Hillary Clinton thinks maybe a certain candidate for the Democratic POTUS nomination is being groomed for a third-party candidacy. I wonder who Clinton talking about.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
It's just occurred to me that Hillary Derangement Syndrome was a thing way before Trump appropriated the idea to feed his narcissism.
A couple of questions have been rattling around inside my head in the aftermath of reading Clinton's recent comments:
1. To what extent will Trump & Co. simply ignore the eventual Democratic nominee and keep running against Hillary?
2. Given the potent combination of breathtaking American voter stupidity and existing Electoral College arithmetic, how successful would that be?
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Vermont independent senator and 2020 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders held the largest campaign rally of the primary season so far on Saturday. An estimated 26,000 supporters packed into Queensbridge Park in New York City. The event was held in the shadow of the nation’s largest public housing development. It was Sanders’s first campaign rally since he suffered a heart attack earlier this month. Sanders was joined on stage by three prominent supporters: Carmen Yulín Cruz, the mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico; filmmaker Michael Moore; and Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who volunteered on Sanders’s 2016 campaign before being elected to the House of Representatives in 2018. Ocasio-Cortez endorsed Sanders at the rally.
Also this article by Matt Karp in Jacobin brings up some of the important differences in Warren vs Sanders and in the decoupling of the Democratic party from class issues.
Quote:
This fundamental shift — from the party of Humphrey to the party of Schumer — remains the most important American political development that confronts the Left today. It is no accident that the decline of class voting has corresponded with fifty years of retreat for American workers: stagnant wages, accumulating debt, and increasing precarity, even as corporate profits have soared. Nor is it a coincidence that even popular two-term Democratic presidents in this era, elected by such dealigned class coalitions, have proven unable or unwilling to push for structural reforms on anything like the scale of the New Deal era, even after facing the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression.
This is the heavy undertow that churns beneath the apparent rising tide of the American left. Yes, the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign helped bring social-democratic ambition back to national politics, revealing mass support for once-marginalized ideas like single-payer health insurance and free public college. Yes, the overwhelming popularity of these and other proposals — from debt cancellation to a Green New Deal — has encouraged mainstream Democrats to ride the wave the best they can, accepting some limited demands (a $15 minimum wage) while attempting to dilute others (“Medicare for All Who Want It”). And yes, by appearing to embrace most of Sanders’s platform, Elizabeth Warren has vaulted to the front of the 2020 primary race, leaving more cautious contenders like Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke far behind.
In one sense, these are cheering ideological victories, and a testament to the ongoing appeal of class-based politics. But the truth remains that all this has come about almost entirely within a political party whose own professional-class character, in the same years, has only grown stronger than ever. The 2018 midterms, after all, were won in the affluent suburbs; Democrats now control every single one of the country’s twenty richest congressional districts.
Warren, meanwhile, has broken away from the Democratic primary pack with the unmistakably enthusiastic support of voters making over $100,000 a year, among whom she leads in almost every poll. A recent California survey showed Warren winning more voters making over $200,000 than her next two rivals combined.
More on Warren:
Quote:
A university law professor for forty years, thirty of them inside the Ivy League, Warren would be the most academic president since Woodrow Wilson, and she is already the most influential scholar to mount a serious presidential campaign. Her impressive credentials and technocratic sensibility have made her catnip for affluent professionals — including, of course, some journalists — who have become her most enthusiastic supporters.
Ideologically, Warren is no centrist New Democrat. Nor is she a lofty neoliberal triangulator in the mold of Obama or Pete Buttigieg. In her determination to fight “corruption,” and her fondness for clear rules and fair regulations, she may most resemble the progressive reformers of the McGovern era.
Yet while she is sometimes described as an “economic populist,” Warren’s chief function in the primary race against Bernie Sanders has been to take the populism out of progressive economics. While formally embracing much of Sanders’s 2016 platform, the Warren campaign distinguished itself not by underlining the necessity of popular struggle, but by advertising the comprehensive wonkery of her policy agenda: “She has a plan for that!” Warren’s planfulness is Democratic savior politics in the style of Obama or Hillary Clinton. It does not summon the will of the masses; it says, “Chill out, she’s got this.”
The emphasis here is on the reasonableness of the plans, not the boldness of the demands. Even Warren’s most daring stroke on this front, a 2 percent tax on fortunes over $50 million, elicits chants of “two cents, two cents!” — with the campaign and its supporters alike practically fetishizing the modest limits of the request.
