• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    insightanalytical on Happy Fourth of July!
    William on Happy Fourth of July!
    Propertius on Focusing on the Wrong Thi…
    Propertius on Focusing on the Wrong Thi…
    William on Focusing on the Wrong Thi…
    Propertius on Focusing on the Wrong Thi…
    Propertius on Focusing on the Wrong Thi…
    William on Focusing on the Wrong Thi…
    riverdaughter on And so it begins…
    lililam on Somewhat Brief Reflections
    Propertius on And so it begins…
    insightanalytical on And so it begins…
    Propertius on Somewhat Brief Reflections
    Propertius on Somewhat Brief Reflections
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Today’s bright spot
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    March 2016
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – July 3, 2022
      Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – July 3, 2022 by Tony Wikrent   Strategic Political Economy “America Is Sliding Into the Long Pandemic Defeat” Ed Yong [The Atlantic, via Naked Capitalism Water Cooler 6-28-2022] “In 2018, while reporting on pandemic preparedness in the Democratic Republic of Congo, I heard many people joking about the fictional 15th articl […]
  • Top Posts

Post Michigan: Cassandra Speaks

12cfc2b1c122190e08dcb1336097240dI’m going to step out of my “let’s all be friends” mode for a minute to talk about what happened in Michigan last night.

Clinton won that debate in Michigan. She reached out to the African American community. She fluffed Obama til it hurt. She still lost. Now, I would still vote for Bernie in a heartbeat over whoever the Republican challenger turns out to be and I’m not even going to say that this would turn out to be a McGovernesque mistake. But something else is going on this election year that Hillary’s campaign staff is not catching on to.

Also note that if anything, the winner in Michigan has a much more awkward and less nuanced attitude towards race and gender. It’s not that he’s a racist. It’s that he looks very uncomfortable talking about it. And we can’t rule out the relentless attacks on Hillary’s character from almost everyone. Someday, we might have to address the scapegoat mechanism and why Americans are so determined to resolve a conflict by making the woman take the fall. But that’s for another post.

In the meantime, I’ll leave you with this comment from tdraicer from about a week ago. He summed up this election season and Hillary’s plight pretty well. Unlike the Republican party, the Democratic party has mechanisms to shape the outcome, as we saw in 2008. I’m not advocating cheating and rewriting the rules like it did for Obama. But Democrats have proportional delegation instead of “winner take all” and the superdelegates can throw their weight to their preferred candidate.

The Democratic nominee might not have a chance in November if the feeling of impotence among the electorate forces it to vote for drastic and dangerous change in order to make a point: They will not be ignored.

Here’s tdraicer’s comment (hope he doesn’t mind):

I confess to both enjoying and being appalled by the ironies of this campaign season.

In 2008, despite winning a majority of primary voters, Hillary was kept from the nomination by an alliance of mostly young white Democratic activists and black voters who chose symbolism over substance (an alliance backed by Wall Street money who knew exactly which Democrat was friendliest to their interests). At the same time I warned that an anti-liberal Democrat like Obama in the WH would push the GOP even more to the extreme right.

Now, 8 years later, after Obama disappointed those who saw him wrongly as a liberal, Hillary is again opposed by mostly young white Democratic activists, forcing her to embrace Obama and rely on the exact black symbolic attachment to Obama that cost her their votes 8 years ago. And minus those voters, (and to be fair, the Wall Street money), Bernie demonstrates the limits of the Obama coalition of 2008.

Meanwhile, having failed to elect two Right-wing candidates to the WH in 2008 and 2012, the GOP has finally gone off the cliff, apparently intent on nominating someone so far to the right it scares even many Republicans (which won’t stop them backing him in the end).

Which doesn’t, alas, mean Trump is doomed to lose. Apart from black voters, Obama isn’t that popular, and Hillary’s being forced into his arms could cost her, especially if the economy collapses between now and November. If there is a Revolutionary mood in the country, it lies among Trump supporters, not Bernie’s.

In 2000 when W. “won” I said, Better hope nothing like a major terrorist attack happens in the next four years. In 2004, after listening to Obama’s speech at the Democratic Convention, I said, Better hope he never becomes President. In 2008 and 2012 I warned there was much worse than McCain or Romney waiting in the wings. In sum, I’m gaining a lot of sympathy for Cassandra: seeing the future and having no influence over it is not as much fun as one might wish.


94 Responses

  1. rd, I’m very flattered.

