HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » When I'm Mobile

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 12:50 PM

When I'm Mobile

Systems are funny things. As everyone who has had the misfortune of reading my contributions here knows, I often compare various systems to a mobile hanging over an infant’s crib.The mobile’s objective is to maintain balance. Thus, if one piece moves, several others must adjust their position to maintain the balance. If a new piece is added to the mobile, all the other pieces must adjust, and a new balance be found.

Let’s consider some potential examples of fall shifting, as the November election approaches. Let’s say that Trump does not win the republican nomination. That leaves about 30% of the republicans angry. If, in this circumstance, Bernie Sanders is the Democratic candidate, he will get about half of those Trumps supporters, because they hold Washington in utter contempt. If Hillary is the Democratic candidate, she will not get any of the Trump supporters’ votes.

Now, let’s consider another possibility. Suppose that Trump is the republican nominee. If Bernie is the Democratic nominee, he will defeat Trump. If Hillary is the Democratic candidate, that could be a very closely contested election ….unless certain things shift.

As always, I’ll take a second to clearly identify my position. I support Bernie Sanders. Still, I have been clear that I will support the Democratic Party’s nominee in November. More, I will encourage my family, friends, and associates to do the same. However, because the majority of the people I hang with are either progressives in the Democratic Party or Democratic Left, I do not believe many will vote for any Democratic nominee other than Senator Sanders.

Indeed, I have attempted to communicate that to my friends who are supporting Hillary, both here on the internet, and in “real life.” For a variety of reasons -- and it doesn’t matter if one believes them to be valid or not -- it is evident that just as she has many people who support her, Ms. Clinton has high negatives. Obviously, she received a lot of negative attention from bat-shit crazy republicans in the 1990s. But it is equally obvious that this is distinct from the reasons why, over the past 16 years, lots of progressives have come to dislike her. And it would be very difficult to convince people who do not trust Hillary, who view her as part of Wall Street, to still vote for her.

I do not believe that those people who are running the Clinton campaign are stupid. They know that besides those who definitely support her candidacy, they will require another segment of the voting public to win. They must recognize that the old, “you have no where else to go” will not work in 2016. It’s not that any meaningful number of Sanders’s supporters would vote for Trump. That won’t happen. Rather, they will either cast a “third party” protest vote, or not vote at all.

Instead, it appears to me that the Clinton campaign is banking on something similar to what worked for Nixon and Reagan: getting votes from the opposition party. Many of us here recall Nixon’s “the Silent Majority,” or his southern strategy, and the “Reagan democrats.” And, seriously, if the November contest features Clinton vs. Trump, who will the Bush family be supporting? Who will Henry Kissinger endorse? Who will John McCain favor? And who will Goldman Sachs support?

I think that this model explains a lot of the curious features that we see today. The hostility and utter contempt that Team Clinton shows daily for the Sanders movement does not make sense in any other context. Two things have threatened the balance of the system: on the left, the Sanders movement, and on the right, the Donald Trumpsters. Hence, those with the most to lose hanging in the balance will tend to reinforce one another.

Now, whenever someone talks like I am here, and points out some things that the Clinton campaign prefers to ignore, there will be a few general responses. The first, of course, is to simply ignore it. Yet, as John Lennon noted, a conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words. Others, at the grass roots level, will simply say, “No, that’s incorrect” …..for they are largely unaware of the true nature of that mobile. Most of them would not consciously seek to promote a program that appeals more to republicans, than actual Democrats. And those at the upper levels of the Clinton campaign view it as holding promise that as President, Hillary Clinton could work effectively with republicans.

Again, these are the types of things that would make it very hard for a person like me to get friends and associates to vote for Hillary if she is the Democratic Party’s nominee, especially if she is competing against Donald Trump. It deflates the argument that there are really important differences between the two parties, at the top levels. If it was Clinton vs. Cruz, I could use the US Supreme Court for leverage. But that argument is far less compelling if it’s Hillary vs. Trump.

Hence, when I think about why the Clinton campaign treats the Sanders movement the way it does, I find that the idea that they are betting on Clinton vs. Trump in November -- with the republican machine quietly backing Hillary, makes the most sense. I find that unacceptable.

