’s not perfect but he’s better than Hillary and the Supreme Court justices she would pick.” Cruz you could hit with bathrooms; Trump–no way.
So it will be economics and leadership. And there it’s not enough to say that Trump’s plans are bad, somebody has to make the case that Clinton’s are what we need. For that I really really REALLY don’t care what’s on her website because less than 5% of voters are ever going to read it. They’re going to read/hear her soundbites. Give me an uplifting Clinton soundbite on the economy? Give me a Clinton campaign slogan that will make me feel like I should trust her with the economy. “Fighting for you”?
Clinton beat Sanders. It’s over. But what keeps getting missed is that Sanders should not even have been in the game against Clinton. He’s actually a pretty weak candidate in many ways, as pandora points out, because he doesn’t get social issues and his appeal outside white voters is pathetic for a Democrat. Yet he managed to draw blood and make it look like a horse race. That’s the damage done to Clinton; she should have crushed him like a bug by Super Tuesday. The fact that he was virtually on funding parity with her throughout the whole primary season should tell you the truth: if rank and file individual Democrats were willing to spend nearly $200 million to defeat her, she is not a strong candidate. But she’s what the Dems now have, and it’s important to remember that–like Trump–she’s never run a General Election President campaign before, either.
“No dueling here.”
Sure there is. Why should I get more worked up over the prejudices faced by rich blacks instead of poor people of any color? You chose the example, live with the consequences.
“When the GOP defunds Planned Parenthood, makes laws that forces clinics offering abortion to close they are denying reproductive access to women (and the men who love them). In essence, they are forcing women to give birth by denying access.”
These decisions are made by federal courts and state governments. Electing Clinton will have very little effect, so not the best example.
“I don’t understand why there isn’t room in the income inequality message to include racial and gender inequality.”
There is no reason it can’t be included, and if Sanders had included it he might have won despite his clear personality defects.
The only way federal government can affect income inequality is to change the tax code so that a greater burden falls on the better off. The only way it can affect racial and gender inequality is to pass laws that will make biased behavior legally actionable. I believe the the former would benefit the entire lower and middle classes. As a political matter, I think it’s preferable to appeal to everyone’s ultimate benefit than to leave out the people (white men) who don’t see themselves being helped by equalizing pay. Republicans win white men, but even in the midterms 36 percent of them voted for Democrats. Alienate more of them and you’ll have a voting bloc that will rival the Democratic advantage among HIspanics.
“You seem to think this isn’t an important (wrong word?) issue to include… or that we’d get to that eventually and that some people need to wait?”
There’s no reason it can’t be both. But I believe it’s easier to get people to vote in their self-interest than to do the right thing.
@SN: Have you read that New York Times article? Clinton seems more willing than Trump to put boots on the ground, while he seems to indicate a preference for bombing and covert ops. Do you think that will play into the general?
@anonymous Nope. Both are war hawks. It’s a wash, and nobody cares because both of them will give head to defense contractors for either 4 or 8 years as willingly as Lockheed Martin would like.
Your summation:
“There’s no reason it can’t be both. But I believe it’s easier to get people to vote in their self-interest than to do the right thing.”
The self-interest of white people? Is that what we’re talking about?
And I’ll live by my perfect example that demonstrates that fixing income inequality doesn’t make everything equal. Which was my point. It wasn’t a comparison.
As far as the war comments… I don’t own a crystal ball as to what people are going to do in the future. (And other than the Iraq war, didn’t Bernie support/vote for funding basically all other military action/intervention?)
“I don’t understand why there isn’t room in the income inequality message to include racial and gender inequality.”
There is. And it has. It has been frustrating providing proof of that and have it ignored. There was some fixation on individual commenters who expressed their own personal interests as if that was the entire platform, and that’s a shame that so much time was spent explaining and re-explaining, that no actual discussion was had.
However, the income message and push are dead now. It wont be addressed, or will be addressed poorly, and in a way that doesn’t change much. Aflutent liberals who benefit from the current system will think all is well.
BUt as far as fixing it all at once…. nothing can do that. I’ll pose this question. If you are a woman making 23k/yr and a man in the same position is making 26k in an identical position, with identical qualification and identical time on the job….. (i will say right now that is wrong) …… would you rather make 26….. OR .. and this speaks the the income gap… make 30 and have him make 34? These are all numbers pulled out of thin air, but it is the center of the issue for me. Both those raised generate more tax revenue, more funding schools and help everyone. The other way…. making sure women and men of all shades make the same low, low wages, only help the rich.