    As to where we are after yesterday, my thoughts are that though in theory Sanders could still make Hillary a stronger candidate in the fall, he could also do damage that could lead to President Trump. Otoh, though it remains improbable, Sanders could still get the nomination. And I’m afraid that may also lead to President Trump, as given the choice between two angry men who want to blow up the system, I’m afraid there is more anger on the Right.

    So at this point, to be honest, I wish Sanders had stayed in Vermont. If he gets the nomination, I’ll certainly support him. But as Han Solo would say, I have a bad feeling about this. (Adding, I not only could be wrong here, I very much hope that I am.)

    • What we need are fewer Michelle Alexander pieces and more African American leaders telling the eggheads to stop throwing their feces at Hillary.

      • You tell ’em, RD, stop being so uppity!

        • Is there a reason why you had to throw in the word uppity?

          • I suspect SH is a troll, trying to pin the scarlet “R” on you for, ironically, supporting the candidate who is getting the most votes from African-Americans.

  2. Whoever is voting for Sanders and Trump is using them as vessels for their own discontent. It might be well to inquire as to what they are so discontented about.

    It would be interesting to see what percent of Dem primary voters over some age-cutoff, say . . . 40 years old? . . . voted which way. Something could be learned if actual data were gathered on that.

    I would hope there is a pause on throwing feces all around. The spectacle of John Lewis throwing his feces at Sanders ( deceitfully implying that Sanders was not involved in civil rights movement activities from the mid 60s whereas Clinton was) was so distasteful to so many that apparently Lewis was forced to backtrack and issue his “non-clarification clarification” about “not meaning to imply” that Sanders was not involved in such activities.

    If the Ds nominate Clinton and the Rs nominate one of their traditional brand-name creeps, I will certainly support Clinton. If the Ds nominate Clinton and the Rs nominate Trump, then I will have a painful choice to make. Trump doesn’t just speak to “authoritarians”. He also speaks to the Inner Arsonist in people like myself. If it is Trump v. Clinton, I will have to see which candidate gathers around itself which groups and types of advisers and thinking-brain dogs and prospective cabinet-nominees, etc. I will see what the hard-bitten former-military and former-diplomatic-corps and former-intelligence-and-clandestine-activities people who are currently clumped up at the blog Sic Semper Tyrannis have to say about what they think they see.

    • I’m 40+ by a fair amount and I caucused in Kansas for Bernie, mostly for his Medicare for All plan. I cannot tun my back on a man with a plan for my lifelong obsession.

      • We need to stop being ashamed of putting our own survival first. And it really is a matter of brute survival, not greed or anything else.

        Different people will see their own brute-survival interest best served, or at least least-threatened, by one or another potential nominee-wannabe. Let all the different people pursue all their percieved survival-interests in the open, and then a final mass-average result will be arrived at.

        And in the meantime, different people can make their different cases with the level of reasonable civility which this blog is striving to maintain.

        • Totally agree.

        • RUR wants a contradiction. A struggle for survival and civility do not go together well.

          I fear the folly of our misruling classes in allowing people to fall into situations which threaten their survival, so that the misrulers can pile up even more money which they don’t need, may give us Donaldus Trumpus Caesar. 😦

          • Vote for our survival, but discuss among ourselves what that survival interest is. And discuss our separate viewpoints in a civil manner here on this blog. There is no contradiction in that here on this blog.

            And that does not require us to be civil with our uncivil enemies out in the meatspace real world.

      • I’d love Medicare for all. How exactly is Bernie going to make this happen? He wasn’t able to get anyone to sign his single-payer bill in the Senate. Many Republicans in Congress fought Obama care and want to kill Social Security. Even a gifted politician will have trouble getting anything passed that is beyond what the Affordable Care Act of today, although a dogged president can place it center (as Hillary did when Clinton took office) and improve it gradually.

        What Bernie says will happen in his Presidency certainly assumes that the country is turned upside down, conservative Republicans see the light, and Scandinavian tax levels are imposed. Does Sanders have the Congressional support to implement his free public university tuition, Medicare for All, etc.?

        See the NYT’s article entitled
        “Uncovering the Bad Math (or Logic) of an Economic Analysis Embraced by Bernie Sanders”

        “An academic study that predicted Bernie Sanders’s economic platform would cause an enormous economic boom turns out to have been based on faulty math, or bad economic logic.”

        I had the awful feeling that the Hope + Change ad campaign would not meet expectations and many voters would be alienated. What Bernie is promising seems impossible. Even the most gifted of politicians would have a hard time pulling off his platform. What remains if he wins or loses would be the disillusionment of those who believed he could deliver. (Not saying he can’t, but what he is promising is more than a chicken in every pot or free ponies.)

        • In 2008, Hillary said there is nothing wrong with Social Security, we just need to improve the economy so there will be enough cash flow in the general fund. I think the same applies to ‘Medicare for all’. Of course she will defend and expand Medicare as much as possible now, also.

  3. To the Inner Arsonists out there: Burning down the country in the name of change is historically the sort of thinking that leads to concentration camps and gulags.

    rd: this seems worth a read:


    • You said it better than I could.

    • Exactly. I do not loathe Sanders, as Uppity Woman obviously does, but I don’t think he can beat Donaldus Trumpus Caesar or Oliver Cromwell Cruz in November, and I would fear either of them in the White House.

      Sanders has expressed some eccentric viewpoints in his past, which could provide rich material for attack ads. I think that could finish him in a general election, against the GOP Smear Machine.

      Note: “Donaldus Trumpus Caesar” comes from the same obscure Latin dialect as the taxonomic classifications “Acceleratii Incredibilis” and “Carnivorous Vulgaris”. 😉

    • As a Hillary supporter, I’m not worried about Bernie winning Michigan. Here’s why:

      Like New Hampshire, Michigan has an open primary. And just as in New Hampshire, Hillary won people who were really Democrats. BS won Michigan by winning independents in huge numbers (71-28) even as HRC won actual Democrats (58-40).

      Florida has a closed primary, and that is that.

  4. I thought Bernie might add something to the primary but it largely seems to becoming a negative. I mean if all you’re doing is character attacks circa Obama 2008 you’re really ticking me off. And the same age group that picked Obama is voting for Sanders which should tell you that they have severe judgement problems. We’ll see if the hammer comes down on a lot off the attacks a week from now or not.

  5. I wrote in my blog yesterday about Clinton’s NAFTA, Welfare reform and repeal of Glass Steagall. You may find it of interest.http://patriciabaeten.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-truth-about-clintons-welfare-reform.html

    • Clinton pressed very hard to get the Congress to ratify NAFTA. There is a book about that called The Selling of Free Trade.

      Clinton also worked very hard to get Congress to pass his MFN for China.
      The intention of NAFTA was to export millions of American jobs to Mexico. But passage of MFN for China sent those jobs to China instead, hence the “low” numbers of American jobs going to Mexico. The Mexican leadership was also disappointed by that outcome. They expected millions of jobs in a Great Wall of Maquiladoras from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico.

      At least NAFTA was able to catalyze the destruction of several million Mexican peasant farmers’ agricultural livlihoods, as intended, under a flood of subsidized MidWestern petrochemical corn and soybeans. But since China got the millions of jobs, there was no Great Wall of Maquiladoras for all those NAFTAstinian economic refugees and exiles to go to. So they continued on into this country, and illegal immigration from Mexico into America went hugely up thanks to NAFTA. The abolition of NAFTA would allow Mexico to re-protectionize its agriculture and would allow Mexican corn-growers to make a living selling Mexican-grown corn to Mexican corn-eaters again. Some of the NAFTAstinian economic exiles living in America might return to Mexico if they had a Mexico to return to. The abolition of NAFTA and the restoration of national economic sovereignty might permit that to happen.

      • The problem is not free trade agreements. The problem is the cheap labor model. I grew up in the heart of textile country in SC and those companies were leaving the US back in the 1970’s in search of cheap labor. As long as there is cheap labor to found somewhere in the world, businesses that can will outsource. If you repealed NAFTA tomorrow none of those jobs would come back sorry to say unless you want to get rid of the minimum wage in this country and have people working for $1.00 an hour. So until Americans are willing to become cheap labor or until the business community quits using the cheap labor model, this is going to continue. It has been going on for literally decades. There were complaints of manufacturing companies moving to Mexico even before NAFTA was signed.

        • The problem is not free trade agreements. The problem is the cheap labor model.

          The problem isn’t the hole in the side of the boat, the problem is that the ocean is a liquid.

        • The jobs would come back if we repealed ALL the Free Trade Agreements going all the way back to GATT Round One if necessary, and then restoring militant belligerent protectionism. Anything made in a cheaper wage and cheaper conditions area would simply be charged a tariff designed to raise its price all the way up to where the equivalent thing would have to cost if made in the US with all our higher costs. If that were not enough to prevent
          companies fleeing to find the lower wage and cheaper conditions, we could pass stronger laws to prevent the economic treason which you describe.

          The first step towards building a slow and steady mass-movement strong enough to force that policy into existence is to state it openly as a goal. There is no law of nature preventing us from restoring the Protectionism we had here before the Free Trade Agreements, merely the pressure of Establishment desire to preserve their differential-costs-arbitrage trade rackets.