Peace,
H2O Man

64 replies, 3216 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply When I'm Mobile (Original post)
H2O Man Mar 2016 OP
djean111 Mar 2016 #1
H2O Man Mar 2016 #4
LisaM Mar 2016 #29
H2O Man Mar 2016 #35
LisaM Mar 2016 #37
brooklynite Mar 2016 #26
djean111 Mar 2016 #54
malthaussen Mar 2016 #58
yourpaljoey Mar 2016 #52
antigop Mar 2016 #2
H2O Man Mar 2016 #5
antigop Mar 2016 #7
MADem Mar 2016 #3
H2O Man Mar 2016 #8
MADem Mar 2016 #53
antigop Mar 2016 #6
H2O Man Mar 2016 #13
antigop Mar 2016 #18
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #14
JaneyVee Mar 2016 #9
H2O Man Mar 2016 #15
Jester Messiah Mar 2016 #10
H2O Man Mar 2016 #16
tk2kewl Mar 2016 #11
H2O Man Mar 2016 #19
tk2kewl Mar 2016 #21
H2O Man Mar 2016 #25
Zorra Mar 2016 #12
H2O Man Mar 2016 #23
mmonk Mar 2016 #28
Zorra Mar 2016 #30
sabrina 1 Mar 2016 #17
antigop Mar 2016 #20
H2O Man Mar 2016 #31
KoKo Mar 2016 #48
mmonk Mar 2016 #22
H2O Man Mar 2016 #32
bigtree Mar 2016 #24
antigop Mar 2016 #27
bigtree Mar 2016 #36
antigop Mar 2016 #40
bigtree Mar 2016 #42
antigop Mar 2016 #43
bigtree Mar 2016 #44
antigop Mar 2016 #46
H2O Man Mar 2016 #47
H2O Man Mar 2016 #33
bigtree Mar 2016 #39
H2O Man Mar 2016 #49
bigtree Mar 2016 #50
malthaussen Mar 2016 #60
antigop Mar 2016 #41
malthaussen Mar 2016 #61
antigop Mar 2016 #34
H2O Man Mar 2016 #55
antigop Mar 2016 #57
longship Mar 2016 #38
Sensitive soul Mar 2016 #45
bobthedrummer Mar 2016 #51
H2O Man Mar 2016 #56
malthaussen Mar 2016 #59
LiberalLovinLug Mar 2016 #64
Bubzer Mar 2016 #62
Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #63

Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 12:58 PM

1. As I have posted elsewhere, this morning my grandson told me that he is looking forward to

 

going with me to the early voting location (library) here in Florida, and will proudly cast his first vote ever for Bernie.

He added that if Bernie does not get the nomination, he will not vote for Hillary, she represents the same stuff that got us in such a mess, and the best I can expect from him is that he does not actually vote for Trump.

His skin is in the game here. He and his friends are the people who would be sent to war, who will be saddled with huge tuition loans and have trouble finding a job, and then if they find a job, trouble buying a house due to debt. That is what Hillary represents to them. The DNC owns this - they cannot just shove their hand-picked candidate down everybody's throat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:07 PM

4. Right.

I think that holds true for a significant percentage of young adults. They want to vote for change, not more of the same. It is very difficult to convince them that it is in their best interest to vote for a person that they do not trust. Yet, the Clinton campaign (not the candidate herself) is clearly quite comfortable with young adults sitting this election out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:09 PM

29. Okay.....I cast my first vote for President (in the primary) for Teddy Kennedy

I then had to vote for Jimmy Carter in the Presidential Election. Of course, Carter has been shown to be one of our greatest public servants ever, and a lot of it came after he was President. I was bitterly disappointed at the time, but I didn't withhold my vote in the general and I didn't let it discourage me from politics forever. I also did campaign work on the 1980 election, and let me just say that most of my friends who now think that Jimmy Carter walks on water did not - some of them didn't even vote in 1980. It's for the long haul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #29)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:34 PM

35. I like and respect Jimmy Carter.

I voted for him twice in presidential elections. But I do not think that he was a great president. He had lots of good qualities as an individual, but was not consistently effective as a national politician. However, he ranks as the greatest ex-president, in my opinion.

Teddy Kennedy was truly a great US Senator. He ranks very high among the Senate's greatest ever ....and that's saying something. Obviously, he would have been a better president than Ronald Reagan. But, overall, I'm glad that his career was in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #35)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:57 PM

37. I don't think the Clinton campaign is okay with young people sitting the election out

I think she would dearly love to find a way to get her message across to younger voters. I also don't think Hillary is depending on a crossover vote. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

I will say that I am a little sick of having to coddle younger voters. I think it's a fickle group. They have what I term a crowdfunding mentality, they love to gather for a cause, but then they move on almost immediately to the next thing (I see this all the time with people trying to fundraise for someone who needs medicine, or help with rent, etc.). Obviously, everyone paying an extra $5 per month (or week, or year) each in taxes would solve many, many issues, but that's not as much fun as patting yourself on the back for paying for someone's one-time need. Sure, I'm middle aged, I can gripe about younger people, but I recall exactly zero people trying to nurse me along through election disappointments and trying to encourage me to stay in the system because my first candidate lost.

I think Teddy might have been a more effective president than Carter - no October surprise! And of course, John Anderson pulled a ton of votes away from Carter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:04 PM

26. And you told him...

..."I admire you for your principles, but the reality is that either the Democratic or Republican candidate will win the Election, The Republican would be far worse, and Florida is a pivotal swing State, so not voting isn't a responsible option".

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #26)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 06:02 PM

54. The usual formulaic bromides are not going to work this time, methinks.

 

Hey, did you hear the one about Debbie Wasserman-DINO teaming up with the GOP to basically protect payday lenders from Liz Warren? Pretty funny, eh?

My grandson did. He doesn't see why he would think that Hillary won't work with the GOP to do this kind of thing, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #26)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 11:56 AM

58. Damage control has no romance.

It is to be hoped that reasonable people, grouse though they may when a question is hypothetical, will act responsibly at crunch time. But is it really a hope one should build expectations upon? And if one is threatening to act irresponsibly, will shaking a finger and telling them to grow up have a positive result? Or does it just allow the rebuker to bathe in the glow of their own virtue?

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:36 PM

52. I find pretty much zero Sanders voters who will switch to Hillary

They want Bernie because they have seen the light.
No more dark side.
I hope team Hillary has figured this out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 12:58 PM

2. I wish I could rec this post a million times. That was absolutely spot on. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:10 PM

5. Oh, thanks!

I, too, wish that you could recommend the OP a million times! (grin)

It focuses on something that I suspect is uncomfortable for many good people -- including many of the supporters of each of our party's candidates -- to really think about. And for that reason, I definitely appreciate your support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:16 PM

7. let me just tell you a little story from my corner of the world...

I live in a VERY RED area.

Overhead at the coffee shop, Republicans talking:

"Well, if it's between Trump and Clinton, Clinton is the lesser of two evils."

Anecdotal, I know.

eta: This is what the argument will be. Watch for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:00 PM

3. Sanders has not been vetted. Don't be so sure that, once America gets to know him and his

long and unusual background and opinions, that they would warm to him. Many would not.

The GOP would turn him into Fidel Junior (and not in a good way, either) which would turn off a huge percentage (or should I say a Yuuuuuuuuge percentage) of the population.

He's an unknown quantity. I think the more people get to know him, the more problems they find with his POV, attitudes, and stances. The gun thing alone--with another school shooting that barely made a blip yesterday--is problematic amongst Democrats, for example. It is odd that a guy who has spent a quarter century on the Hill (much longer than Clinton did) has so few super delegates in his corner. Why aren't his own peers backing him up?

That said, I don't think it'll be an issue for much longer, but time will tell.

As for the "Republican machine," most reports I've seen from them prefer Sanders--the weaker candidate, in their view--as the standard bearer.

http://atr.rollcall.com/gop-will-use-bernie-sanders-democrats/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:18 PM

8. Interesting.

I respectfully disagree, of course. Rather than attempting to address each item I disagree with, I'll focus on one. I think it will serve to illustrate what I see as contradictions in your opinion. At the same time, I hope it will also show respect for your opinion.

On one hand, you suggest that people don't really know who Bernie Sanders is. Sad to say that I have to agree that this is frequently the case. However, all indications are that as people get to know him, he gains substantial support.

On the other hand, you note that the republicans would attempt to create a false image of who Bernie actually is. Again, I agree with that. However, that is exactly what we would want them to do, should Bernie be the nominee. That would make our task that much easier.

Again, while our opinions differ, I continue to hold you in high regards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:56 PM

53. Those guys took a war hero--John Kerry--and swift boated the hell out of him.

There's no way that anyone can honestly claim that running a swiftboat up and down the rivers of Vietnam was a walk in the park--it was terrifying, tough duty. Yet a bunch of GOP chickenhawks managed to tear him to shreds. They don't care about accuracy--they don't care about "truth." They just care about selling a story, "catapulting the propaganda," and winning at all costs. I truly think Sanders would be chewed up and spit out. He's got some hardball players on his staff (Weaver and Devine, esp.) but they're amateurs compared to what the GOP can and would throw at him.

Also, it looks like Sanders has pretty much peaked in terms of his outreach. He's gotten a lot of attention in the media of late, and he has pretty much solidified his cadre of supporters. He's not growing his brand, though. He's got youth voters, white voters, and male voters, but I don't see him making substantial inroads into the black or over 65 communities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:13 PM

6. here's proof that you are correct...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/clinton-allies-preparing-for-trump-nomination-fall-campaign/2016/02/28/81cac756-de48-11e5-8c00-8aa03741dced_story.html

Emboldened by her South Carolina landslide, Hillary Clinton is shifting her focus to Republican front-runner Donald Trump as her party seeks consensus on the best ways to challenge the billionaire’s unpredictable nature in a general election.

As Clinton enters the series of Super Tuesday contests this week, allies of the former secretary of state, unaffiliated Democratic strategists and the national party are stockpiling potential ammunition about Trump, reviewing reams of court filings, requesting information about his business dealings from state governments and conducting new polls to test lines of attack.

Among the likely options: Questioning Trump’s qualifications and temperament to be president, scrutinizing his business practices and bankruptcy filings, and re-airing his inflammatory statements about women and minorities who will be central to the Democrats’ efforts in November.



eta: We're not even through Super Tuesday and she's already shifted her focus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:36 PM

13. Thanks!

A big part of this -- the Clinton campaign's attempt to convince the public that it's now "Clinton vs Trump" -- is classic "perception management." And that is a fascinating topic, one that we need to discuss in greater detail here on DU. It is central to machine politics/ rule.

Too frequently, political campaigns hire the same corporations that specialize in perception management, that both President Bushes used to convince Americans that our nation was at great risk, and needed to invade Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #13)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:50 PM

18. you are correct...it's "perception management". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:37 PM

14. A Republican revolt over Trump has started, Hillary wants to fill the void to the right

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271044-mcconnell-preps-senators-to-run-against-trump

McConnell has reportedly advised Republicans that they can run ads against Trump to create separation from the polarizing GOP frontrunner if they believe it can help their reelection efforts.

The majority leader is also preparing to pitch the Senate as a necessary check to an inevitable Hillary Clinton presidency if Trump is the GOP's nominee, according to the Times.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-29/ben-sasse-vows-to-oppose-trump-in-november

<>A freshman lawmaker has become the first sitting senator to break with the GOP line of supporting the Republican presidential nominee, even if that means voting for Donald Trump.

Just ahead of Super Tuesday and amid establishment party fears Trump could build an insurmountable lead in his march toward the nomination, Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse has published a blistering open letter explaining his decision not to vote for the billionaire business mogul should he be the party's pick in November.

Sasse, who has shown a propensity for speaking uncomfortable truths about his party, said he would look to find a conservative third option if Trump faces off with Democrat and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the general election.>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:19 PM

9. Despite overwhelming evidence otherwise...

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:38 PM

15. Thank you.

These are exactly the things I was speaking of. I appreciate your posting them here!

The republican establishment isn't going to embrace Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:25 PM

10. Agreed 100%. Unacceptable. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:39 PM

16. Thank you.

I'm confident that you, too, use the word "unacceptable" in an attempt to be polite. I can thinkof a few other words that are perhaps more accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:28 PM

11. what do you think of Trump's chances in NY?

 

do you think an abstention, protest vote or a vote of conscience by Bernie supporters can actually result in a Trump win? What about if the Republican is Cruz or Rubio?

I also wonder what happens to the mobile if Bloomberg gets in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:51 PM

19. Good questions.

It's interesting -- and important -- to consider each individual state in the context of a general election. A candidate has to put together enough victories in individual states to win the presidency -- unless, of course, we consider George W. Bush in 2000. His candidacy had to count on individual Supreme Court injustices to select him.