When Warren does vow to challenge the power the wealthy, her rhetoric often works not to stoke the popular mind against America’s inequality but to naturalize it as a fact of national life: “In America, there are gonna be people who are richer and people who are not so rich. And the rich are gonna own more shoes, and they’re gonna own more cars, and they may even own more houses. But they shouldn’t own more of our democracy.”
This isn’t economic populism; it’s closer to a folksy progressive riff on “there is no alternative.” Nor does such a cabined understanding of “democracy” — a question of fair procedures, walled off from the world of material goods — open much room for questioning the tyranny of bosses under capitalism.
Having assembled a scrupulously conventional campaign staff, loaded with veterans of the DNC and Hillary for America, Warren has made it clear through careful primary endorsements that she remains an institutional player within the Democratic establishment, not an insurgent aiming to transform the party itself. Even in her scattered and vague references to the need for a “grassroots movement,” what she appears to mean, when she doesn’t mean selfie lines, is nothing more revolutionary than electing more Democrats.
Rhetorically, Warren’s stress on “corruption” — the malfeasance of individual bad actors in Washington — further channels legitimate complaints about a “rigged system” away from a confrontation with class power (as Sanders intends) and toward a search for better rules.
Anyway, I think the article in whole is worth a read.
I think that chunks primarily finds value in that article because he agrees with its conclusion: Bernie Sanders is the best candidate. Much like the way that Karp decided upon which measure matters more: what percentage of a candidate's supporters are working class vs. which candidate has the support of a higher percentage of the working class. Given that Warren has higher support among those with incomes below $50k - and Biden has higher still - Karp decided to argue that it's the former that is more important, because he was looking for an argument for Bernie, not looking at the polls to help him decide who to support.
And again a repeat of the stupid argument that a rhetorical strategy to make Warren's wealth tax sound like "not too much to ask" ("It's only two-cents of that first dollar above $50 million...") means that it actually isn't a big deal. We get it, you prioritize aesthetics over effectiveness. It seems like you'd rather have a candidate say we're going to just confiscate the wealthy's ill-gotten gains but fail to do so, than have one who gets it done, but portrays it as a modest request. I think that's a stupid-ass way to evaluate things.
I would also note that basing an argument for Bernie on the fact that he has lower support among people with higher incomes and postgraduate education... kinda sends a message of "fuck you, we don't want or need your support" to those groups.
I'm not a high earner, but I do have a postgraduate education. So I guess I shouldn't support Bernie. Not because I don't like him, but for Bernie's sake. If I were to start supporting Bernie over Warren, it would make his support less working class and more postgrad-educated, which would undermine the very case for his candidacy. So I will vote for Warren to keep his coalition pure.
To be even more precise, she was talking about "They", which is a technical term in conspiracy nutjob circles.
In point of fact, no, she wasn’t. She was explicitly talking about the Republican Party, and more specifically the Trump campaign, which you’d know if you’d actually listened to the podcast or read a transcription of it. The podcast is online for free here; the relevant context that makes plain the antecedent starts at 34:25. Because I know you’re not actually going to bother listening to it, here’s a transcription:
Quote:
Plouffe: …Donald Trump, as you know better than anyone in the world, only got 46.1 percent of the vote nationally. You know he got 47.2 in Wisconsin, 47.7 in Michigan, and if you had said those before the election, you would have said he's gonna lose in a landslide.
Clinton: Right.
Plouffe: But one of the reasons he was able to win is the third-party vote.
Clinton: Right.
Plouffe: And what’s clear to me – you mentioned, you know, he’s gonna just lie. I mean, you forgot – he's gonna say, whoever our nominee is, “He’ll ban hamburgers and steaks and you can’t fly and infanticide,” and people believe that. So, how concerned are you about that? For me, so much of this does come down to the win number. If he has to get 49 or even 49.5 in a bunch of –
Clinton: He can’t do that.
Plouffe: – which I don’t think he can. So he’s gonna try and drive the people not to vote for him, but just to say, “You know, you can’t vote for them, either.” And that seems to be, I think, to the extent that I can divine a strategy, their key strategy right now.
Clinton: Well, I think there’s gonna be two parts and I think it’s gonna be the same as 2016: “Don’t vote for the other guy. You don’t like me? Don’t vote for the other guy, because the other guy is gonna do X, Y and Z, or the other guy did such terrible things. I’m gonna show you in these, you know, flashing videos that appear and then disappear, and they’re on the dark web, and nobody can find them, but you’re gonna see them and you’re gonna see that person doing these horrible things.”
They’re also gonna do third-party again. And I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary, and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She’s the favourite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, ’cause she’s also a Russian asset.
She’s explicitly talking about the Trump campaign throughout this entire exchange, not some mysterious “they”. I’m sure you’ll acknowledge your error any moment now.
In any case, there is a strong case to be made that Gabbard is a Russian asset, particularly seeing as the term “asset” doesn’t mean “someone who is literally on the payroll of a foreign government”; a so-called “useful idiot” can be an asset just as much as someone who’s actually being paid. And Gabbard’s word-salad response was all but a confession, since Clinton didn’t actually specify anyone by name.
I’m also going to add that anyone who defended Gabbard in the wake of Clinton’s comments has plummeted far down my list of candidates – not as far down as Gabbard herself, or the Fuck the Fucking New York Times (which was responsible for disseminating a patently false story about the Clinton podcast), but still pretty far down.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
An extra minus point for those who defended Tulsi on the spurious grounds that her service in the military is evidence against it. Because people who served are too patriotic and ethical, I guess? Like Mike Flynn, John Kelly, Benedict Arnold, and...
No surprises here, but happy trails and fare thee well to the presidential campaign of Tim Ryan.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
I for one am SHOCKED, SHOCKED to learn that Amy Klobuchar is a Russian Asset(TM). Who knew that cheese mongering*, staff abusing, comb-as-fork-eating centrist was a product of a Potemkin Village, groomed for her role like a Manchurian Candidate, but by the All Powerful Russia {Pearl-clutch Initiated} Which Is Totally NOT WINK Cover for McCarthyist Tactics WINK and Jingoistic Horseshit WINK. Though if any one of the candidates came out of a Potemkin Village, Klobuchar makes a lot of sense. Plus, has she ever denied being a Russian Asset? Well then checkmate! To the GulagJustice Center with you!
Just making sure everyone knows that The Manchurian Candidate is a work of fiction, while McCarthyism is a real thing. Actual thing. Really happened and can happen some more.
I agree with Katy Stoll of Even More News (13 minutes in to this episode) when she says regarding Hillary Clinton:
Quote:
...this to me still feels irresponsible. As this news was developing, and first there was this misquote that's making it's way around and then there's people saying no, this is what she's saying... at the end of the day even if everything she was saying couldn't have been misinterpreted or even if it was all above board, I don't need you to be entering into this conversation right now and I think that a lot of you guys will disagree with me and I understand that, because you respect her and I get it. Even if it was something completely benign, Hillary Clinton weighing in distracts the entire conversation to being about Hillary Clinton and re-litigating 2016, and I feel like she should know better at this point, I feel like she should know what that does and what that brings and how it is a big distraction from the many, many things we have going on right now, does that make sense?
And what's happened? Everyone gets to be smeared and lowered as a result so that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could graciously punch way the fuck down at a 3% polling down-ballot candidate and another person who hasn't declared at all for 2020 and so that the NYT and MSNBC and CNN could grease the machine. Everyone get their drama fix? Great.
If. There. Is. To. Be. A. Vote. I. Vote. Move. On. Please.
*Ah shit. I tried to shorthand midwestern aw shucks and fell afoul of Wisconsin on the way to Minnesota. I am undone.
__________________
Last edited by chunksmediocrites; 10-25-2019 at 12:04 AM.
No surprises here, but happy trails and fare thee well to the presidential campaign of Tim Ryan.
I didn't see anything wrong with him, but he didn't really capture any of my attention or interest. What did he have to offer that you couldn't get from a more compelling candidate?
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Though Biden has pledged not to take contributions from registered lobbyists, the prohibition appears not to apply to big-dollar organizers of his Super PAC. Among the individuals involved with the effort are several lobbyists for leading corporations and foreign governments.
Longtime Biden supporter Larry Rasky, one of the people involved with the big-money effort, is the founder of lobbying firm Rasky Partners, which is currently registered to lobby on behalf of Raytheon, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, among other clients.
Steve Schale, a former Obama campaign strategist, is a registered state lobbyist with Cardenas Partners, a Florida lobbying firm founded by former Jeb Bush adviser Al Cardenas. Schale’s current client list includes the Florida Hospital Association, JetBlue Airways, State Farm Insurance, Walt Disney Parks, AT&T, and the Associated Industries of Florida.
The prior interviews where Joe Biden talks about the corrosive aspects of lobbyists and the prior videos of him as recently as 2018 saying how you can't trust a politician who is funded by a super-PAC is apparently not an issue for the Biden campaign, because at this point why not, it's not like Joe hasn't been a paid-for commodity of the major corporate interests of Delaware for decades as it is, plus that desperate need for cash in a campaign busy chartering private jets really wears down the resolve, I guess.
To make the debate stage in Los Angeles, party officials announced Friday that candidates must have at least 200,000 unique donors and a minimum of 800 unique donors per state in at least 20 states.
Candidates must also mark 4% in at least four national or early state polls, or achieve 6% in two single-state polls in the early states. DNC officials have said that this separate pathway may provide an avenue for hopefuls who may not be registering as highly in national surveys as in the key early-voting states.
I'm a bit debate fatigued but only six or so candidates on a stage answering tepid to bad questions sounds positively dreamy.
Jill Stein: Hillary Clinton is still sabotaging progressives
"And believe me, I know something about sabotaging progressives!"
Although the sad truth is that despite her best efforts to sabotage progressives, Jill Stein didn't actually do well enough to affect the result in 2012 or 2016. She's no Ralph Nader.
She did successfully grift desperate grieving people in the aftermath of the 2016 election for a bullshit recount, pledge to donate the remaining money after paying legal fees to worthy causes and then instead use the millions to fund her staff for years.
Rashida Tlaib endorses Bernie Sanders for president
RashidaTlaib endorsed Bernie today in front of a crowd of 4,700 people in Detroit, where Jack White of the White Stripes also performed in support. She is the third member of the progressive "squad" to endorse Sanders.
"Nothing to Russiagate"? He lost me there. The DNC server was hacked by Russia. Trump asked for it to happen. How does this constitute nothing to Russiagate? Mueller even gave him a pass on improper behavior on the grounds that Dump might not have known what he was doing was improper, or to put it another way, ignorance of the law is too an excuse.
What about tax returns we haven't seen yet, or Deutsche Bank loan info we haven't seen yet? How can we say there's nothing to them sight unseen? You can't reach conclusions based on evidence that's being concealed.
etc etc
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Matt Taibbi is trash. He made his name throwing colorful insults at deserving Wall Street targets, but he's been trash for a while. He's like davidm, so committed to the proposition that Hillary Clinton/the Democratic Party are awful and the only reason that the GOP won in 2016, that he must deny any evidence that suggests other factors were important, no matter how ludicrous his position becomes as more information comes out. He would rather defend Trump from impeachment than admit that not everything boils down to "Democrats suck."
Which is why at this point, he is effectively a Trump supporter.
For example, earlier this month he made the astoundingly idiotic argument that Democrats doing an impeachment inquiry is somehow similar to a military coup.
He starts off this piece about the impeachment inquiry by discussing an attempted coup in Russia under Gorbachev, because these situations are so similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taibbi
My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump. Many Americans don’t see this because they’re not used to waking up in a country where you’re not sure who the president will be by nightfall. They don’t understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.
Taibbi can protest that he doesn't support Trump, but when you're declaring him the lesser of two evils, it's a pretty minor distinction.
Trump's impeachment will not result in the overthrow of a regime or the reversal of the election. It will not install a Democrat in power, it will install Mike fucking Pence. It will not be a violent overthrow, nor can it be unilateral. Impeachment and removal can only happen with the cooperation of a significant minority of Republicans (almost 40% of GOP senators are required to convict). And you can be guaranteed that if Mike Pence is deemed too compromised to be president, the Republicans will never consent to remove him if it means Nancy Pelosi becomes president unless they think it's in their interests for Pelosi to become president (which they will not, since they have to win Republican primaries, where letting Nancy be president, even for a few lame duck months, would be a death sentence). Instead, they will insist that Pence be allowed to appoint a new, Republican VP before his removal or resignation. She will not and cannot unilaterally assume control.
There will be continuity, the GOP will remain in control and get to enjoy the fruit of the poisoned tree for the full four-year term, at a minimum. And that's not even talking about the cadres of right-wing crazies Trump has appointed to the courts and other long-term positions which means they'll reap the rewards of Trump's criminality and extremism for years and years to come.
When you're arguing that any accountability for Trump using constitutional mechanisms that require (in the current Congress) bipartisan cooperation and can only result in Trump's party controlling the executive branch, when you're arguing that's effectively a coup... you are a Trump supporter.
Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition
Linear Mode