          • An analogy to that would be back in the 1970’s when Americans were turning to small fuel efficient imported Japanese pickup trucks. The Big Three went to congress complaining they couldn’t compete and needed protection. Congress imposed a tariff on the small trucks but what did the Big Three do? Well they didn’t produce more trucks to meet the demand they raised the price of what they were producing to increase profitability keeping the price difference the same.

      • Holy crap, what a crass over simplification of reality. The U.S. was experiencing solid economic times. Bill Clinton reached out to Mexico to try and give them jobs so there would be less illegal immigration. So now you say that China got the jobs instead. That’s wall street being wall street, but more importantly, we have met the enemy and he is us. it was ALL THAT PENSION MONEY that needed to be invested. Oversea stock funds were booming back then because the U.S. was helping their economies grow and pension stocks were happily investing and then using unrealistic growth projections of 15% a year to fund their own pensions. Sure it sucks now but lets not forget that many homeowners in this country have probably received a significant boost in the value of their home because of all the wealth created in Asia that came to the U.S. to buy homes.
        My point is, it’s very complicated and convoluted and everyone played a role and in many instances people both benefited and were hurt. The stock market is a big gambling casino and every time they lose, we lose, and then they get bailed out. Lets not just say a person or a thing caused all the problems. Usually politics is about kicking an inevitable problem down the road just far enough so people can be happy today, and until that changes, blaming any one person for something is somewhat mindless.

        • Thank you!
          It should be reminded the finger pointing types of the favorite Wall Street Movie line, “greed is good”.

  6. Exit polls suggest Hillary got everyone over 40 in MI. She got everyone over 29 in SC. She got the majority of those who identify as Dems.

    Why did Bernie win MI? Here’s what my (born of frustration and horror) research found in the wee hours. Because it was an open primary. Because there was crossover voting–8% of Dems said, she’s fine, she’s way ahead in MI, she’s going to win it, so let’s vote for a Repub to stop Trump. 4% of Repubs said, let’s vote for Sanders to stop Clinton. And then, there were the independents, 70% of whom voted Dem last night, the majority of those for Sanders.

    Hence, she lost by 1.5 points.

    Several open primaries coming up…

    • I shouldn’t say everyone. I meant the majority. (wishful thinking)

    • This could be tested by comparing it with outcomes in closed-primary states.

      • Yes. He’s done better in open primaries. From now on, this gap may grow, as the fear of Trump is growing, and so is the fear of Clinton on the other side.

    • One criticism of Hillary Clinton that bugs me just a bit is the claim she only campaigned in the two biggest cities in Michigan and ignored the rest of the state and even took a few days to fundraise. If true, its frustrating to see how close Hillary Clinton came to ending the race but maybe not being more invasive in Michigan was the difference maker. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is being outspent yet continues to win more votes and delegates.

    • Exactly. She won real Democrats by 18 points.

      And Michigan is notorious for the gaming of its open primaries. Anyone remember “Democrats for Mitt” from 2008?

    • So glad I wasn’t the only one thinking about how open primaries are affecting the outcome in Bernie’s favor. It was the first thing I thought of actually when he won Michigan. It’s a real shame the DNC did not learn a single thing from 08!

  7. Uppity Woman has a horrific cartoon posted down in the comments that makes me want to permanently disavow anything Sanders, though I do realize the candidate doesn’t have control over his or her supporters. It is the type of thing I would not even expect from a Trumper or Cruzer. Sanders is tolerating genderist attacks on Clinton when he should be putting a stop to them. I found it insane, that Clinton supported the auto-bailout (the only one I can think that actually helped someone other than the 1%), yet Bernie couldn’t come down off his cross to do something useful or practical. Bernie appears to have his own Inner Arsonist.

    • When you realize it’s the same bros before hos crowd from 2008 that’s supporting Bernie then you won’t be surprised at any of the awful things they post on twitter.

    • Not going there guys. Seriously. I have friends and family members who are sanders people. They aren’t anything like the thoughtless obnoxious disgusting obots of 2008.

      • Those Obots are following Sanders now. It’s not that Sanders has all the same group but unfortunately a lot of them migrated over to Sanders, probably the majority of them.

        • Exactly. The majority of Sanders supporters are not former Oborg.

          Indeed, the majority of Obama supporters were not Oborg.

          But the ones who were Oborg have gravitated disproportionately to Sanders.

          • Though indeed, as Churl said, the candidate can’t be expected to micromanage and control all of his supporters.

        • I’m not saying that sanders has attracted the same crowd of former Obama supporters who now feel betrayed by him. I’m saying that they aren’t the only ones who support sanders.
          And yes, we can’t expect a candidate to micromanage their supporters. Hillary had no control over the PUMAs that I’m aware of.
          If sanders starts brushing dirt off his shoulders or plays “I’ve got 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one” at his ralleys or allows one of his speechwriter to start humping a Hillary Clinton blow up doll, THEN we have a problem.
          If trump is pushing the envelope, maybe it’s because we let Obama get away with so much shit in 2008.
          But you’ll never catch katiebird putting up with that. So if she’s with sanders, it’s because of the candidate, not because of the butt hurt guys.

          • I have to say the last debate Bernie acted really bad. You can watch and judge it for yourself.

          • Agree with the post below. In the last debate, he was on the attack, and with the CONSTANT finger waving as she would begin to speak, the Obamaian smirks, the ‘let me talk’ kind of behavior after he’d interrupted her dozens of times, as if she were a child…. it did spark a lot of criticism for him. His tone and behavior are changing/emerging now.

  8. Among the other statistics in this stupid open prmary, note that Sanders won the votes of people 18-24 by something like 92-8%. That is absurd on any logical basis. These are young people who are voting en bloc, apparently because their friends are; or because it seems like the cool thing to do; or because they crave that carrot of free tuition, which of course they are not going to get. On the merits, even taking into account my own views, there is no rational way that virtually every single millennial is voting for Sanders.

    I will risk being elitist by saying that the average voter is becoming less and less able to understand governance, or issues. They apparently gravitate to one of the extremes, where they either get a candidate who promises a whole bunch of money, or money-saving things; or they go for a fascist strongman who claims to have all the answers, and will make the trains run on time. What they don’t want is nuance, or an admission that these are complex issues, or that we need some compromise. They vote as if they are watching a reality or talent show, picking the person whom they “feel.”

    Hillary has such a difficult path. She’s got the insane tea party Republicans to contend with, those who gvie voice to the endless frustration and anger of the masses, and call for radical change. That this radical change will even further damage their lives, the voters do not understand or care about. And then in the primary, she must contest with a Jacobin candidate who calls for a political revolution, essentially the same thing as the Right is doing, but with different goals. And people who have been made even more unhappy and envious by the internet and social media, have no more patience with logic or moderate meaasures. Hillary, by temperament and knowledge, cannot pose as a revolutionary. And she can’t really disclaim Obama, since she was in his cabinet, and because 90% of Democrats think he did a good job. And it may well be, tragically, that Obama and his supporters will cost Hillary two elections. She’s facing the multi-headed monster from one side, and the whirlpool from the other; and she is trying to steer her way through, with the anti-Hillary media buffeting her every foot of the way.

    • I seriously wonder if a woman ever can be president of the US. Seriously. I see so much misogyny from the right and the left it just seems insidious in our culture.

      • When HRC, or any other female candidate, has genuine flaws, I will probably overlook or dismiss those flaws, simply because I’m so p!$$ed off at the Bros before Hos barbarians.

        Also, like William, I fear I am losing faith in the ability of a majority of my fellow citizens to make good choices. I will still support democracy for Churchill’s reason (“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others which have been tried.”), but I must admit that democracy only works well if the demos is neither stupid nor degenerate.

        • This country is sickly. Nate Silver on 538, while trying not to anger the Bros, continues to firmly present firm data on how, at this point, it is EXTREMELY unlikely for Sanders to win the nomination. She BARELY lost Michigan. She was supposed to win it, but that she didn’t, doesn’t count for that much, unless there are hordes of Sanders supporters who just can’t wait to join in. She still got a lot of delegates. She’s still ahead by over 200 pledged (and he is behind the projections he needs to have enough delegates, by over -15%). It is only early March and there are many, many closed primaries coming up which favor her. Sanders isn’t Obama. He’s to the far left of the vast majority of Americans.

          Besides, she’s got George Clooney. 🙂 🙂 😉

          • The optics are very bad.
            You could be a professional Clintonista for all I know, hired to make uplifting comments in the thread (just saying it’s possible, not probable). But if she keeps not out right winning states she carried easily in 2008, then I think it’s time for her to stop what she is currently doing and make a sharp course correction.
            She has to channel her end of the 2008 primary. Her advisors are giving her really bad advice right now.
            And I really wish she’d stop the obamaesque emails. My donation, as small as it is, is recurrent and it’s all I can afford right now. I’m also on John Fetterman’s donor list. I have a driveway to pave and my bathroom needs a reno. These are non-negotiable.
            And all the money in the world can not correct a less than thrilling message right now.

          • RD, if you meant me as a Clintonista, nah, but I do attempt to be realistically optimistic (sometimes it’s very hard). I’m happy to remind you exactly who I am (we communicated a lot in 08); please email me. I tried to email you, but the contact email here bounced back.

            Anyway, here’s the 538 analysis of Michigan: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/

          • I always appreciate your posts, LadyV. Hillary actually only lost Michigan because of the perils of open primaries. And probably also because the NRA supports Sanders over her. Now, the bigger concern is the Midwest in the general election. Trump, and particularly if he puts Kasich on the ticket, could well win those key states. If the Democrats lose Ohio and Michigan, I don’t see a very good path to win the election, even if we win the popular vote by 2-3 million. The Republicans so dominate the Red states, that they have many delegates guaranteed. I guess that if we can win VA and FL and maybe NC, we can make up for it, but if is very dicey.

          • She won MI in 08. She needs to change her message. She can’t blame it on an open primary.

          • All due respect RD but MI was a strange situation in 2008 as she was basically campaigning against uncommitted. Florida next week will be a better indicator. And she won Ohio I think by 5 points. Another case of comparing apples to apples.

          • William, do you think Trump can pull more votes than the 1/3rd-ish he’s getting most places; will Repubs fall in line and vote for him when everyone else is gone?

          • You know, Obama could have registered for the MI primary in 2008 but he chose not to. There were other candidates on the ballot and uncommitted was a legitimate choice. So we have to believe the voters in Michigan when they voted for that they actually meant it.
            In Florida, she beat Obama handily. In fact, in all of the big D states, she beat him by about 10%.
            He only beat her convincingly in the caucus states, some southern states and Illinois.
            He didn’t win California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, ny, NJ, Texas, Missouri, Massachusetts, Florida, all of Appalachia, etc.
            the way Obama dissed Appalachia was so stunning and arrogant it’s no wonder at all to me if they all went Tea Party.

          • Well, so far she’s won MA and TX. and she had a big margin in Texas. And she may win all those other states again. MI might just be an anomaly.

      • I totally agree. Im pretty sure I will never see a woman president of the USA from the democratic party. Actually if you check there are fewer women president or prime-ministers from the left than from the right in the world (with the exception of the nordic countries)

        • The right in this country is even less likely to put forth a female president.

          • OMG! A president Palin. Would there be rusted out Trans-Ams or pickup trucks up on cinder blocks on the White House lawn?

      • We came very close to having a woman president. If McCain had been elected, Ssarah Ppalin would have been President after McCain. America’s first woman President.

      • If McCain had been elected President, Ssarah Ppalin would have become President after McCain. She would have been America’s first woman President. It was very likely and it almost happened.

      • I will try rewording and resubmitting a comment which never appeared. McCain’s running mate would have become President after McCain if McCain had been elected. And that would have been our very first woman president. It was very likely.

    • Really? REALLy? 90% of Democrats think Obama did a good job? What part of Obama’s good job do 90% of Democrats like the most? The immunity and impunity for FIRE sector perpetrators? His cynical conspiracy with McConnell and Boehner and Reid to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent? His “look forward and not back” normalization and routinization of Cheney/bush’s bold new groundbreaking experiments in anti-constitutional governance and treaty-breaking? His wounded narcissistic pride and consequent spiteful childish behavior towards the genuine statesman Putin? The craptacular Obamacare? The collaboration with the Minority Republicans in the Senate in his first year to make his stimulus consist mostly of Republican-appeasing tax cuts and insufficient spending on insufficient infrastructure repair to provide sufficient stimulus, thereby giving “stimulus” itself a bad name?

      Which of these catastrof*cking decomplishments do 90% of Democrats admire the most?

      • They are still squeeing over The Symbolic Importance of Obama, as distinct from what Obama, the actual President, has actually done.

        But RUR probably knew that already, and was asking rhetorical questions.

        Though in Obama’s defense, had he actually tried to scale back the Plutocracy and its Empire (never mind trying to shut it down), he would probably have courted the fate of JFK, or at least the fate of Carter (I suspect Jimmeh was sabotaged from all sides). I can’t blame him for not choosing martyrdom, as I don’t think I could do that, either.

