There's another hit piece on Hillary this morning in Politico with all these allegedly bedwetting Democrats Supposedly everyone is demanding more debates.
More and more debates. We need debates as far as the eye can see.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-dnc-debates-2016-wasserman-schultz-213667
This keeps up with Politico and Beltway practice to always lead with some anti Hillary troll piece but each time with a slightly different and inventive angle.
Now it's that she's an anti-democrat because she won't debate Bernie 50 times before the end of the year.
Historically the pattern is that challengers want as many debates as possible and incumbents want as few. This is natural. Reagan didn't have as many debates as Mondale wanted and Nixon flat out refused to debate McGovern at all-he didn't debate in 1968.
This was his paranoia about how bad he looked on tv after his notorious 1960 debate.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/308699/
This was an interesting piece as even Nixon's death didn't lead Hunter Thompson to call the dogs off of Nixon's carcass.
So incumbents want less debates and challengers want more. So what? Why make the interests of challengers somehow a Holy Cause-why is the selfish interests of Bernie and his supporters supposedly one in the same with the General Interest?
Yet Greg Sargent falls for this hook, line, and sinker. The democratic process is dead if there are only six debates. That's not long enough for us all to see how Bernie Sanders is The one true progressive.
However eight or nine will fit the bill. And Hillary's presumed reticence is just big, big trouble for her campaign.
But then if you listen to the Beltway press, everything means one thing: Hillary is doomed, she's doomed.
"While no Democrat I’m aware of has said this publicly, some very significant Democratic players who are not aligned with Clinton’s rivals have called for more debates or otherwise criticized the DNC position, including Howard Dean (who backs Clinton) and two vice-chairs of the DNC. Clinton has saidshe is open to additional debates, but her campaign is reportedly not really in favor of actually seeing more:"
"For now, the Clinton campaign remains in favor of keeping the number of debates low, say people familiar with Brooklyn’s thinking, to avoid squandering her advantage as the best-known Democrat in the race — and to limit the opportunities for her rivals to rattle her on television."
"That squares with what I’ve heard. Yet it’s not clear if this stance will remain sustainable. Clinton has spoken eloquently about the urgent moral need to maximize participation in the political process. She has proposed automatic voter registration and federal matching funds for smaller donors, both of which are designed, in part, to help realize that goal."
"This reformist posture, however, risks getting overshadowed — among Democratic voters at a minimum — by the battle over debates, which is getting increasingly acrimonious and public. It is debatable whether Clinton bears any blame for what is happening. Her rivals charge that party leaders are rigging the process in her favor by limiting their public exposure, the implication being that Clinton is tacitly in favor of that. That charge is almost certainly overstated."
"But nonetheless, Clinton can do more to resolve this whole mess. She can openly push harder for more debates — maybe, say, two or three more in 2016 — or unequivocally let the DNC know that she wants more of them. She can also indicate that the current debate schedule needs fixing. This stance would work for everybody. It would further cement Clinton’s status as a democratic reformer and an advocate for a more open, more participatory process. It would help energize grassroots Democrats who (we are told) are insufficiently enthusiastic about her candidacy. It would allow the DNC a way out of its jam."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/16/morning-plum-hillary-clinton-should-push-hard-more-democratic-debates/
Ok, so, IMHO, she doesn't need to ask for more debates or have any more.-of course, I also didn't think she need to apologize over emails but that's what she did. How in the world is her call for early voting and the end of voter suppression compromised by not having 9 instead of 6 debates?
The trouble here is that the importance of debates is way overrated. They aren't nearly as important as the Bernie Maniacs want to think. Here is Garry Wills:
"Though the debate image is still popular, voter analysis established long ago that the truly issue-oriented people are the frankest partisans. Since our parties are not ideological, but constellation of interests, the more educated and active people look to the long-term impact of these constellated groups on the values they cherish, not frothy campaign rhetoric."
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Conservative-Garry-Wills/dp/0385089775/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441214018&sr=1-1&keywords=confessions+of+a+conservative
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-im-liberal-democrat-not-bernie.html
More important, why are Democrats so intent on squandering our advantage? Let the GOP tear each other apart-why can't' we be the party that has its act together for once? To see the forest for the trees?
"I believe strongly that the most effective thing liberals and progressives can do to advance our public policy goals — on health care, immigration, financial regulation, reducing income inequality, completing the fight against anti-LGBT discrimination, protecting women’s autonomy in choices about reproduction and other critical matters on which the Democratic and Republican candidates for president will be sharply divided — is to help Clinton win our nomination early in the year. That way, she can focus on what we know will be a tough job: combating the flood of post- Citizens United right-wing money, in an atmosphere in which public skepticism about the effectiveness of public policy is high."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/barney-frank-explains-why-republicans.html
But instead the Bernie Maniacs want a fight over purity.
.
More and more debates. We need debates as far as the eye can see.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-dnc-debates-2016-wasserman-schultz-213667
This keeps up with Politico and Beltway practice to always lead with some anti Hillary troll piece but each time with a slightly different and inventive angle.
Now it's that she's an anti-democrat because she won't debate Bernie 50 times before the end of the year.
Historically the pattern is that challengers want as many debates as possible and incumbents want as few. This is natural. Reagan didn't have as many debates as Mondale wanted and Nixon flat out refused to debate McGovern at all-he didn't debate in 1968.
This was his paranoia about how bad he looked on tv after his notorious 1960 debate.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/308699/
This was an interesting piece as even Nixon's death didn't lead Hunter Thompson to call the dogs off of Nixon's carcass.
So incumbents want less debates and challengers want more. So what? Why make the interests of challengers somehow a Holy Cause-why is the selfish interests of Bernie and his supporters supposedly one in the same with the General Interest?
Yet Greg Sargent falls for this hook, line, and sinker. The democratic process is dead if there are only six debates. That's not long enough for us all to see how Bernie Sanders is The one true progressive.
However eight or nine will fit the bill. And Hillary's presumed reticence is just big, big trouble for her campaign.
But then if you listen to the Beltway press, everything means one thing: Hillary is doomed, she's doomed.
"While no Democrat I’m aware of has said this publicly, some very significant Democratic players who are not aligned with Clinton’s rivals have called for more debates or otherwise criticized the DNC position, including Howard Dean (who backs Clinton) and two vice-chairs of the DNC. Clinton has saidshe is open to additional debates, but her campaign is reportedly not really in favor of actually seeing more:"
"For now, the Clinton campaign remains in favor of keeping the number of debates low, say people familiar with Brooklyn’s thinking, to avoid squandering her advantage as the best-known Democrat in the race — and to limit the opportunities for her rivals to rattle her on television."
"That squares with what I’ve heard. Yet it’s not clear if this stance will remain sustainable. Clinton has spoken eloquently about the urgent moral need to maximize participation in the political process. She has proposed automatic voter registration and federal matching funds for smaller donors, both of which are designed, in part, to help realize that goal."
"This reformist posture, however, risks getting overshadowed — among Democratic voters at a minimum — by the battle over debates, which is getting increasingly acrimonious and public. It is debatable whether Clinton bears any blame for what is happening. Her rivals charge that party leaders are rigging the process in her favor by limiting their public exposure, the implication being that Clinton is tacitly in favor of that. That charge is almost certainly overstated."
"But nonetheless, Clinton can do more to resolve this whole mess. She can openly push harder for more debates — maybe, say, two or three more in 2016 — or unequivocally let the DNC know that she wants more of them. She can also indicate that the current debate schedule needs fixing. This stance would work for everybody. It would further cement Clinton’s status as a democratic reformer and an advocate for a more open, more participatory process. It would help energize grassroots Democrats who (we are told) are insufficiently enthusiastic about her candidacy. It would allow the DNC a way out of its jam."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/16/morning-plum-hillary-clinton-should-push-hard-more-democratic-debates/
Ok, so, IMHO, she doesn't need to ask for more debates or have any more.-of course, I also didn't think she need to apologize over emails but that's what she did. How in the world is her call for early voting and the end of voter suppression compromised by not having 9 instead of 6 debates?
The trouble here is that the importance of debates is way overrated. They aren't nearly as important as the Bernie Maniacs want to think. Here is Garry Wills:
"Though the debate image is still popular, voter analysis established long ago that the truly issue-oriented people are the frankest partisans. Since our parties are not ideological, but constellation of interests, the more educated and active people look to the long-term impact of these constellated groups on the values they cherish, not frothy campaign rhetoric."
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Conservative-Garry-Wills/dp/0385089775/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441214018&sr=1-1&keywords=confessions+of+a+conservative
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-im-liberal-democrat-not-bernie.html
More important, why are Democrats so intent on squandering our advantage? Let the GOP tear each other apart-why can't' we be the party that has its act together for once? To see the forest for the trees?
"I believe strongly that the most effective thing liberals and progressives can do to advance our public policy goals — on health care, immigration, financial regulation, reducing income inequality, completing the fight against anti-LGBT discrimination, protecting women’s autonomy in choices about reproduction and other critical matters on which the Democratic and Republican candidates for president will be sharply divided — is to help Clinton win our nomination early in the year. That way, she can focus on what we know will be a tough job: combating the flood of post- Citizens United right-wing money, in an atmosphere in which public skepticism about the effectiveness of public policy is high."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/barney-frank-explains-why-republicans.html
But instead the Bernie Maniacs want a fight over purity.
Then Sargent adds some stuff about how this will help her with her 'faltering poll numbers.'
Can we get over this Urban Legend already? This is just so overdone, it's absurd. In a recent Washingon Post poll she's up 42-24. That's 'faltering?'
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/hillary-leads-bernie-42-24-nationally.html
Ok so she was up by even more before the Summer. That's reason to panic? And if you simply do the math of taking out Biden's numbers-when he's not running anyway-her lead expands to 58-29.
Lucy! You're in trouble.
Ok, so he has been leading in NH. But even there if you only look ad likely Democratic voters she actually has a 43-39 lead.
Can we just stop overstating things so wildly?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment