Hillary Clinton and The Left

[Tom Sawyer]

As for Hillary Clinton, she should run as the person she is. The left can either go for idealism, or pragmatism. Own your choice either way.

Ya, it's not like with Obama where everyone was kind of surprised how much of a right wing corporate stooge he turned out to be. You know what you're going to get with Clinton.

 

[Terrell]

As for Hillary Clinton, she should run as the person she is.

Which is what?

The sort of person who come by and give you a speech about how she's going to take down the 1% if you pay her $500,000?

As someone said the other day she has an inauthenticity that's hard to fake.

A centrist Democrat, as far as I can tell.

- - - Updated - - -

As for Hillary Clinton, she should run as the person she is. The left can either go for idealism, or pragmatism. Own your choice either way.

Ya, it's not like with Obama where everyone was kind of surprised how much of a right wing corporate stooge he turned out to be. You know what you're going to get with Clinton.

Would Romney or McCain have been any better?

 

[NobleSavage]

Why does the voting public always have to move right but not one candidate ever have to move left?

I need to sit down and look at a long list of campaigns and issues, but it seems to me that most candidates with a chance of winning always do the shifting. Hillary and Jeb will both stake out positions they think will get the most votes.

 

[NobleSavage]

The OP gives me a thought.: Sanders/Reich 2016

Yeah, that will get far.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As for Hillary Clinton, she should run as the person she is.

Which is what?

The sort of person who come by and give you a speech about how she's going to take down the 1% if you pay her $500,000?

As someone said the other day she has an inauthenticity that's hard to fake.

Which is such a change of pace from the last few leaders.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, it's not like with Obama where everyone was kind of surprised how much of a right wing corporate stooge he turned out to be. You know what you're going to get with Clinton.

Would Romney or McCain have been any better?

Oh, fuck no. They were clearly the greater of the two evils.

 

[Terrell]

Would Romney or McCain have been any better?

Oh, fuck no. They were clearly the greater of the two evils.

Exactly. And there was no other candidate besides them & President Obama that got even a single electoral vote in those 2 elections.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Oh, fuck no. They were clearly the greater of the two evils.

Exactly. And there was no other candidate besides them & President Obama that got even a single electoral vote in those 2 elections.

I fail to see how any point you're making has any difference from any point I'm making, so I don't know what the "exactly" part is referencing.

 

[Terrell]

Exactly. And there was no other candidate besides them & President Obama that got even a single electoral vote in those 2 elections.

I fail to see how any point you're making has any difference from any point I'm making, so I don't know what the "exactly" part is referencing.

The only candidates that had a realistic shot at the presidency in 2008 were Obama & McCain, in 2012 they were Obama & Romney. The other candidates didn't even get a single electoral vote between them, and the electoral vote decides the presidency, unless no candidate reaches a majority. Those other candidates had no chance whatsoever.

My original point to AA's complaint, was what's her realistic alternative to Hillary, that wouldn't be even worse from the point of view of someone left of center.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I fail to see how any point you're making has any difference from any point I'm making, so I don't know what the "exactly" part is referencing.

The only candidates that had a realistic shot at the presidency in 2008 were Obama & McCain, in 2012 they were Obama & Romney. The other candidates didn't even get a single electoral vote between them, and the electoral vote decides the presidency, unless no candidate reaches a majority. Those other candidates had no chance whatsoever.

My original point to AA's complaint, was what's her realistic alternative to Hillary, that wouldn't be even worse from the point of view of someone left of center.

Ya, that's the same thing I've been saying.

 

[Terrell]

The only candidates that had a realistic shot at the presidency in 2008 were Obama & McCain, in 2012 they were Obama & Romney. The other candidates didn't even get a single electoral vote between them, and the electoral vote decides the presidency, unless no candidate reaches a majority. Those other candidates had no chance whatsoever.

My original point to AA's complaint, was what's her realistic alternative to Hillary, that wouldn't be even worse from the point of view of someone left of center.

Ya, that's the same thing I've been saying.

Cool, then we're on the same page.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Hillary Clinton has her own paper/video trail, a husband with a presidential track record, and a political defeat by forces to her left in her human history. And now she wants to try for the brass ring again.

What is a body to do when a flank of your party ain't crazy about you?

Flank is an apt choice of words. If we go back to Clausewitz and his Principles of War (gotta use war analogies for everything!) then the principle of economy of force would state that you put a minimum of power into secondary efforts.

The "left flank," if you will, of the Democratic party is certainly still secondary. The base is still pretty centrist, and Hillary lost in 2008 to a candidate who was barely to her left...or perhaps more accurately less center-right than she was. That candidate is now off the table as a challenger, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that he'll use whatever juice he has left in his office to campaign hard for his former rival when the time comes.

And while it is true that the left flank has become somewhat louder in the past couple of years, the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the party need only be placated by Hillary/Obama and the center right majority.

The left in the Democratic party is nowhere near as powerful as the Tea Party wing of the Republicans has become.

the Tea Party is no where near as powerful as the wing of the Republicans has become. The people you see with the misspelled signs and screaming voices are not the Tea Party Wing. They are the dupes, true believers and foot soldiers. Follow the money to find the TPW.

I don't know that a Tea Party-like insurrection would necessarily help the Democrats, since I'm not at all convinced there's a left-leaning "silent majority" out there to be tapped as the Tea Party did with the disaffected folks on the right wing.

Not so much silent as disorganized, isolated, and too damn busy trying not to drown to even think about taking over the ship.

Plus there's the fact that the right wing has been very effective over the last...50 years?...of painting "the left" as a bad thing in the minds of the American people. Tea Party supporters can festoon themselves with three corner hats and pretend to be Samuel Adams. I'm thinking Che Guevara t-shirts would be less popular. Like it or not, there is a stigma associated with "left wing" in this country.

So if the left wing and/or flank of the Democratic party wants to do something about the direction things are going, they've got to figure out a new way to pull the party back towards their side.


I highly doubt that's going to happen between now and November of next year.

i think figuring out what to do won't be the problem, but implementing it is gonna be a motherfucker.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Another thread where Democrats try to rationalize choosing a candidate that they know isn't a good choice.

How about a thread where Democrats try to rationalize choosing a good candidate?

 

[Terrell]

What do you define as a good candidate, and can they get to 270 votes in the electoral college?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Another thread where Democrats try to rationalize choosing a candidate that they know isn't a good choice.

How about a thread where Democrats try to rationalize choosing a good candidate?

Like who? They all kind of suck.

 

[arkirk]

Another thread where Democrats try to rationalize choosing a candidate that they know isn't a good choice.

How about a thread where Democrats try to rationalize choosing a good candidate?

Like who? They all kind of suck.

The people of this country need to debate about what government can do for the people. The politicians need to debate about what Jack Kennedy made a name for himself saying...."Ask not what your country can do for you....etc."

I see what Chomsky is talking about...a society that has basic values far to the left of the political machines in operation in this country. These machines simply keep humane policies off the table for their bosses. Fox news is a machine. CNN is a machine. When these bags of hot air we call politicians campaign, all that counts to them is getting the 270 electoral votes. This keeps all debate anemic and gives us drones and war mongers running our country.

 

[arkirk]

Another thread where Democrats try to rationalize choosing a candidate that they know isn't a good choice.

How about a thread where Democrats try to rationalize choosing a good candidate?

Like who? They all kind of suck.

Our country has a ferment of sound political thinking but it is being suppressed by political machines. Chomsky points out that on issue after issue where our congress, our supreme court, and our president seem absolutely clueless, a solid 70% of us have progressive values. Take the healthcare issue...an extreme majority of Americans have always favored SINGLE PAYER in ALL OPINION POLLS. What did we get...bullshit called Obamacare. The most popular and most wanted option was politely taken OFF THE TABLE by a so-called "Liberal" Nancy Pelosi. Some fucking liberal! Wars are unpopular with people in opinion polls, yet we see nothing but a government always armed to the teeth and ready to blow some country apart with air strikes and drones if we can find enough foreigners to do the dirty work on the ground. Trillions go up in smoke and what do we get at home...VOTER SUPPRESSION + POOR BASHING + ELECTIONS BY ENTIRELY OUTSIDE FINANCED AND PLANNED CORPORATE PLAYERS. We have become a nation of fat poor unemployed people so what do we get from our government....MORE INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION, MORE TOXIC AND LESS NUTRITIOUS FOOD...for the convenience of the factory farmer, the fast food businesses, and sheer contempt for those affected by these policies.

Even here, we worry about 270 electoral votes, when there should be no such thing as an electoral vote. We know that but it persists becau$e interested corporate parties keep it so. Opinion polls all show this electoral system is no good and needs to be democratized, but political money is all on keeping it as it is. Our environment is deteriorating almost as fast as our environmental laws are being compromised. The same can be said for our civil liberties, where a man can be shot, not for committing a crime, but for disobeying any order a cop may choose to shout.

The alleged purpose of our government was at least in part TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE. It has morphed into a fire breathing behemoth that seems to do everything but PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE...and appears to be getting worse by the day. No Hillary, no Cruz, no Bush will have any effect whatever on this degeneration of our government and they should not be expected to do anything but make things worse. So...a new form of voter suppression....no option. Nevertheless, I still vote 3rd party. There is really no reason to pin your hopes on this flock of political quacks that needs to be thrown out of Washington. There is really no reason to even vote them out...Tom Daschel, barely out of office came back as a lobbyist and advisor on Obama care, working for one of the big healthcare corporations. Even if you vote them out, they are still there throwing sand in the gears of whatever is left of democracy in Washington.

 

[Terrell]

Pointing out that 270 electoral votes are required to win, does not equal an endorsement of the electoral college. It's an acknowledgement of how the system works. What's the incentive for the smaller states, by population, to ratify a constitutional amendment to do away with it? Why would the larger states, by population, agree to a system for allocating their electoral vote other than "winner take all"?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What do you define as a good candidate, and can they get to 270 votes in the electoral college?

What is a good candidate? One who stands for something or one who can get 270? Why not have both? But if you could have both you wouldn't be discussing Hillary W. Bush.

Maybe the fact that you've already thrown in the towel and accepted Hillary as your candidate long before the first vote is even cast is why you can't have someone better.

 

[Ford]

What do you define as a good candidate, and can they get to 270 votes in the electoral college?

What is a good candidate? One who stands for something or one who can get 270? Why not have both? But if you could have both you wouldn't be discussing Hillary W. Bush.

Maybe the fact that you've already thrown in the towel and accepted Hillary as your candidate long before the first vote is even cast is why you can't have someone better.

How's that Libertarian Party doing, Jason?


Maybe Gary Johnson can run again! Geez, can't figure out why that guy isn't President yet! Or maybe there's another Libertarian (or libertarian) waiting to pounce on this wide-open Presidential contest. With 18 months left to go, it should be a simple matter for a Libertarian candidate to rise above all the terrible Republicans, and surely a Libertarian could defeat the evil Hillary Clinton.


Right?