      • No, not really rhetorical. I can understand the early Obama supporters squeeing over The First Black President. But some of the 2008 Obama voters had to be people who would have preferred Edwards or Clinton or Kucinich or somebody to be the D-nominee. And “90%” of all Democrats would have to include some people who did not vote for Obama in any 2008 caucus or primary. And yet those people too think Obama did a good job.
        So I really and not just rhetorically have to wonder which of Obama’s craptacular decomplishments they like the very most.

        There are things Obama could have done differently without courting assassination. He could have let prosecutions against FIRE sector bad actors go forward just as Bush the Elder let prosecutions against hundreds of S & L bad actors go forward without getting assassinated. Or even Bush the Younger permitting prosecutions to go forward against some egregiously fraud-committing executives and a Bernie Madoff. He could have let the Bush Tax Cuts die a natural sunset death just by passively doing nothing. He did not have to create a Catfood Commission to propagandize cutting Social Security. But I will grant you that permitting prosecutions to go forward against Bush, Cheney and their minions for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity would have gotten him assassinated by agents of the Deep Secret Government whose existence every fainty-poo liberal denies.

  9. this is impossible, the moderator asks clinton why is she dishonest and then they ask sanders why he wants her to release the transcripts. there is no way she can fight against these type of questions

  10. William’s comments are worthy of reading.
    It is sickening to see Hillary being treated this way.
    The far right is as bad as the far left. No difference.
    I am in for Hillary. I will have nothing to do with Fidel Sanders and his band of sexist bros.

    • Hear Hear!! He has done nothing for the Democratic Party but attack it and call for it’s demise. Hillary has spent a lifetime building and helping to strengthen the party up and down the ticket, and She is raising money for the party as she campaigns. Not the old socialist Sanders. As a gay man over 55, I would love Medicare for all but I can assure you Sanders will not be the one to get it for us.
      I am even pissed that Democrats would even consider someone like Sanders who has done almost nothing in his lifetime for the Democratic Party. I am sickened by the bernie bros attacks of Hillary but even more sickened by the baseless attacks by teabag sounding Democrats.
      My 2 cents.

      • Sanders embrace of communist dictatorships that was exposed last night on the debate show exactly why he would lose a general election. So no, he won’t be delivering anything to anybody much less Medicare for All.

      • I will add, as an affluent business owner, I deeply resent all affluent people being put in the same category as Wall Street. Much of what they do is scam the system and extract cash. They are not the same as someone who produces and serves.
        Look at Bernie’s past, listen to his supporters, they do no want social democracy, they want outright socialism. Socialism does not work.
        Even Europe realized that, which is why the right as well as the left sold off the major industries. Government should provide common services, safety, military, roads, schools, etc.
        They should not be involved in every aspect of the business.

  11. Whenever Hill gets more heat , it’s cause the .001% establishment thinks they found a way to stop Trump and don’t need her… When their hilarious trashing of Trump blow up in their faces ( because whatever Trump is, they are even more so! lol) Then they ease up on Hill. It’s a see saw. The emails come out when they are feeling more confident because even if they have to go with her , they still want her on a scandal leash

    That’s on the Repug side…but everyone is trashing Mama Hill and she’s expected to take out ALL the trash.

    Sanders is horse collaring Hill with Obama’s Wall St own love affair One would think Hillary has been in the White House the last 8 years. Sanders gets to love on Obama, yet trash the current states of affairs by trashing Hillary . President ” We tortured some folks ” is not held responsible at all . The Bros LOVE putting the blame for all that sucks on Mama Hilary rather than their heartthrob, Bush 2.0. of course.

    Hillary is aiding Sanders in this narrative by defending the status quo so much. She got to make some, at least mild, distinctions between she and Obama or she ‘ll be tagged redeemable establishment in a year when that’s poison. I thought it was interesting this evening when she said she wasn’t a politician! Huh? Well that’s a start…in a year when it’s deemed a plus not to be one

    • At this point Sanders is toast. People might vote for him and he might end up being the nominee but that’s as far as it’s going. All Sanders is doing at this point is helping the country elect a President Trump.

  12. Can anyone see Sanders meeting HRC in Unity, New Hampshire and then working his heart out to get her elected?

    • He is the one who loves the F35 boondoggle.

      He is the one the NRA used to take out a principled Republican, Peter Smith, much as Joe Lieberman was used to take out Lowell Weicker two years earlier.

      • My Democratic family always supported Weicker. He took out Nixon.
        I would have proudly voted for Peter Smith in 1990 to stop Mr. Red.

  13. I’ve never had a Facebook account. My husband does, though, and he now and then writes mildly positive things about Hillary’s candidacy in response to others’ posts. Lately, others’ posts are really, really nasty, ‘she is totally evil,’ etc. (We live in a very pro-Sanders area.) Today, my husband lost his patience with it and wrote back, ‘please stop with all the Hillary bashing,” and got, ‘do you agree with her trade policy?’ My husband is totally enraged. This campaign is sending a rift through many people’s online communities, I’m sure. I suggested he write back, ‘WOW.’ The level of black-and-white thinking, repeating without any analysis or thought, considering if one might possibly be incorrect or incompletely informed, being unwilling to seek out information on others’ points of view with an open mind, abusive language, and scapegoating is exceeding 2008–and it’s not just Trumpers.

    This is a very concerning sign about the current basic mental health of the electorate, I believe. It seems to me people are losing control of their impulses, and the will to control them.

    • Well said.

      • I love Hillary’s ‘Low-Key Advocacy’. I’m glad she pointed out the Reagan’s progressive stance on GJBVD (God’s Just Burning Vengeance Disease).

        Hey, here’s how the Reagan Whitehouse talked about AIDS. It’s Hillary-ious. Remember when AIDS was funny? No? If my brother hadn’t died from it, he’d tell you it was… wait for it… Hillary-ious!

        [video src="http://dp8hsntg6do36.cloudfront.net/565cadc9ff2afb0d45000003/908df3bd-fe4f-4e98-b248-53ab458f708elow.webm" /]

    • Bernie supporters are leaving such a bad taste in my mouth, I was just cussed out by one I was dating for telling him he needs to stop constantly attacking Hillary’s character & integrity when talking about things he disagrees with. What are they so angry at exactly? Do they even know?

  14. Have you ever watched someone die from AIDS? Literally breathe their last dying breath?

    When I say ‘turn left’ when I actually mean ‘turn right’, that is to say I mis-spoke. Hillary doesn’t mis-speak; SHE LIES.

  15. Anyone can claim to be anything on Da Intertoobz.

    Toon Time

    It’s even possible that a GOP rat****er could pretend to be a sincerely outraged Sanders supporter. 😈

    • I keep having to remember the recent twitter research: most “bro” anti-HRC tweets are from Trumpers, followed (less than half) by Sanders supporters, followed by general GOPers.

      • Lady V, to answer your question from earlier, I think that Hillary would beat Trump, but Republicans, who are nothing if not goal-oriented, usually end up getting behind the nominated candidate, because they think that the alternative is worse; and also, they want their tax cuts for the rich and an end to social programs. And if Trump is able to convince Kasich to run as VP (hypocritical as that would be for him to take it), then most of the defectors will get behind the ticket, unfortunately. And that ticket would be a definite threat in the Midwest states, and also downticket, where we need Democratic gains.

        Even so, I do think Hillary would win, but the corporate owned media will make it very difficult. They got Bush elected over Gore by ignoring the fact that Bush had no policy proposals, and concentrating on portraying Gore as a liar. So with Sanders continuing to go around the country attacking Hillary on right-wing fueled “character issues,” there is the danger that the election would somehow be about misdirection-type things, not about actual issues and policies.

        I am still not convinced that Trump will be the nominee, but if he wins Florida and Ohio, he will almost certainly be, as Kasich and Rubio will drop out, and I don’t think Cruz would beat him head to head in enough states.

  16. as Hillary said today where was Bernie in the 90’s when she was trying to get universal health care? He’s a big phony and I have yet to engage one of his supporters that weren’t hostile and abusive toward me and Hillary. Why wasn’t he the candidate who he called to challenge Obama in 2012? I can assure you he would not get far at all if he ran against Obama and his campaign is largely fueled by Hillary hate, that’s just fact

    • The Hillary hate, in turn, is fueled by a smear campaign against the Clintons which has been going for 38 years now (counting from Bill’s first run for governor of the Arkanshire).

      This campaign uses both exaggerations of actual Clintonian mistakes and plain lies and wild stories about them. The so-called left-wing media (The Nation, Salon, Counterpunch, etc.) sometimes participates in the pseudo-journalistic lynch mob as enthusiastically as the right-wing media (both the openly right-wing media and the so-called “mainstream” media).

      This is a prime example of what I call “The re-yellowing of American journalism”. 👿

      • The Nation has turned into The American Spectator and Katrina Van Dan Huevel is the left’s Anne Coulter.
        Ed Schultz is Rush Limbaugh (on the left).
        Bernie’s supporters are but a reflection of who he is.

  17. Over at MMFA they have an article up on the Hate-fest that’s a Trump rally. They reference Donna Brazile’s comments and did that take me back:

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: