Greg, one of my Esteemed long time readers left me this comment regarding the 2016 election. He remains more bearish about Hillary Clinton's chances than I am; or more bullish about Donald Trump's.
"I know you mentioned him before but I don't remember any posts on him, I must have missed them.
"I think he is good. But what happened in the primary is more about the GOP than him. He just figured out how to game it"
"Well I think the same thing that allowed him to game the GOP can work even beyond. I still think there are only about 30-35% of voters who are impenetrable to Trump."
"I don't have much faith in the average American citizen..... especially the white ones!!"
The Tea Partiers who obstructed everything in their path didn't do so because they are for the status quo. They did it because they believed they have a mandate to destroy government. And so they have.
Hillary in this sense represents the real change for me and many Hillary supporters. With her maybe we can get back to actually governing and functioning,
The Boston Globe writer Michael Cohen has an interesting historical analogy for Hillary in a new book of his-Richard Nixon. Ok, that's not the first place you'd want an analogy. I don't think she is in any way ideologically or temperamentally like Nixon-no matter what the Berners say.
But I do agree that in some ways Nixon's forgotten man is not so different to we forgotten Hillary supporters.
"In a year when grassroots political movements helped to topple Lyndon Johnson and got George Wallace on the ballot of all 50 states and 13 percent of the popular vote on Election Day, it’s perhaps the greatest irony of 1968 that a leader who was the embodiment of the political status quo ended up prevailing on Election Day. How Richard Nixon won that year is a story of perseverance, of navigating between two wings of a divided political party and of cultivating an aura of calmness and order in a year of unprecedented and extraordinary political upheaval. If Nixon’s rise to power and his winning of the presidency reminds you of another presidential candidate this year—one who is almost universally-known, despised by her political enemies, often tolerated by the political allies, and a voice of pragmatism in a sea of political instability—well that’s not a coincidence. Because, in much the same way that Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1968, by speaking on behalf of what he called, the non-shouters and the non-demonstrators, Hillary Clinton is following a very similar path."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/20/hillary-clinton-is-this-year-s-new-richard-nixon.html
I like that- the non-shouters and the non-demonstrators. I've seen Bernie supporters refer to us contemptibly as the 'petit bourgeoise' I don't mind that designation.
It goes back to Garry Wills theory of government. To have a functioning government we have to 'settle for less.
http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Agonistes-Crisis-Self-Made-Man/dp/0618134328/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463843425&sr=8-1&keywords=garry+wills+nixon+agonistes
Jon Favreau, the Obama speechwriter in 2008 who had such disdain for Hilary Clinton has come around. He now argues something similar: Hillary is the choice of those who want to get beyond the constant deadlock of warring ideologies.
Of Ted Cruz's Right and Bernie Sanders's Left.
The wager is maybe the real problem with our government is not that we need outsiders to run it. Maybe it's the cult of the outsider that itself is the problem. Since Nixon, most Presidents ran as outsiders.
Maybe the truly radical thing will be electing LBJ, the pragmatic insider who can get things done.
I can imagine Greg or someone else saying that Hillary won't be able to get anything done either-after all she too will face a divided Congress.
She probably will. Although the rise of Trump makes it a good bet the Dems at least take back the Senate which will enable her to put judges on the Supreme Court and appoint other federal judges.
I'm going to theorize why I think this may be the case. Greg, of course, can correct me where I'm wrong. Here's Greg:
"I think he is good. But what happened in the primary is more about the GOP than him. He just figured out how to game it"
"Well I think the same thing that allowed him to game the GOP can work even beyond. I still think there are only about 30-35% of voters who are impenetrable to Trump."
"I don't have much faith in the average American citizen..... especially the white ones!!"
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/donald-trump-is-not-qualified-to-be.html?showComment=1463790894590#c2815408907537383815
1. It's understandable why he doesn't have too much faith in his fellow white Americans. After all, for context, Greg is a guy of a certain age from the state of Georgia. Not to date Greg but I believe the civil right years of the early 60s are part of his formative memory-Selma and all that.
2. But I also think it's partly driven by his own sense that Hillary is just not a very exciting candidate. Greg was not a Bernie or Bust type and he wasn't one of those Berners who think Bernie can do know wrong and is above all criticism.
But I do get the idea that Greg thinks Hillary is a tough sell as for many Americans she represents the 'status quo' rather than 'change.'
The fact that I give change square quotes tells you my sense of this demand. I mean change doesn't have to be good. For me, unless you tell me the type of change you want, I remain unimpressed.
Trump would certainly represent change, but then so did Hitler. I agree most Hitler analogies are overblown but there are some interesting similarities here.
One similarity is that the some of the Berners are talking like the Stalinists spoke in 1932: that the 'lesser of two evils' is also evil and that there was no meaningful difference between Hitler and his Social Democrat opponents who were mere 'Social Fascists.'
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/smells-like-1932.html
As far as Trump and Hitler here is one interesting little fact from his ex wife-the guy keeps Hitler's speeches by his bed.
For those who preach 'the lesser of two evils is still evil' it's interesting that they will make the argument 'Trump is not Hitler'' to argue that not much is at stake in November.
I get that many worry Hillary won''t be able to excite anyone. But if this is really true then how did she win the Democratic primary? She got over 2 million more votes than Donald Trump and over 3 million more votes than Bernie.
I think part of why some Berners are so mad is they honestly can't figure out her appeal. When Trump said that she''d only get 5 percent of the vote if she were not a woman, I know for a fact that some Berners agree with him.
They've stated such. Even Susan Sarandon suggests this when she tells women not to vote their vaginas.
Yet, all these folks have somehow voted for Hillary. How is this possible? Thank God for Twitter. If not, I myself would have thought I was totally isolated. But I know first hand how many likeminded Hillary supporters are out there.
Here's an illustration. I sent this tweet yesterday:
"So for all those who talk about how unlikable Hillary is, this is not true for Democrats. We think she's the best."
https://twitter.com/evilsax/status/733819518242414592
This tweet garnered 37 retweets and 62 favorites so far.
1. It's understandable why he doesn't have too much faith in his fellow white Americans. After all, for context, Greg is a guy of a certain age from the state of Georgia. Not to date Greg but I believe the civil right years of the early 60s are part of his formative memory-Selma and all that.
2. But I also think it's partly driven by his own sense that Hillary is just not a very exciting candidate. Greg was not a Bernie or Bust type and he wasn't one of those Berners who think Bernie can do know wrong and is above all criticism.
But I do get the idea that Greg thinks Hillary is a tough sell as for many Americans she represents the 'status quo' rather than 'change.'
The fact that I give change square quotes tells you my sense of this demand. I mean change doesn't have to be good. For me, unless you tell me the type of change you want, I remain unimpressed.
Trump would certainly represent change, but then so did Hitler. I agree most Hitler analogies are overblown but there are some interesting similarities here.
One similarity is that the some of the Berners are talking like the Stalinists spoke in 1932: that the 'lesser of two evils' is also evil and that there was no meaningful difference between Hitler and his Social Democrat opponents who were mere 'Social Fascists.'
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/smells-like-1932.html
As far as Trump and Hitler here is one interesting little fact from his ex wife-the guy keeps Hitler's speeches by his bed.
For those who preach 'the lesser of two evils is still evil' it's interesting that they will make the argument 'Trump is not Hitler'' to argue that not much is at stake in November.
I get that many worry Hillary won''t be able to excite anyone. But if this is really true then how did she win the Democratic primary? She got over 2 million more votes than Donald Trump and over 3 million more votes than Bernie.
I think part of why some Berners are so mad is they honestly can't figure out her appeal. When Trump said that she''d only get 5 percent of the vote if she were not a woman, I know for a fact that some Berners agree with him.
They've stated such. Even Susan Sarandon suggests this when she tells women not to vote their vaginas.
Yet, all these folks have somehow voted for Hillary. How is this possible? Thank God for Twitter. If not, I myself would have thought I was totally isolated. But I know first hand how many likeminded Hillary supporters are out there.