NYS has always played an important role. It generally has gone for the Democratic candidate, though not always. If the election is Clinton vs Trump, it would almost certainly benefit Clinton in New York.

I believe that Bloomberg would only enter if he believed the general election would be Sanders vs Trump. This, of course, would be an attempt to stabilize the mobile for billionaires.

Perhaps more significant will be if anything unexpected erupts, either in the domestic financial context, or in, say, the Middle East. There appears -- at least to me -- to be a widespread belief that things are going to run relatively smoothly until November. I suppose that could be the case, but I kind of doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:53 PM

21. but do you think Clinton is immune to a defection from the democratic left in NY?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:59 PM

25. No, I don't.

However, I think that her campaign believes that they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:28 PM

12. A different and interesting perspective. Thanks.

Last edited Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

If Bernie doesn't win, "I'm goin' mobile". Way down south.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:58 PM

23. Thanks, Zorra.

I think that the OP goes a long way in explaining why the Clinton campaign (I'm not saying Hillary, herself) has gone beyond the old "but you have nowhere else to go" attitude, to the, "fuck you, we don't need you" manner in which they now behave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:06 PM

28. +1

It lays the whole thing bare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:11 PM

30. Yes. They've totally alienated me beyond my capacity to bear.

They have led me to suspect that they don't really care if Clinton or a Republican wins the GE, as long as Bernie Sanders, or some other democrat with integrity, does not become our next POTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:44 PM

17. I find it unacceptable also. Great OP as usual H2O Man. This is why the Dem Party must

get behind Bernie Sanders IF they want to win, which I'm increasingly doubtful about:



She simply won't win the GE. The biggest voting bloc in the country right now is the Independent vote with over 42% of registered voters.

Most of them will NOT vote for an Establishment Candidate, they will vote for Bernie. In fact that was his thinking when he entered the race, to go after that demographic AND the even larger, sadly, Non Voter demographic. We have been signiing up those non voters for Bernie. They will NOT vote for Hillary.

So any hope that Bernie's growing army of supporters will transfer to Hillary if the DNC hands her the nomination, that isn't going to happen because most of his support is not from the now shrinking Dem base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:53 PM

20. you are correct. "Most of them will NOT vote for an Establishment Candidate."

That's why they were behind Bernie to begin with. He doesn't represent the establishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:11 PM

31. Thanks!

One of the realities that is too often overlooked is the establishment -- including the Democratic Party's and the republican's -- were intent upon having 2016's presidential election being Clinton vs Bush. In their minds, the public would view this as the classic definition of American politics .....another Ali vs Frazier type of super fight.

But that weak shit didn't go over well. The American public wants change. And, without commenting upon the strengths and weaknesses of either establishment candidate, another Clinton vs Bush contest misses the mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:05 PM

48. ...! They didn't see the Revolution coming...and yet

the DNC laid it out so that Hillary would run with two weak candidates (not counting on Bernie coming in) which she could knock out early on and then the path would be clear sailing. That is what is so annoying and disappointing. But, the audacity of the plan and the fixing of path forward for her backfired.

BTW: Repubs might have some problems with their endorsements when you have stalwart Alabama Repub Jeff Sessions coming out against the TPP and talking about Oligarchs. This is amusing.

----------------



Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama endorsed Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's campaign on Sunday.
Feb. 28, 2016, 5:38 PM 221,962 188

Trump announced the endorsement alongside Sessions at a massive campaign rally in Madison, Alabama.
Sessions, known for his hard-line stance against illegal immigration, is popular in some conservative circles.

----------snip

The Trump campaign emailed reporters the following statement hailing Sessions' endorsement:

Today Donald J. Trump received the endorsement of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. Senator Sessions is widely recognized as the nation's most highly respected official on the issue of illegal immigration.

Mr. Trump stated, "I am deeply honored to have the endorsement of Senator Jeff Sessions, leader of congressional conservatives. He has been called the Senate's indispensable man and the gold standard. He led the fight against the Gang of Eight, against Obama's trade deal, against Obama's judges, and for American sovereignty. He has stood up to special interests as few have. There is no more respected man in Congress and we are closely aligned on many issues, including trade and illegal immigration, and I am proud to consider Jeff Sessions an advisor, friend and ally."

Mr. Trump and Senator Sessions surprised the massive crowd at the frontrunner's Alabama rally just days before Super Tuesday Primary contest.

Senator Sessions added,"I am thrilled today to offer my endorsement of Donald J. Trump for President. This election is our last chance to save U.S. sovereignty and to end the domination of the political establishment over the interests of working Americans. Trump alone has rejected the donor class, defending America's jobs and wages from open borders, uncontrolled immigration and the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership that will cede U.S. authority to foreign powers. Trump's trade and immigration plans will revitalize our shrinking middle class, keeping jobs and wealth and income inside the United States of America. Trump understands that a nation must always place the interests of its own people first."

-----snip

"We are witnessing an incredible movement, arising from the people. The events of history have aligned to give the people this fleeting chance to bust up the oligarchy – to take back control from the 'Masters of the Universe' return it to the good and decent and patriotic citizens of the United States."

http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-sessions-donald-trump-endorses-2016-2?op=1




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:53 PM

22. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:12 PM

32. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:58 PM

24. her campaign is much more than the cynical view you present here

...and, notwithstanding your experiences with your peers, Democrats will rally behind Hillary if she wins the nomination in numbers compatible or exceeding previous contests.

Your friends and associates know well that electing a celebrated progressive is a longshot in presidential politics. An epic pout in this election is not only foolhardy, but the complaints about Hillary as a nominee against the republican candidate strain credulity.

Our task is to keep the presidency in Democratic hands. The appointments made by the president, high-level and otherwise, will result in a traditional Democratic administration. No matter who assumes the office, Clinton or Sanders, the pool of appointees will be drawn from a limited number of former Democratic pols with experience in previous administrations.

This isn't an election just about the president, but an election about the presidency. I think most Democrats realize this and will vote responsibly in the general election. Those who don't will bear responsibility for their refusal to participate, will be in a tiny minority of potential voters, and will get zero sympathy from me for sitting it out.


By the way, there is more than enough 'hostility and utter contempt' shown by 'team' Sanders toward the Clinton candidacy, and it's an amazing myopia to suggest it's one-sided. The notion that Sanders, a 25+year career D.C. politician who's votes in office are remarkably similar to Hillary's (amazingly on immigration and crime bills where he's tried to portray Hillary as hostile to those interests, yet voted IDENTICALLY), isn't looking to cull republican votes is contradicted by the Sanders campaign's own boasts about their ability to attract those crossover votes.

Indeed, in this Democratic primary, the Sanders campaign has benefited from not only crossover votes from republicans in open elections, but from a flood of unaccountable republican money spent in an effort to defeat Hillary and advance the candidate they believe will be a weaker foe.

The portrait Sanders supporters like to paint of their candidate as some heroic figure against a faux Democrat is as offensive as it is false. The idea that his following is a 'movement' and Hillary's campaign is just some craven pursuit is an insult to those who have invested the SAME progressive ideals and desires in Hillary that Sanders supporters say they hold in their presidential choice. These are two career politicians with egos a mile wide who are as determined to assume power as any politician seeking the office. No one should be under the delusion that either of these political insiders will produce something other than an establishment presidency.

If anyone is relating this contest as something other than that, they are ignoring reality and may never realize the folly of elevating Sanders in the mythical, self-serving role of an 'outsider' in this contest between two pols with decades-long associations with our national government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #24)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:06 PM

27. I know H2O Man has hit the nail on the head when... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:45 PM

36. you don't appear to know much of anything

...if you're basing your premise on my post.

It's because of the cordial relationship between us here that I feel comfortable offering an extensive rebuttal to his essays when I disagree.

I suppose, by your logic, that your response to me indicates that my own hammer has directly impacted a nail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #36)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:19 PM

40. au contraire. Some of us figured out the Clintons, the DNC, and the Dem party a long time ago. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #40)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:28 PM

42. boasting about such myopia

...behind the juvenile baiting you're doing on this thread eats away at the premise in the op of the Sanders camp under siege from 'team Clinton.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:32 PM

43. post #27. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #43)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:36 PM

44. no, you've taken your shot

...I'm not here for the baiting you're doing.

Blocked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #44)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:50 PM

46. thanks for the kick to this very important thread. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #36)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:52 PM

47. That's accurate.

I agree 100%. We've been friends for years, and that allows for good conversation -- no matter if we agree or disagree on some specific issues, we both know that we are on the same team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #24)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:27 PM

33. Interesting.

I think that the word "accurate" is far more accurate that "cynical" in defining the viewpoint expressed in the OP. Yet, I understand completely why, for you, it may appear cynical. I do understand that the Clinton campaign is not limited to the mindset that I so accurately described in the OP. I could use you as a fine example of the good people who are 100% sincere in your belief that Hillary Clinton is the very best that the Democratic Party has to offer.

Hence, I take no offense at comments such as "they are ignoring reality," which is found in your last sentence. I appreciate the irony of that sentence's providing a truly accurate example of cynical thinking. It's almost too funny.

Even on DU:GDP -- or, perhaps especially on DU:GDP -- a Clinton supporter can safely try to discount my network of "friends and associates." Still, the reality is that DU's humble H2O Man can get more members of the Democratic Left to vote for a Democratic candidate for president, than any of our community's Clinton supporters. Indeed, I dare say that I can easily get more than the top 25 DU Hillary supporters combined. Heck, I could do that with one hand tied behind my back.

This being the case, I think it is okay for people here to question why, with that being the case, does the Clinton campaign -- at the higher levels, as opposed to someone like you -- feel comfortable in not merely dismissing potential resources like myself, but take such pleasure in insulting us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #33)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:06 PM

39. look, we've had more than our share of people 'comfortable' with insulting Hillary supporters

...in the most vile and despicable manners imaginable.

I was told by one apparent supporter here that blacks 'contributed nothing' to the country and wished we would 'get what we deserved' in voting for Hillary. Here's the post (copied before the ban):

Hebet:

" At this point, I'm tired of blacks expecting people to kiss their ass.

In return for their vote. Sorry, you're just not that important. You do not contribute enough to America to be worthy of such special treatment. In fact, the truth is we'd all just be better off without you. You are a burden we're all tired of bearing.

I don't care anymore. Fuck you and your race."


That's not, by any means the full extent of the nonsense. Making like that kind of derision is limited to Hillary supporters is, indeed, a myopic view of this election. ANY Hillary supporter here can attest to that.

If I had offered Hillary as 'the very best that the Democratic Party has to offer,' I suppose I'd be accountable for that. I have not made that assertion. You know well that she's my second choice in this primary, limited by the choices voters made in Iowa. I just happen to disbelieve the premise of the Sanders campaign, and have little faith in the candidate, himself. Hillary, representing the most viable alternative, gets my support here, and very likely my vote when my state's primary comes around.

I will say that my support for her here at DU evolved out of my utter disdain for the vindictive, backbiting, navel-gazing efforts from a majority of Sanders' DU supporters. You complain about supporters alienating people from backing Clinton? I think I've personally experienced the worst of abuses from the Sanders contingent here. So, I'm not buying the premise that there's something uniquely alienating about the Clinton campaign.

If you think what I wrote is an 'insult' to you, I apologize. It wasn't meant to be. But I take strong exception to the notion that Sanders folks are the only ones deserving consideration. I've taken on more than my share of despicable comments and derogatory commentary on my person, all, I suppose, in defense of this politician. I just can't take the one-sided view seriously, not when I've experienced the converse, firsthand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #39)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:22 PM

49. Oh, I didn't think

that you were trying to insult me. Nor did you unintentionally do so. I was talking about the implied feelings about others who support the revolution.

And I absolutely agree that a few Sanders supporters say crude things here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #49)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:23 PM

50. alright then, my friend

...thanks for the opportunity to discuss this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #49)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:21 PM

60. So do I, unfortunately.

Of late, I have seen some really uncalled-for shit from Sanders supporters in a few threads, which naturally lead me to wonder what I haven't seen. It's probably safe to say that frustration is creating anger on both sides, in some instances.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #33)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:20 PM

41. Wow, struck a nerve, didn't you? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:27 PM

61. I hope you're right...

... at least, insofar as Sanders supporters biting the bullet if it becomes necessary and voting for Mrs Clinton. I am not so sanguine about it as you appear to be, and I worry that by alienating too many voters, her supporters (saving your presence) will create an abyss of apathy that will lose the election.

