In my last post I pointed out that the non-aggression pact between Hillary and Bernie works for him a lot better than it does for her, because the media has taken it upon itself to run as her primary opponent.
It has buried her in Emailgate, Biden talk, and Bernie razzing about how bad a candidate she is supposed to be.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/unlike-bernie-hillary-has-been-battle.html
This amnesia on the part of the media is almost a thing of genius. In 2011 they were razzing Obama over Biden and telling him that he should drop Biden for Hillary for the 2012 election.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/book-obama-campaign-considered-dumping-joe-biden-for-hillary-clinton/article/2538322
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/08/03/fmr_gov_wilder_obama_should_drop_biden_and_run_with_clinton.html
Back then Biden was the 'gaffe machine' and Hillary was the great stateswoman. Now things are 180 which tells you first and foremost that the media is by definition always full of crap. If you are a Democrat running for President simply ignore these boo-birds as they just don't know what they're talking about.
What the media is really all about is two things:
1. A narrative that once it's decided on is repeated again and again due to the media's inherent
2. Pack mentality.
So Hillary doesn't attack Bernie and Bernie doesn't attack Hillary but the media attacks Hillary relentlessly and spins every poll as the beginning of the end and taunts with every new nonstory about emails that 'Hillary is dying a death of a thousand cuts with the drip, drip, drip of the revelations.'
So as I argued in my last post for her to attack Bernie would just be bringing some balance to the coverage.
As I also argued she should not do this directly:
So all this suggests that attacking him would not be unfair at all but merely balancing things out a little.
"Now I personally wouldn't recommend anything direct-and I wouldn't suggest that she speak anything negatively about him directly out campaigning."
"But through ads maybe or surrogates something should be put out there. Even Bernie hits her 'indirectly by drawing a contrast.'
"One way she could draw a contrast with him would be by taling up issues he's weaker on-gun control and immigration."
"This is a real fissure-Bernie believes that immigration cuts wages."
Listen to what that Bernie fan I was speaking to said about China:
"I oppose the TPP and all trade agreements that will impose a judicial system, an arbitration system outside that provided in our Constitution on our country. Our Constitution protects the ownership of private property -- 5th and 14th Amendments. We should not agree to any treaty of other agreement that might impose laws on us other than those agreed to and passed by our democratically elected legislatures and our properly appointed courts."
"I do not want to eat Chinese pork. I want the meat I eat to be identified by country of origin. I guess that is not allowed any more thanks to our WTO agreement. We do not need that. We especially do not need to be liable for speculative damages claimed by foreign executives. I don't think Hillary will oppose the TPP. Bernie does."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=590658
Hmm. I find that proposal that meat has to be identified by country of origin interesting. He doesn't want to eat Chinese pork? So maybe Bernie supporters have more in common with Trump supporters than they'd ever admit.
So she should highlight this issue-not attacking Bernie directly, but just how he does it: through a negative contrast.
Bernie is a lot more reticent on immigration reform than she is. And this comment by a Bernie fan on Chinese pork shows there is a Trumpist underbelly to this kind of protectionism.
With a grown Latino population that supports the Dems in some high numbers-and with Trump you imagine this can only grow-every attempt must be made to bring this out in the open.
I would argue that Hillary should push this issue a great deal.
Because Bernie is pretty ambivalent and his base sounds rather 'nativist' itself.
"Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders outlined his immigration reform plan Thursday, saying he would support comprehensive immigration reform and go further than President Barack Obama to protect undocumented immigrants already in the United States. But when it comes to allowing new immigrants into the country, Sanders reiterated his position that opening the border would hurt employment and wages."
“I see two issues. I see the absolute need to provide legal status and protection to the undocumented people who are in this country now — some 11 million people,” the independent senator from Vermont said during a Q&A with the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Thursday.
“But here’s where I do have concerns,” he continued. “There is a reason why Wall Street and all of corporate America likes immigration reform, and it is not, in my view, that they’re staying up nights worrying about undocumented workers in this country. What I think they are interested in is seeing a process by which we can bring low-wage labor of all levels into this country to depress wages for Americans, and I strongly disagree with that.”
"Sanders’ position on immigration has been called “complicated” and he has been criticized by immigration activists for supporting the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect. Both of his leading Democratic challengers, Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley, have recognized that new immigrants coming to the country actually boost the economy. But Sanders continues to align himself more closely with Democratic positions of the past."
“I frankly do not believe that we should be bringing in significant numbers of unskilled to workers to compete with [unemployed] kids,” Sanders said. “I want to see these kids get jobs.”
"Studies have shown that immigrants actually create jobs for American workers. Researchers recently found that each new immigrant has produced about 1.2 new jobs in the U.S., most of which have gone to native-born workers. And according to the Atlantic, an influx in immigration can cause non-tradable professions — jobs like hospitality and construction that cannot be outsourced — to see a wage increase because the demand for goods and services grows with the expanding population."
But Sanders fails to see it that way, pointing on Thursday to the 36 percent unemployment rate for Hispanic young people. “You bring a lot of unskilled workers into this country, what do you think happens to that 36 percent?”
"Sanders’ poor track record on immigration goes back further than just his presidential campaign. In 2007, he voted against a bipartisan immigration reform bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). At the progressive Netroots Nation conference earlier this month, Sanders said the reform bill would have allowed for low wage workers to enter the country who would “be competing against kids in this country who desperately need jobs.”
"But Sanders did vote for the 2013 immigration reform bill, which also included guest worker programs and contained most of the same measures as the 2007 bill that he opposed.:
“There’s a very significant difference in scope of what the recent bill does compared to what that bill does,” Bernie said Thursday. “My concern about the bill that I voted against has to do with…that there was too much emphases on bringing low-wage workers into this country. What I want to see and what is better about the recent bill is that number one, there is a path towards citizenship which is absolutely essential. And second of all, that I was able to get a fairly significant amount of money into providing jobs for young people in this country.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/07/30/3686282/bernie-sanders-immigration/
It has buried her in Emailgate, Biden talk, and Bernie razzing about how bad a candidate she is supposed to be.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/unlike-bernie-hillary-has-been-battle.html
This amnesia on the part of the media is almost a thing of genius. In 2011 they were razzing Obama over Biden and telling him that he should drop Biden for Hillary for the 2012 election.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/book-obama-campaign-considered-dumping-joe-biden-for-hillary-clinton/article/2538322
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/08/03/fmr_gov_wilder_obama_should_drop_biden_and_run_with_clinton.html
Back then Biden was the 'gaffe machine' and Hillary was the great stateswoman. Now things are 180 which tells you first and foremost that the media is by definition always full of crap. If you are a Democrat running for President simply ignore these boo-birds as they just don't know what they're talking about.
What the media is really all about is two things:
1. A narrative that once it's decided on is repeated again and again due to the media's inherent
2. Pack mentality.
So Hillary doesn't attack Bernie and Bernie doesn't attack Hillary but the media attacks Hillary relentlessly and spins every poll as the beginning of the end and taunts with every new nonstory about emails that 'Hillary is dying a death of a thousand cuts with the drip, drip, drip of the revelations.'
So as I argued in my last post for her to attack Bernie would just be bringing some balance to the coverage.
As I also argued she should not do this directly:
So all this suggests that attacking him would not be unfair at all but merely balancing things out a little.
"Now I personally wouldn't recommend anything direct-and I wouldn't suggest that she speak anything negatively about him directly out campaigning."
"But through ads maybe or surrogates something should be put out there. Even Bernie hits her 'indirectly by drawing a contrast.'
"One way she could draw a contrast with him would be by taling up issues he's weaker on-gun control and immigration."
"This is a real fissure-Bernie believes that immigration cuts wages."
Listen to what that Bernie fan I was speaking to said about China:
"I oppose the TPP and all trade agreements that will impose a judicial system, an arbitration system outside that provided in our Constitution on our country. Our Constitution protects the ownership of private property -- 5th and 14th Amendments. We should not agree to any treaty of other agreement that might impose laws on us other than those agreed to and passed by our democratically elected legislatures and our properly appointed courts."
"I do not want to eat Chinese pork. I want the meat I eat to be identified by country of origin. I guess that is not allowed any more thanks to our WTO agreement. We do not need that. We especially do not need to be liable for speculative damages claimed by foreign executives. I don't think Hillary will oppose the TPP. Bernie does."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=590658
Hmm. I find that proposal that meat has to be identified by country of origin interesting. He doesn't want to eat Chinese pork? So maybe Bernie supporters have more in common with Trump supporters than they'd ever admit.
So she should highlight this issue-not attacking Bernie directly, but just how he does it: through a negative contrast.
Bernie is a lot more reticent on immigration reform than she is. And this comment by a Bernie fan on Chinese pork shows there is a Trumpist underbelly to this kind of protectionism.
With a grown Latino population that supports the Dems in some high numbers-and with Trump you imagine this can only grow-every attempt must be made to bring this out in the open.
I would argue that Hillary should push this issue a great deal.
Because Bernie is pretty ambivalent and his base sounds rather 'nativist' itself.
"Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders outlined his immigration reform plan Thursday, saying he would support comprehensive immigration reform and go further than President Barack Obama to protect undocumented immigrants already in the United States. But when it comes to allowing new immigrants into the country, Sanders reiterated his position that opening the border would hurt employment and wages."
“I see two issues. I see the absolute need to provide legal status and protection to the undocumented people who are in this country now — some 11 million people,” the independent senator from Vermont said during a Q&A with the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Thursday.
“But here’s where I do have concerns,” he continued. “There is a reason why Wall Street and all of corporate America likes immigration reform, and it is not, in my view, that they’re staying up nights worrying about undocumented workers in this country. What I think they are interested in is seeing a process by which we can bring low-wage labor of all levels into this country to depress wages for Americans, and I strongly disagree with that.”
"Sanders’ position on immigration has been called “complicated” and he has been criticized by immigration activists for supporting the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect. Both of his leading Democratic challengers, Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley, have recognized that new immigrants coming to the country actually boost the economy. But Sanders continues to align himself more closely with Democratic positions of the past."
“I frankly do not believe that we should be bringing in significant numbers of unskilled to workers to compete with [unemployed] kids,” Sanders said. “I want to see these kids get jobs.”
"Studies have shown that immigrants actually create jobs for American workers. Researchers recently found that each new immigrant has produced about 1.2 new jobs in the U.S., most of which have gone to native-born workers. And according to the Atlantic, an influx in immigration can cause non-tradable professions — jobs like hospitality and construction that cannot be outsourced — to see a wage increase because the demand for goods and services grows with the expanding population."
But Sanders fails to see it that way, pointing on Thursday to the 36 percent unemployment rate for Hispanic young people. “You bring a lot of unskilled workers into this country, what do you think happens to that 36 percent?”
"Sanders’ poor track record on immigration goes back further than just his presidential campaign. In 2007, he voted against a bipartisan immigration reform bill sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). At the progressive Netroots Nation conference earlier this month, Sanders said the reform bill would have allowed for low wage workers to enter the country who would “be competing against kids in this country who desperately need jobs.”
"But Sanders did vote for the 2013 immigration reform bill, which also included guest worker programs and contained most of the same measures as the 2007 bill that he opposed.:
“There’s a very significant difference in scope of what the recent bill does compared to what that bill does,” Bernie said Thursday. “My concern about the bill that I voted against has to do with…that there was too much emphases on bringing low-wage workers into this country. What I want to see and what is better about the recent bill is that number one, there is a path towards citizenship which is absolutely essential. And second of all, that I was able to get a fairly significant amount of money into providing jobs for young people in this country.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/07/30/3686282/bernie-sanders-immigration/
This is an issue that Hillary-and Hillary supporters as well as immigration advocates should hammer him on.
However, it has to be done in the right way. He did support Obama's Dream Act. Make sure you don't attack him inaccurately because than that gives him and his maniacs a feeling of vindication-in their minds he is infallible on policy matters and attacking him falsely would just swell that sense.
His issue is feeling that we shouldn't bring in more immigrants in the future in the belief that low wage immigrants depress wages.
This desire to for less immigration puts him on the side of Trump and the GOP. Ads should be playing in Latino areas ASAP.
P.S. Bernie is smart in the way that he attacks her by showing a contrast. She should do the same by talking a lot about immigration-it's a subject he doesn't talk about too much for understandable reasons.
He will take the low-hanging fruit of bashing Trump's wild plan to allegedly expel 11 million undocumented immigrants.
But he like the GOP thinks we shouldn't have too much immigration in the future because he thinks in contradiction to what economists tell us, that immigration depresses wages.
No comments:
Post a Comment