Here's an illustration. I sent this tweet yesterday:
"So for all those who talk about how unlikable Hillary is, this is not true for Democrats. We think she's the best."
https://twitter.com/evilsax/status/733819518242414592
This tweet garnered 37 retweets and 62 favorites so far.
So we Hillary supporters are out there. The New Republic had to write a piece a little while back to make sense of who the Hillary supporters are. After all, here is this woman who the True Progressives tell us is not even preferable to a white nationalist like Donald Trump, who the media does nothing but raz about her emails all day, and generally nitpick her over everything she says or does, while the GOP gloats that she is a 'fatally flawed candidate' and yet somehow she wins.
Even Ryan Cooper has to admit this now. Even though he doesn't like her, and wanted Bernie he admits that the Berners need to accept that the election has not been rigged-she just got the votes.
http://theweek.com/articles/625006/democratic-party-needs-chill
But the question that Cooper doesn't answer, that non of those who don't like Hillary or even those like Greg who simply are not so enthused by her though they will vote for her never ask is how she has gotten so many Democratic votes?
Is it true as Bernie's sexist campaign manager Jeff Weaver says because she was the First Lady of Arkansas?
Why do so many Democratic voters love this candidate that we are assured is as appealing as cold, stale pizza?
Greg admits that she has this loyal group of Hillary lovers among Democrats. Indeed, Democrats like her a lot-more than they liked Obama at this time in 2008.
https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/733736726770900993
Note also that among Democrats Bernie is less popular than Hillary was in 2008.
So Greg's pessimism has to be based on the theory that she won't be able to get voters beyond her very enthusiastic Democratic voters sufficiently excited.
Actually, you want to see my prototypical Hillary Clinton general election voter-non Democrat-you wouldn't do badly to look at someone like Tom Brown. Tom is a natural swing voter who less loves the Democrats than simply hates Republicans-because the GOP has gone totally crazy.
Or Jennifer Rubin, a conservative Republican woman who now supports Hillary. You will find a number of such Republican women who will either take a look at Hilary or at least not vote for Trump.
The wager on Hillary is that as many Americans who want change even if it means stark, raving, crazy, there will be more who just sick of the crazy. Tired of it. For my part I agree with Bill Clinton I think Hillary is the real change agent.
My division is not between status quo and change but between wild eyed dysfunction and actual governing. This is what would make Hillary real change. Actual governing rather than refusing to govern before the Holy war is fought to its conclusion between nativist Trump supporters and radical populist Bernie supporters.
To me, Trumpian dysfunction is nothing new-we've had this for the last 7 and a half years.
I feel that's what we've had for a long time. We've had 7 and a half years of relentless obstruction by the GOP Congress.
Even Ryan Cooper has to admit this now. Even though he doesn't like her, and wanted Bernie he admits that the Berners need to accept that the election has not been rigged-she just got the votes.
http://theweek.com/articles/625006/democratic-party-needs-chill
But the question that Cooper doesn't answer, that non of those who don't like Hillary or even those like Greg who simply are not so enthused by her though they will vote for her never ask is how she has gotten so many Democratic votes?
Is it true as Bernie's sexist campaign manager Jeff Weaver says because she was the First Lady of Arkansas?
Why do so many Democratic voters love this candidate that we are assured is as appealing as cold, stale pizza?
Greg admits that she has this loyal group of Hillary lovers among Democrats. Indeed, Democrats like her a lot-more than they liked Obama at this time in 2008.
https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/733736726770900993
Note also that among Democrats Bernie is less popular than Hillary was in 2008.
So Greg's pessimism has to be based on the theory that she won't be able to get voters beyond her very enthusiastic Democratic voters sufficiently excited.
Actually, you want to see my prototypical Hillary Clinton general election voter-non Democrat-you wouldn't do badly to look at someone like Tom Brown. Tom is a natural swing voter who less loves the Democrats than simply hates Republicans-because the GOP has gone totally crazy.
Or Jennifer Rubin, a conservative Republican woman who now supports Hillary. You will find a number of such Republican women who will either take a look at Hilary or at least not vote for Trump.
The wager on Hillary is that as many Americans who want change even if it means stark, raving, crazy, there will be more who just sick of the crazy. Tired of it. For my part I agree with Bill Clinton I think Hillary is the real change agent.
My division is not between status quo and change but between wild eyed dysfunction and actual governing. This is what would make Hillary real change. Actual governing rather than refusing to govern before the Holy war is fought to its conclusion between nativist Trump supporters and radical populist Bernie supporters.
To me, Trumpian dysfunction is nothing new-we've had this for the last 7 and a half years.
I feel that's what we've had for a long time. We've had 7 and a half years of relentless obstruction by the GOP Congress.
The Tea Partiers who obstructed everything in their path didn't do so because they are for the status quo. They did it because they believed they have a mandate to destroy government. And so they have.
Hillary in this sense represents the real change for me and many Hillary supporters. With her maybe we can get back to actually governing and functioning,
The Boston Globe writer Michael Cohen has an interesting historical analogy for Hillary in a new book of his-Richard Nixon. Ok, that's not the first place you'd want an analogy. I don't think she is in any way ideologically or temperamentally like Nixon-no matter what the Berners say.
But I do agree that in some ways Nixon's forgotten man is not so different to we forgotten Hillary supporters.
"In a year when grassroots political movements helped to topple Lyndon Johnson and got George Wallace on the ballot of all 50 states and 13 percent of the popular vote on Election Day, it’s perhaps the greatest irony of 1968 that a leader who was the embodiment of the political status quo ended up prevailing on Election Day. How Richard Nixon won that year is a story of perseverance, of navigating between two wings of a divided political party and of cultivating an aura of calmness and order in a year of unprecedented and extraordinary political upheaval. If Nixon’s rise to power and his winning of the presidency reminds you of another presidential candidate this year—one who is almost universally-known, despised by her political enemies, often tolerated by the political allies, and a voice of pragmatism in a sea of political instability—well that’s not a coincidence. Because, in much the same way that Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1968, by speaking on behalf of what he called, the non-shouters and the non-demonstrators, Hillary Clinton is following a very similar path."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/20/hillary-clinton-is-this-year-s-new-richard-nixon.html
I like that- the non-shouters and the non-demonstrators. I've seen Bernie supporters refer to us contemptibly as the 'petit bourgeoise' I don't mind that designation.
It goes back to Garry Wills theory of government. To have a functioning government we have to 'settle for less.
http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Agonistes-Crisis-Self-Made-Man/dp/0618134328/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463843425&sr=8-1&keywords=garry+wills+nixon+agonistes
Jon Favreau, the Obama speechwriter in 2008 who had such disdain for Hilary Clinton has come around. He now argues something similar: Hillary is the choice of those who want to get beyond the constant deadlock of warring ideologies.
Of Ted Cruz's Right and Bernie Sanders's Left.
The wager is maybe the real problem with our government is not that we need outsiders to run it. Maybe it's the cult of the outsider that itself is the problem. Since Nixon, most Presidents ran as outsiders.
Maybe the truly radical thing will be electing LBJ, the pragmatic insider who can get things done.
I can imagine Greg or someone else saying that Hillary won't be able to get anything done either-after all she too will face a divided Congress.
She probably will. Although the rise of Trump makes it a good bet the Dems at least take back the Senate which will enable her to put judges on the Supreme Court and appoint other federal judges.
This is an effect which will be felt only with time.
While the odds are still that the House stays GOP, thanks to Trump it might well lose some seats.
Also Hillary in 2017 will be a lot different from Obama 2009 for a couple of reasons.
1. Obama while I think he's been a very good President came in pretty green-he had little experience and seemed to really believe his own campaign rhetoric about a 'post partisan America.'
This was a disaster as the GOP vowed among themselves the night he was inaugurated to oppose him on everything-even those things they agree with him on.
Obama didn't really figure out that this was a pipe dream-as Hillary had warned him during their 2008 campaign-until after the debt ceiling debacle of 2011.
Hillary with her history of being such a target of partisan hatred, won't be caught unawares to say the least.
2. I think Scott Sumner is right when he argues that in 2017 the GOP will be in post WWII mode while in 2009 they were in post WI mode.
The 2017 post Trump debacle GOP will be chastened. The party will be utterly splintered in all kinds of ways-one way simply being those who supported Trump and those who didn't.
Some GOPers in some districts at least will conclude that they simply must work with Hillary where they can-to save their own skin.
While the odds are still that the House stays GOP, thanks to Trump it might well lose some seats.
Also Hillary in 2017 will be a lot different from Obama 2009 for a couple of reasons.
1. Obama while I think he's been a very good President came in pretty green-he had little experience and seemed to really believe his own campaign rhetoric about a 'post partisan America.'
This was a disaster as the GOP vowed among themselves the night he was inaugurated to oppose him on everything-even those things they agree with him on.
Obama didn't really figure out that this was a pipe dream-as Hillary had warned him during their 2008 campaign-until after the debt ceiling debacle of 2011.
Hillary with her history of being such a target of partisan hatred, won't be caught unawares to say the least.
2. I think Scott Sumner is right when he argues that in 2017 the GOP will be in post WWII mode while in 2009 they were in post WI mode.
The 2017 post Trump debacle GOP will be chastened. The party will be utterly splintered in all kinds of ways-one way simply being those who supported Trump and those who didn't.
Some GOPers in some districts at least will conclude that they simply must work with Hillary where they can-to save their own skin.
Not far off Mike
ReplyDeleteMy perspective is less a post Selma ( was born in 1959 so early sixties is blurry) but more post Clinton. I was in Georgia for 8 years with a Reagan and Bush presidency and things were one way, then after 1992 the scales were lifted form my eyes. I suddenly went from being that charming little bleeding heart to an existential threat to our whole nation. It was alarming really.
In addition all the end-times stuff coming out of the mouths of Christians was just bizarro world crap
I agree that just advocating for change is hollow.... tell me what you want and why.
But Bernie has been explicit in where he is shining his big flashlight and I agree with him. The average American is being screwed much more by our industrial policies and our rigged financial system than by our govt spending too much on undeserving poor people. Its not even close but the average worker is completely misled on how govt finance both does and CAN work.
Hillary is wearing thin on a lot of people, my wife for example. She would have gone door to door for her 10 years ago, now? Nah. Its a global phenomena of hating the incumbents. They have screwed the average guys everywhere, inspite of what our average GDP numbers say and we want... we NEED some new voices!
Hillary IS going to rely on the Jennifer Rubins and Tom Browns (although Im much more anti GOP than I am pro dem as well but maybe for slightly different reasons). The people Ive mentioned before that are scared of changing the status quo cuz at least conservatives OWN the status quo (own financially for the most part) Do you want to have to rely on a former enemy for your success?
Once in, Hillarys success will be determined by how well the dems do in downticket races, which should improve it looks like.
I think Cohens point about the non shouters is a good one and one encouraging sign to me is that apparently big business is making it known that they support Clinton over Trump (by a 2-1 margin I saw somewhere) so some guys will trash Hillary to their work buddies but behind the curtain they might vote for their 401k.
Here you said
"It goes back to Garry Wills theory of government. To have a functioning government we have to 'settle for less."
Well it depends on who the "we" is Kimosabe! So far we is not all the we and its wearing thin for many. Careful with that.
And here;
"Maybe the truly radical thing will be electing LBJ, the pragmatic insider who can get things done."
Well, if what they "get done" is a balanced budget amendment and no new taxes which a re huge GOP priorities and many "responsible Dems too then we are screwed big time. Ill take gridlock over that. The GOP might back down on some of their radical social agenda and focus on the above stuff that "every reasonable person can agree on" ...... no thanks!
The insider/outsider meme is wearing thin and its because some people are learning that govt isn't some entity that makes decisions by itself in most matters, especially economic ones. Govt is pushed by certain interests to create certain incentives. Energy policies are written by private energy companies, Wall St largely writes or signs off on financial reform. We have to start dealing with the notion that we are being governed by corporations with their own selfish interests and someone eventually needs to harness those selfish interests into a coherent national economic platform/plan. Central Planning is a must in order to have a country. Those are dirty words to too many people but they need to be emphasized.
