She will meet with Bernie on Tuesday night. This is another good sign.
"Bernie Sanders will meet with presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night to press her on her policy positions and decide whether he can support her, Sanders said Sunday."
"I simply want to get a sense of what kind of platform she will be supporting, whether she will be vigorous in standing up for working families and the middle class, moving aggressively in climate change, healthcare for all, making public colleges and universities tuition-free," Sanders said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And after we have that kind of discussion and after we can determine whether or not we are going to have a strong and progressive platform, I will be able to make other decisions."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-224229#ixzz4BNSd5kUP
"HILLARY CLINTON: THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL."
https://twitter.com/TurboKitty/status/741650005014904833
Anybody who believes in the idea that this one woman is 'The Root OF All Evil' doesn't belong anywhere near politics.
So Bernie is making the right moves. At some point he will endorse her I believe-maybe after this meeting.
On most of these ideas she's stated her strongly shared commitment with him. Certainly on the minimum wage, tuition and climate change."
I don't see how much further compromise there can be. Like on the MW he wants a $15 federal MW and she wants $12. Meanwhile Trump wants to cut wages and do away with the federal MW-and the Berners declare that there's no difference between Hillary and Trump.
But Hillary is not in principle opposed to a $15 MW as she supports it at the state level.
She's just urging a little caution at the federal level. She did say though that if the Dems ever were able to get a $15 MW to her desk, she'd sign it.
So where is the middle ground between these two positions? They are already pretty damn close.
Meanwhile:
Tulsi Gabbard launches petition to end Democratic Party superdelegate process."
https://twitter.com/Jeannine_C_/status/741832024676274176
My answer to this is: when it's not broke don't fix it.
I agree with Jamelle Bouie, the Democratic primary process actually worked pretty well.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/the_democratic_nomination_process_is_fine.html
Like him I think it's the right mix of 'Majoritarian and nonMarjoritarian attributes.'
The demand for the end of SDs is the demand that the system be purely Majoritarian.
I disagree with this in principle. The Democratic party should have some level of say in who the nominee is.
Not 100% but 20% seems fair. We saw what a pure Majoritarian system got us in the 70s.
Of course, moving from theory-my theory being it's a good mix-to what has actually happened empirically, the SDs did not decide this primary in any way shape or form.
Indeed, even less so than usual as unlike Obama in 2008 or Mondale and Dukakis in 1984 and 1988 respectively, Hillary also won a majority of pledged delegates.
I don't see how voters could have made their preference any more clear.
But, it's still a positive sign that we've moved on from who won the election-which is blindingly obvious-to these convention level process questions.
"Bernie Sanders will meet with presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night to press her on her policy positions and decide whether he can support her, Sanders said Sunday."
"I simply want to get a sense of what kind of platform she will be supporting, whether she will be vigorous in standing up for working families and the middle class, moving aggressively in climate change, healthcare for all, making public colleges and universities tuition-free," Sanders said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And after we have that kind of discussion and after we can determine whether or not we are going to have a strong and progressive platform, I will be able to make other decisions."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-224229#ixzz4BNSd5kUP
Let me just say that I find this a good faith move by Bernie. He has to at least talk about being tough on the platform as a sop to his supporters.
They have already really turned on Elizabeth Warren and now tar her with the cruelest cut of all: just another politician. Everything she's ever said is now hypocrisy because she's endorsed That Woman.
They have already really turned on Elizabeth Warren and now tar her with the cruelest cut of all: just another politician. Everything she's ever said is now hypocrisy because she's endorsed That Woman.
A woman that they have now decided is Pure Evil.
https://twitter.com/TurboKitty/status/741650005014904833
Anybody who believes in the idea that this one woman is 'The Root OF All Evil' doesn't belong anywhere near politics.
So Bernie is making the right moves. At some point he will endorse her I believe-maybe after this meeting.
On most of these ideas she's stated her strongly shared commitment with him. Certainly on the minimum wage, tuition and climate change."
I don't see how much further compromise there can be. Like on the MW he wants a $15 federal MW and she wants $12. Meanwhile Trump wants to cut wages and do away with the federal MW-and the Berners declare that there's no difference between Hillary and Trump.
But Hillary is not in principle opposed to a $15 MW as she supports it at the state level.
She's just urging a little caution at the federal level. She did say though that if the Dems ever were able to get a $15 MW to her desk, she'd sign it.
So where is the middle ground between these two positions? They are already pretty damn close.
Meanwhile:
Tulsi Gabbard launches petition to end Democratic Party superdelegate process."
https://twitter.com/Jeannine_C_/status/741832024676274176
My answer to this is: when it's not broke don't fix it.
I agree with Jamelle Bouie, the Democratic primary process actually worked pretty well.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/the_democratic_nomination_process_is_fine.html
Like him I think it's the right mix of 'Majoritarian and nonMarjoritarian attributes.'
The demand for the end of SDs is the demand that the system be purely Majoritarian.
I disagree with this in principle. The Democratic party should have some level of say in who the nominee is.
Not 100% but 20% seems fair. We saw what a pure Majoritarian system got us in the 70s.
Of course, moving from theory-my theory being it's a good mix-to what has actually happened empirically, the SDs did not decide this primary in any way shape or form.
Indeed, even less so than usual as unlike Obama in 2008 or Mondale and Dukakis in 1984 and 1988 respectively, Hillary also won a majority of pledged delegates.
I don't see how voters could have made their preference any more clear.
But, it's still a positive sign that we've moved on from who won the election-which is blindingly obvious-to these convention level process questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment