HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » PoliticalMalcontent » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Oct 30, 2015, 06:27 PM
Number of posts: 449

Journal Archives

An exercise in critical thinking and hopefully some food for thought. There are no wrong answers.

As stated in the title this is an exercise in critical thinking. There are no wrong answers, however you, the reader, are not going to take anything out of this exercise unless you are honest with yourself. That being said, again, there are no wrong answers and perception will undoubtedly play a heavy role in the exercise to come.

1.) In a hypothetical 2016 general election match-up between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders who would you bet money on?

2.) What is the support for your conclusion?

I'll chime in at some point with my own conclusions down thread. Hope I'm not the only one! -crosses his fingers-
Posted by PoliticalMalcontent | Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:57 AM (19 replies)

Is anybody else concerned about how the Clintons' wield their political influence?

Hillary Clinton has done a tremendous job of using her political sway to influence the democratic party to her benefit. It started in the 90's and her political influence has only gotten stronger. The head of the DNC (the regulating body of the democratic party) even comes directly from the 2008 Clinton campaign. That, my friends, is stacking the deck in your favor.

Those that help Clinton are pushed into positions of power while those who do not support Clinton have had a history of being thrown under the bus. This causes fear. Real fear of political retaliation.

One example is Claire McCaskill (Get well soon, McCaskill!). She endorsed Obama and perhaps said some things about Bill Clinton that she regretted. And then? Then came the fear. She did a good job of mending bridges though, including endorsing Clinton in June of 2015 (a full six months earlier in the election cycle than her last presidential endorsement). My assumption is that the endorsement came so early because she was trying to get back into Clinton's good graces.

Still, it's hard to ignore the grudges that Clinton has kept.

The Hill: Hillary's Hit List
The Hill: Kerry, Kennedy top Clinton's Traitor's List

It's Nixonian.

I worry about those that are supporting Sanders right now. Those potential bright stars who have bucked the party power players in favor of their own personal beliefs. Tulsi Gabbard was the Vice-chair of the of the DNC, but resigned out so she could speak out. That's how important this was to her.

This is a big difference compared to Debbie Wasserman Schultz who runs the DNC, worked for Clinton in '08 and is supposedly impartial. Debbie did a terrific job of scheduling the initial set of debates on days that would stifle viewership (weekends, holidays, against sports playoffs). She hasn't explicitly come out for Clinton, but she can't due to her position. Actions however, speak louder than words. She's banking on Clinton's name recognition.

Frankly, in my opinion the party would be better off not being so vindictive. As it stands, it is my firm belief that things will get worse before they get better if Clinton is nominated. The deck will be stacked further. Help for the lower and middle class will be further away. That is not what I think the democratic party should stand for. That is not how the party will win votes.
Posted by PoliticalMalcontent | Wed Mar 2, 2016, 08:04 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1