Cont from above
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree Hillary has no illusions about the GOP but I don't know about a chastened GOP( I just have to disagree with that twit Sumner ;-) ). They will never back off their "no new taxes" mantra and their push for a balanced budget amendment will continue, probably with the help of some newly elected dems who want to show responsibility to their new constituents as I said above. Having two parties who agree to get things done along those lines will be a disaster for the economy and it will fall right in Hillarys lap. Our next recession will be "The Hillary Recession"..... you watch! Even if it happens pre election it will be the market reacting to expectations of a Hillary win.
And THEN how do you think the GOP is going to be? Back to their true conservative roots blaming the trouble on those who compromised with the devil of big govt Hillary.
Hillary will probably wish she was never elected by Christmas 2017.
Until we rid the planet of the scourge of monetarism that infects the brains of central bankers and politicians and embrace what a strong public sector can do when not being "run like a corporation" we are truly screwed. We are starting to question those things but it will take til after Im retired to rid of us of those idiocies
"Well, if what they "get done" is a balanced budget amendment and no new taxes which a re huge GOP priorities and many "responsible Dems too then we are screwed big time. Ill take gridlock over that. The GOP might back down on some of their radical social agenda and focus on the above stuff that "every reasonable person can agree on" ...... no thanks!"
ReplyDeleteThis is one point I've argued over. Just because her husband made balancing the budget in the 90s a priority doesn't mean Hillary will now.
She's going to be more liberal than he was-heck he would be today.
It's not that Bill Clinton was a more conservative Demit's that he was a Dem in a more conservative era.
Hillary has run on a platform that other than compared to Bernie is pretty darn liberal.
She is for raising the MW by 80%-at least. She's also fine with $15 at the state level and would sign $15 for federal if the Dems got this to her desk.
She is talking about lowering the age for Medicare benefits.
She has been clear she will raise taxes on the rich.
With Sumner, touche, but though he's wrong a lot, he's not always wrong.
He argues that the GOP will do a MW hike and I think this may prove true.
The trouble with the GOP in 2017 is they will be much more divided than 2009 or 1993.
At that point the more prudent heads among them will warn that if this keeps up they may never get back in the WH again.
You know my mantra has always been that you can never lose money underestimating the GOP. This is why when most pundits thought Trump could not be the nominee I felt he had a real shot.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think out of simply political survival some may decide to be more constructive
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs for your point about people being mad at insiders I agree that's there. But I do think that many are also becoming scared straight by Donald Trump.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with Bernie is even though he's not a wildeyed white nationalist, and even though he may have some good points about the banks, it's still a very divisive message.
I think that many voters will want a 'timeout' from divisive messages even divisive ones that have a point.
Personally Im not worried about "divisive" messages. The ones complaining about divisive are the ones who would lose something (deservedly so in my view) under a properly maintained economy and financial system. Im not going to be swayed by Wall St guys and bankers complaining about divisiveness. Screw them.
ReplyDeleteIf the spokespeople for the financial sector would advocate for strong social insurance so borrowers aren't on the edge of default as soon as they have health problems or their employer has to downsize and if they would recognize and loudly verbalize the role the govt has played in the economic growth of our country and stop asking it to think of itself as a profit making business while working to curtail the casino mentality that has driven Wall St for decades ..... then maybe Ill stop criticizing them. Til then I have no trouble trying to turn the average guy away from Wall St. They are vultures and they have gotten obscenely powerful. They are a force against our overall welfare not for it.
No, I'm not talking about Wall St. bankers. I'm talking about me and other liberals who are stick of gridlock.
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about many Americans sick of dysfunction and shouting past each other.
Again, like Nixon's message I think this may resonate.
The point is Hillary may be seen as a meditator like role. We have the Left and the Right screaming about immigrants and the one side and banks on the other and Hillary comes in with a promise to help paper over differences until cooler heads prevail
It sounded like you were specifically calling out Bernies message about banks/Wall St as divisive.
DeleteI really dont have a lot of problems with these protest messages. There is a LOT that is wrong/dysfunctional about our system. I want to shout too. Yes there is a time and place but sometimes things are bad enough and those responsible are refusing to do enough that shouting is appropriate.
I only hope cooler heads prevail if the cooler heads aren't agreeing that the govt is out of money and we need to make workers and the public sector tighten their belt. Its not the attitudes as much as the policies. I want passionate defense of good policies. Not reasoned defense of bad policies.
I wasn't calling out only Bernie though I am calling him out. My point is that I think in this election the winner will be the one candidate not promising to blow the system up one way or the other.
DeleteThe status quo of the Tea Party era is promising to blow everything up. That hasn't gotten us anywhere.
I don't know who is making reasoned defense of bad policies. Certainly I haven't.
We've had no policies. This is my problem. The status quo is no policies.
In this case, my wager is that the one candidate selling pragmatism will be the truly radical chance-from nothing to something.
I don't believe she's going to push bad policies, but again the real problem has been no policies. A Bernie President would be more gridlock.
He would have split the Dem party in two like Trump has done to the GOP.
I do think that even if I agreed that Bernie's policies are better down teh line which I don't, I don't like his pious style.
In 25 years what as he done but boast about how pure he is?
Im not suggesting that she IS pushing bad policies or will, Im simply saying that I will never be a person that picks the one that "sounds" more reasonable. I know that many do however. You are right that Hillary will appeal to that type of person.
DeleteThe way that could backfire on her though is if during a debate or something, Trump gets under her skin and she acts "bitchy". She is going to have to be perfect where as Trump as an alpha male will be given way more leeway ("oh Trumps always been like that!!") I fear that we may have a moment or two like that this summer/fall. Trump is button pusher who will stay in attack mode. Hillary will have to attack differently, if she starts looking like Trump she will lose.
You have demonstrated in your last few comments that you know that a lot of Hillarys votes need to come from people who just "feel better" about her for reasons that aren't related to party or ideology... and I agree. But those feelings can be fleeting if she starts to look different.
Im VERY cautiously optimistic about Hillary being the next prez.
I'm still not sure Trump will even want to debate. Interestingly I've heard a lot of Trump supporters and even Hugh Hewitt now say she's going to duck the debate.
DeleteThat''s not true-if he wants one, or more she'll do it. It's him I'm unsure of, he ducked a few during the primary.
It probably will depend on the polls. If he's way back by September-high single digits or low double digits he may want to then.
If he's doing better he may not. Usually the candidate who's losing wants to debate.
Basically what you're saying is that Hillary suffers from sexism. Certainly true though a fact that makes me want to fight back over it.
"You have demonstrated in your last few comments that you know that a lot of Hillarys votes need to come from people who just "feel better" about her for reasons that aren't related to party or ideology... and I agree. "
DeleteAbsolutely. But this is true of all general elections. It's important to remember that general elections aren not won by partisans alone. You always need to win over some in the mushy middle.
A GE electorate is necessarily less ideological than a primary electorate.
You have to win independents on moderates-and let's face it, you'll take votes from the other party like the Reagan Democrats, etc.
Most GE voters were not primary voters-they lack either the commitment or the knowledge of partisans and ideologues.
DeleteI'm the first to admit that I'm surely not prototypical of GE voters.
Also, many black and Latino voters have seen their right to vote curtailed again. They don''t have time for 1000 year goals, they need someone to come in and flip the SJC back so we can fix the Voting Rights Act and push back against rising voter suppression
ReplyDeleteMy problem with divisive messages is that they get us nothing but more and more shouting and less and less governing.
ReplyDeleteBernie can talk as big a game as he likes. If you don't have the Congress you can't do it.
For me, the last 7 and a half years is what divisive looks like. It's because of all the purists-mostly on the right but some on the left who refuse to ever settle for less.
I mean if you can get $12 an hour but not $15, why would you prefer nothing? I don't get it