Do you even know any Hillary supporters in the real world?
And you never answered my other question. Do you think John Lewis, who endorsed Hillary Clinton, is an oligarch or supporter of oligarchs?
Lewis is one of the most liberal members of the House, and one of the most liberal congressmen ever to represent a district in the Deep South. He has been labeled a "far-left Democratic leader" by GovTrack and a "Hard-Core Liberal" by Issues2000.[24][25] The Washington Post described Lewis in 1998 as "a fiercely partisan Democrat but ... also fiercely independent."[26] Lewis characterized himself as a strong and adamant liberal.[26] The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said Lewis was the "only former major civil rights leader who extended his fight for human rights and racial reconciliation to the halls of Congress".[11] The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also said that to "those who know him, from U.S. senators to 20-something congressional aides", he is called the "conscience of Congress".[11] Lewis has cited former Florida Senator and Congressman Claude Pepper, a staunch liberal, as being the colleague that he has most admired.[27] Lewis has spoken out in support of gay rights and national health insurance,[26] and he has worked with the Faith and Politics Institute to advance their goals.[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_(Georgia_politician)
Cut and paste from another post:
It is true that corporate money has completely distorted the political process. But that is because every time we pass a decent law, the freakin' Supreme Court overturns it.
I support public financing of campaigns.
Limited time frame for campaigning.
Instant Runoff voting (enables third-party candidates in ways that our system cannot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Automatic voter registration of 18 year olds.
MANDATORY voting for all adults.
I think the two party system is played out, decadent, FUBAR and ready for the trash heap of history.
I am as far left as you can get on these issues. Most people don't know what I am talking about, I am so far off the left side of the bell curve.
I have spent hundreds of unpaid hours over the period of a decade, with people of all ages, races and economic levels, trying to bring this vision to fruition.
Yet I support Clinton. Because I can get most of this passed with any Democrat in office if we get the right mix on the Supremes for a long enough time period.
We did it in NC. Passed some of the most liberal election law in the entire country with a bunch of corrupt DINOs running the show. True story. Too bad about the GOP redistricting, it is all gone now.
That tells me everything I need to know abut who the true enemy is, too.
My first point: Even the most conservative Dems will not stand in the way if there is the political will and organization to get good campaign finance laws passed. I know because I did it.
And here is the why of it:
This is an infographic from 538 modeling 2012 turnout on current the population.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
The Democratic coalition is educated white/black/asian/latino. Our heavy hitters are educated white and black. The x-axis is percent of population that turns out to vote. The y-axis is party preference.
Now pull the x line on non-college whites (GOP base) to the very top and see what it does to the electoral college. Does not flip. Educated whites are pretty maxed on turnout, so you would have to simultaneously persuade several percentage points of that group to the red column to actually win a Presidential election. Unlikely based on trends and on the type of candidates the GOP runs these days.
Now look at black/asian/latino boxes. They all have headroom to grow on the x-axis. None are likely to flip for GOP.
Now play and see what will flip the electoral college to a GOP win.
If I depress the black vote and push the non-college white and latino a few points farther into the red, voila! I get a GOP win! And that is likely what the GOP is planning too. Voter ID plus shorter early vote and longer lines in AA neighborhood, angry whites and a latino GOP candidate might do it.
My second point: ALL DEM candidates benefit from higher turnout.
- Dems benefit from higher turnout, more voters and less campaign money, as long as ALL CANDIDATES are limited in spending. This is not a moral issue. This is just smart. But when campaign money is NOT limited by the courts, then it DOES NOT benefit Dems to fall way behind GOP on the principal of the thing. Because then we lose. And a full loss is worse than a conflicted win when it comes to policy issues.
- Reps can only depress the turnout of our voters and spend more and more money. They are the ones who truly benefit from the money in politics because they have maxed their potential voter pool and can ONLY spend more money and disenfranchise Dem voters to win.
You understand?
First: I have actually volunteered with groups who got great finance laws with conservative Dems in power. They could have blocked but they didn't. Why? Because they ARE NOT OLIGARCHS. (Liberal Dems CANNOT win statewide here yet because the state is fairly conservative overall. What some call a DINO is the best we can realistically do.)
Second: The electoral math for Dems favors higher turnout and LESS campaign money. Follow the money right? Who benefits from more? GOP! So Dems are NOT OLIGARCHS.
Third: Unless you are prepared to call one of our greatest living social justice warriors and a veterans rights activist oligarchs, then you are disproved right there.
You know, it IS possible for good and moral people to simple have a different opinion than yours.
I doubt anyone actually read this, but hey, I tried......
= new reply since forum marked as read