There are very few jobs where you can make an apples-to-apples comparison of incomes.
Child care is definitely an economic issue. Access to child care is a key enabler for women to work and increase their earnings, and should be one of the first things we do. If you support subsidized child care, you are a democratic socialist, comrade.
“But as far as fixing it all at once…. nothing can do that.”
I’ve been saying that for some time now. I guess pragmatism is acceptable after all. Who would have thought?
That’s why you pick the battles you can win.
^ I realize that. Jobs that are dominated by women … teachers, nurses, social workers… pay less than male-dominated jobs.
That is an economic issue that has gender ramifications. You fix that economic issue and you begin to address a gender issue…. also, you pay people, regardless of gender, who deserve to earn more, because their job is more important than most. You can pass all the laws you want saying middle-managers have to have equal pay (if they are identical in all things but chromosomes, they should)… it still means that most women will be working demanding jobs, not earning enough to support a family.
“I don’t own a crystal ball as to what people are going to do in the future.”
Which is why I provided a link to a long story about her foreign policy positions in the past. They generally provide some guide to future behavior. And virtually everything you say about the future is based on your beliefs about what they will do in the future.
This should be clear by now. Dave the Independent is supporting HIllary. Charles Koch is supporting HIllary. Hillary is quite acceptable to a large number of Republicans. Hence, she is the best Republican in the race.
Sorry, Dave the Intellectual won’t be able to understand the reasoning there, but everyone else should be able to make it out OK.
Whats the matter, Dave? Not willing to say whether you’ll go to war for oil or not? I maintain you already said you will. You claim my reasoning is off. How?
@Ben: As an affluent liberal who benefits from the current system, I nevertheless think all is not well.
I’m trying to figure out why, when addressing income inequality, we can’t say “We will create a level playing field by implementing equal pay for equal work while we are addressing income inequality.”
Instead, I keep hearing about incrementalism – which I thought was a no-no.
And if we’re going to predict the future based on support for military action then why wasn’t Bernie’s support of military intervention cause for concern? Why apply that standard to only one candidate?
@anonymous That’s quite a leap you’ve taken with Dave’s comments.
” I keep hearing about incrementalism – which I thought was a no-no.”
Where did you get that idea? It is better to put another drop in the bucket than to punch a hole in it. But it is even better to turn the spigot on full blast.
Gee, it looks like the women here think their point of view isn’t being heard. That’s a new one.
Add me to the list. I was completely on the fence, going in. I didn’t like Hillary, I did like Bernie. I live in one of the ED’s that were majority Bernie. So I was a really likely Bernie voter, and he LOST me. He lost me by sounding like a professor who talks about his pet stuff, no matter what class he’s teaching. He lost me by having a team that made stupid remarks about the unimportance of delegate numbers. He lost me by enfranchising young idiot white men of my acquaintance to make direct attacks on people who didn’t share their views…and who announced that they’d rather vote for Trump than that corporate (expression for women whose sexual behavior falls outside whatever rules a man wishes to apply) Hillary. He lost me by ignoring the lives of ACTUAL people who suffer from inequality, because they’re black, or female, or lesbian, or all three, because the complicated circumstances of their lives aren’t solely about a wage increase at the bottom.
And, parenthetically, why the emphasis on the “minimum” wage, anyway? We sold a generation of people a bill of goods about improving their lives through college, and what we mostly created was enormous debt from which they could never realistically escape. The idea was that after you graduated you wouldn’t be WORKING for minimum wage, wasn’t it? My first full-time job paid $3.05 an hour. I was scraping by. My son’s job pays almost four times that. He’s scraping by. It’s not the number…it’s the scraping by we need to address.
So you can raise the minimum wage to $15, or $20, or $100 an hour… you can extend free public education by 4 years or 40. Until you are actually reaching into the guts of racism, sexism, and the distribution of money upward, the game is rigged for… the success of the successful. By social Darwinism.
All Bernie needed to do was notice that. I really waited to hear him say it. I wanted to hear him say it. I wanted him to say, “South, I’m sorry I dismissed you. Cities, I’m sorry I ignored you. Women, I know you don’t have much money to donate, and less time to come to my rallies, but I’m listening to you, and as your president, I will advocate my hardest for you.”
I think he probably feels all that. But he needed to center it more.
Brooke… maybe some of your neighbors can explain why a $15 minimum wage is important. Raising the minimum raises hourly wages at all levels, and when more hourly workers have disposable income, they then have demand for goods and services produced by higher income professional workers.
As Steve Newton pointed out last night, Sanders was not a good candidate. He could easily have said the things that Brooke, Pandora and Cassandra wanted to hear and did not, which demonstrates that he would probably be a poor candidate in the general election. He did not do enough to win, but that’s no surprise given that the campaign’s original intent was bringing his single issue to the fore.
The split in the Democratic Party isn’t over the candidates. It’s about how much of the effort of “working within the system” goes to maintaining the system, and how little it’s possible to change when you’re focused on “opposing Republicans,” a phrase that’s all over Clinton’s web pages on issues.
Republicans aren’t the only opponents to progressive policies. On today’s open thread I posted a link to the story about House Democrats who are protecting Big Pharma. Those are the down-ticket people some here want progressives to support.
Hillary Clinton’s squishy progressivism is shared by the substantial majority of Democratic office-holders. That’s why there will be no progressive revolution. The people are ready, their elected officials are not.
Someone here actually wrote, without irony, that Democrats must work with corporations to get the donations they need to compete. That’s what got us to this point in the first place.
I agree, Brooke. And I’m weary of being told “if I was just more informed” I’d… know better?
See, Brooke? Go speak with your more informed neighbors.
@pandora… Brooke asked the question and it was answered. Do you have a problem with that?
“Why the emphasis on the minimum wage anyway?”
Because studies have shown that as the minimum wage rises, all other wages rise as well.
What’s interesting about Brooke’s comment is that she is NOT saying she wants a pragmatist. She is idealistic but still determined Clinton is the better candidate. Maybe that’s a false dichotomy.
@puck: Are you a man? Then yes, she has a problem with that. There’s only “mansplaining,” as if no woman ever said anything condescending.
Maybe I should choose a woman’s name as a handle, then see what reaction I get for the same analyses. You know, like those experiments where they submit resumes with white-sounding and black-sounding names.
“Republicans aren’t the only opponents to progressive policies. On today’s open thread I posted a link to the story about House Democrats who are protecting Big Pharma. Those are the down-ticket people some here want progressives to support.”
I saw that as well. House Dems are going against a Democratic President in order to prop up big pharma. When I viciously go after the “establishment DNC” THAT is what I’m attacking.
“Equal pay for equal work” is where I question things. You have whole industries that make way less than they should that are mostly filled by women. Whether that is undervaluing teachers, or undervaluing women, I dont know. It’s probably both. You cant just look at the .70 on the dollar and assume everyone has the same job. That is an oversimplification. It also doesnt do anything to address actual income disparities.
The split in the Democratic Party isn’t over the candidates. It’s about how much of the effort of “working within the system” goes to maintaining the system, and how little it’s possible to change when you’re focused on “opposing Republicans,”
I disagree with this. “Opposing Republicans” is only meaningful in a small set of circumstances in a party that currently (over)values working across the aisle.
The problem within the Dem and the Rep party is that there are a bunch of folks who are getting quite woke to the idea that their government no longer works for them — meaning that their Party doesn’t, either. I think that core Bernie and core Trump voters are flip sides of the same coin — except that the Trump voters are still motivated by Lee Atwater rhetoric. Government has gotten away from regular people (it has) and it is easy to respond to someone who will promise to put you back in charge again (as it should be).
Puck, I picked my example to show how raising the minimum wage does nothing to address income inequality. It can improve conditions in the very short term, but does not, by itself, create more buying power, because raises in the minimum wage are accompanied by raises in the costs of goods and services. So, when I made $3.05 an hour, my monthly rent was approximately $300, and when my son makes about $10 an hour, rents run at about $1000 a month, so conditions don’t change. Now, if I had made a consistent $10 an hour when prices were lower, my personal condition would have improved, and I’d have probably wanted to vote for that, but overall conditions haven’t improved, despite increases in the minimum wage.
Just as world hunger isn’t the result of insufficient world food supply, but of a failure to distribute the food we, collectively, have, our economic problems are rooted, I believe, in the discriminatory conditions of the society generally, and not in the detail numbers of that wage.
Hillary “believes” the government should negotiate drug prices. Drug price negotiation was also an Obama campaign promise in 2008. Do you think we are being played?
“Raises in the minimum wage are accompanied by raises in the costs of goods and services.”
False to a large degree, because while increasing wages will increase inflationary pressure, the increases are not equivalent. You can find studies that find whatever you like — the Chamber of Commerce funds lots of research that discovers (surprise!) such increases are ruinous — but if you look at history you will find no such pattern. Prices are dictated by the market. Econ 101. Also, the minimum wage increases you mention have not kept pace with even our minimal rate of inflation over the past 30 years. Look it up.
So your position is based on faulty data.
When I read through the comments here I realize why I was uncomfortable supporting Bernie. Thanks.
When I read your comments I realize why Sanders wasn’t a Democrat.
“So, when I made $3.05 an hour, my monthly rent was approximately $300, and when my son makes about $10 an hour, rents run at about $1000 a month, so conditions don’t change.”
Not true. When you made $3.05 we were in what was known as an inflationary wage price spiral, where prices go up to meet wages, and then wages go up again, and so forth in a spiral. I lived through those times too.
But now new forces in the economy (most installed by the hand of the 1%) have killed wage inflation dead, although commodity inflation continues. Rents are not a good yardstick because they have their own price drivers different from other goods.
When I read your comments I realize why Sanders wasn’t a Democrat.
“The self-interest of white people? Is that what we’re talking about?”
The self-interest of everyone. Most people vote out of self-interest. Is this idea unfamiliar to you?
“And I’ll live by my perfect example that demonstrates that fixing income inequality doesn’t make everything equal. Which was my point. It wasn’t a comparison.”
No, I introduced the comparison, because I found your sympathy for the rich blacks suffering under racism uncompelling. We live in a racist country, and no election will ever fix it. So I’d rather help the poor because they’re poor than the black because they’re black. My priority would help poor white people people, yours would help rich black people. I can live with my choice.
But is “making everything equal” really a worthy goal? If we’re all equally miserable then we’re all good?
One yardstick of historical buying power – the terms of car loans. In my youth car loans were two years. Now there are seven year car loans to make the monthly payments affordable.
“No, I introduced the comparison, because I found your sympathy for the rich blacks suffering under racism uncompelling. We live in a racist country, and no election will ever fix it. So I’d rather help the poor because they’re poor than the black because they’re black. My priority would help poor white people people, yours would help rich black people.”
Yeah, so not what I said. Whatever.
Here’s what I’m hearing: I should vote based on your issues and priorities as a white man and not vote in my self interest.
I completely agree, puck, that there are forces of various kinds at work, and the buying power of my household, for the last 20 years, has, as statistics show for most people, declined. The gap has increased exponentially during the whole of my adult lifetime. I just dont think that a raise in the minimum wage of a specific number is a do or die issue.
Valuable, certainly. Essential? I think there could be other things that increase the general welfare more effectively. Again, using my son as an example, his corporation gave a wage increase to every hourly job category except his, a couple of years ago, making his minor wage advantage disappear. The result of that was that people in his skilled job fled to easier ones, in droves. Why have responsibility and training, when you get paid the same for something easier? People have varieties of motivations, as well as of skills.
Probably a discussion outside the range of this comment area, but thank you for having had it, this morning.
“The problem within the Dem and the Rep party is that there are a bunch of folks who are getting quite woke to the idea that their government no longer works for them — meaning that their Party doesn’t, either.”
Exactly. The government is controlled by the parties.
“When I read through the comments here I realize why I was uncomfortable supporting Bernie. Thanks.”
But you continue to use/believe arguments that Sanders doenst value _______ when there is overwhelmingly clear evidence to the contrary. Some of his voters might feel that way, but I’d be willing to bet he would tell them they are wrong.
His “single issue” only appears that way because for a while…. before Clinton started to realize she needed to adopt those platforms (and to her credit, she has) He was the only one talking about it.
I understand and totally accept the point you made about your taxes going up. You mentioned how much it would be, and that’s insane. It also gives some insight into where you stand on the economic spectrum. You have said COUNTLESS times that you are fine with paying more so others could have better lives. That is what makes you a liberal and a progressive. However…. this is a situation where you have some degree of privilege over others. Things that matter to you as a woman might be different for a woman in a more unstable socio-economic situation. No one important (commenters on blogs aren’t important… me included) ever said anything about social issues not mattering. They have been getting a lot of attention the past few decades…. good and bad (although the long arc is trending toward equality)..
Economically however, it has been a steady string of losses for 30 years. Goodness, I just want acknowledgement of that.