But the "If you don't act responsibly, you get what you deserve" attitude is not going to help, is it? Consider the moran who told you he was "tired of coddling blacks," how is that different from "I'm tired of coddling millennials," or "If you pout, I have no sympathy for you?" Tactically, that seems like a bad way to solicit votes.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:28 PM

34. more proof

Check out this opinion piece from the Dallas Morning News originally dated 2/19

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20160219-chris-bell-wake-up-texas-democrats.-youre-about-to-blow-it..ece#commentsOuterWrapper

Chris Bell is a former Democratic Congressman from Houston and was the 2006 Democratic nominee for Governor of Texas.

. When more and more Republicans start looking for a new home, I assure you they will be far more willing to join a party led by Hillary Clinton than a party led by Bernie Sanders.


You said: "Hence, when I think about why the Clinton campaign treats the Sanders movement the way it does, I find that the idea that they are betting on Clinton vs. Trump in November -- with the republican machine quietly backing Hillary, makes the most sense."

I think this opinion piece backs up your OP.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #34)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 06:15 PM

55. Thanks, my Friend!

I think that there is plenty of proof that clearly backs up what I stated in the OP. I appreciate your taking the time to provide solid examples of it.

Although I was aware of this earlier, I had waited to address the topic until now .....because I do think that there are lots of good people who support Hillary, but who could not have evaluated it properly. I think that's much of the source of the few negative responses here. On the surface, it sounds terrible ....certainly, the Hillary supporters on DU:GDP aren't seeking to disenfranchise voters, in any way. They honestly believe that their candidate is better. And so, when they initially read something like this, they would prefer to think it's inaccurate. Or that it is extremely limited.

But, sad to say, it is not as limited as we might wish. Our society indeed has a 1% that has declared economic warfare on the majority. Our society is currently undergoing a change, to a form of high-tech feudalism. And the Sanders movement is the lone campaign that seeks to address the inequities that allow the 1% to capitalize on the hardships of the many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #55)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 07:51 PM

57. Brandeis quote...

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/louis_d_brandeis.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:03 PM

38. What a great thread!!!

Both the OP (!!!) and the responses.

Stay polite DUers. And keep up the good work.

BTW, I am with H2O Man on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #38)


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:28 PM

51. This thread deserves some background music Patrick, maybe a song by Alexander O'Neal for a K&R: Fake

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobthedrummer (Reply #51)

Tue Mar 1, 2016, 06:16 PM

56. Well done!

Thanks for that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 12:01 PM

59. It's a disturbing trend.

I would far rather have Mr Sanders elected than any alternative, but if that is not possible, it is rather important that Mrs Clinton be elected. This is seemingly self-evident, and one could understand the frustration of certain individuals when confronted with the possibility that this might not be so. But that only means that an effective message must be constructed to address that issue. I think disciplining and lecturing are not the best way to achieve this. With authoritarians, it might work, but those who complain that they won't vote for Hillary if Bernie loses are exactly not authoritarians. The Clinton camp ignores these people at our peril.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #59)

Sat Mar 12, 2016, 03:42 AM

64. I agree

I do think that vast majority of the Bernie-or-no-one espousers today would vote for Hillary if it came to the crunch facing either Cruz or Trump. At least I would hope so. But the fact that we, the liberal base, will be even more marginalized than last time is disheartening.

It is really looking more and more that elements within the old guard in the GOP have a plan B to pump resources into Hillary's campaign. The smarter ones in the GOP realize that their party could be on the verge of destruction if Trump is elected. And maybe even Cruz, the tea bagging gumint shutdown specialist. But even now, in the primaries, I wouldn't doubt that if Sanders continues to show himself a real threat to Mrs. Clinton, they will even help her in the primaries.

There are four choices:

The sane rational candidate that is only proposing policies that most other democracies have already established successfully. And will save Wall street from itself, and by extension the country.

The status quo corporacracy DINO candidate in league with the old boys club in the GOP that will further ingrain irreversible trade agreements that will turn America into a feudal oligarchy.

The megalomaniac Mussolini wannabe irrational billionaire

The tea bagging ultra right snake oil snake that would accelerate the rich/poor gap and be itching to start the next world war

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri Mar 11, 2016, 10:06 PM

62. I've had some similar thoughts... though nowhere near as thorough as what you've laid out here.

Great post! Thank you for sharing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri Mar 11, 2016, 11:35 PM

63. Holy shit, Cheney even heaped praise on Hillary!!

Which also goes a long ways to explain why she is so chummy with Henry Kissinger lately!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread