US Election: It's a post-TrumpDay world

[TrackerNeil]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes. Absolutely, yes. When my supposed Democrat friends are posting videos with "Clinton is a LIAR" that came directly from conservative blogs, yes, they're precisely coming from a lot of those high negatives. Karl Rove recently came out and said that his whole social media campaign was to target liberals with anti-Clinton stuff. 

It's one of the things that troubles me about this Sanders movement; its adherents often wind up repeating right-wing talking points about Hillary Clinton. I have a few pro-Sanders friends, and I swear the things they say could be lifted directly from the conservasphere.

[ThinkerX]

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You might have a point if minimum wage increases had been passed in republican-leaning states, but they haven't. They've been passed in democratic-leaning states quite often. There isn't a whole lot that Obama can do with a house and senate that are entirely opposed to anything he says on principle. 

Since when is Alaska NOT a republican state.  Because this is one of the places where a minimum wage hike was passed, and the state is heavily conservative. I recollect very little democratic party support for the measure; in fact the national democratic party appears to have abandoned the state.  I also recollect minimum wage hikes passing in at least two other red states.

 

Note that I said 'or at least forced an acknowledgement.'  Arizona.  Deep south states, especially urban areas.  State legislatures squashing the minimum wage movement in a preemptive manner.  Red states.

 

Meanwhile, the democratic parties chosen presidential candidate gave very pricy, very secret speeches to people who view 47% of the populace as worthless leeches. 

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Since when is Alaska NOT a republican state.  Because this is one of the places where a minimum wage hike was passed, and the state is heavily conservative. I recollect very little democratic party support for the measure; in fact the national democratic party appears to have abandoned the state.  I also recollect minimum wage hikes passing in at least two other red states.

And which would those be? California, Oregon, Washington, New York? 

In any case, you appear to be right and Alaska has raised it. This doesn't negate my point, however, which is that the democratic parties haven't opposed and have openly supported minimum wage increases. 

16 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

 

Note that I said 'or at least forced an acknowledgement.'  Arizona.  Deep south states, especially urban areas.  State legislatures squashing the minimum wage movement in a preemptive manner.  Red states.

I don't know what the hell any of this means other than it sounding like some apocalyptic liturgy. Alabama recently raised a wage hike locally only to have it squashed by the state's representatives. How is a democratic party going to get that done? I don't really see the argument here. I'm saying the Democratic party is trying to get it done, and where they've had control they've been pretty successful at it. 

 

16 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Meanwhile, the democratic parties chosen presidential candidate gave very pricy, very secret speeches to people who view 47% of the populace as worthless leeches. 

First off, you're assuming everyone who works at Goldman Sachs views anyone on welfare like Romney does. There's a lot of evidence to the contrary, notably that most of New York and Manhattan in particular vote heavily in favor of liberal policies and vote heavily in favor of democrats most of the time. Equating well off with republican isn't really a particularly fair equation. 

But even if it were - so what? She gave speeches to rich people who don't like poor people. Should a presidential candidate never give speeches to rich people now? Because guess what - Sanders certainly has, at $80k a plate. Trump certainly has. 

[TrackerNeil]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But even if it were - so what? She gave speeches to rich people who don't like poor people. Should a presidential candidate never give speeches to rich people now? Because guess what - Sanders certainly has, at $80k a plate. Trump certainly has. 

I don't understand the speeches thing, and never did. Politicians always leverage their background in public service to make money when they re-enter the private sector, often as lobbyists or rainmakers for law firms--or giving speeches to Wall Street types. I think it's reasonable to wonder what those activities say about a candidate, but demanding that Clinton make public the speeches she was paid to give? That, by my lights, is beyond the pale. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

It's pretty tone deaf and anectdotal to believe liberals disaffected with Hillary are following Rove marching orders. 

The left has its own narrative and reasons for not endorsing Hillary. 

"He Has Summoned a Political Revolution": The Nation Magazine Endorses Bernie Sanders for President | Democracy Now!

Democracy Now! › he_has_summoned_...

Jan 15, 2016 - The Nation has just endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. This marks only the third time in the ...

 

 

The fact that libertarian and liberal talking points at times come full circle and meet isn't even particularly new or unique. We saw the same thing a few cycles back when we had Kucinic and Paul often on the same page with anti-war rhetoric.

We see a lot of these same strange bedfellows this cycle because we have a far left antiwar, anti U.S. interventionist (liberals opposed to a Clinton led foreign policy) opposed to Clinton at the same time as we see right wingers flinging all the mud they can find. The fact that they occasionally dip into some of the same mud hardly makes the Nation magazine or Susan Sarandon or Bill Maher newly rabid Rwingers. Thats a ridiculous and tone deaf assertion.

[ThinkerX]

2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't understand the speeches thing, and never did. Politicians always leverage their background in public service to make money when they re-enter the private sector, often as lobbyists or rainmakers for law firms--or giving speeches to Wall Street types. I think it's reasonable to wonder what those activities say about a candidate, but demanding that Clinton make public the speeches she was paid to give? That, by my lights, is beyond the pale. 

I for one, have wondered for a while if the content of those speeches might be summed up as 'thank you for your generous under-the-table campaign contribution, you have a friend in me.'  Were that the case, would your view change?

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In any case, you appear to be right and Alaska has raised it. This doesn't negate my point, however, which is that the democratic parties haven't opposed and have openly supported minimum wage increases

http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx

From 2014:

Voters in Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota approved minimum wage increases through

ballot measures

.

 

This site lists a slew of current ballot initiatives, including minimum wage proposals in three states, two of them red.  I also note ballot initiatives that appear to be attacks against the political establishment, among other things.

https://ballotpedia.org/Potential_2016_ballot_measures

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, ThinkerX said:

I for one, have wondered for a while if the content of those speeches might be summed up as 'thank you for your generous under-the-table campaign contribution, you have a friend in me.'  Were that the case, would your view change?

I don't know what is in those speeches, but I very much doubt that Hillary Clinton has made any explicit quid pro quo promises. (Or any implicit ones, I suspect.)

[Kalbear]

28 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

It's pretty tone deaf and anectdotal to believe liberals disaffected with Hillary are following Rove marching orders. 

The left has its own narrative and reasons for not endorsing Hillary. 

It might, but it still is the case that various conservative groups have specifically targeted liberal social media sources to launch anti-Clinton campaigns with the hopes that the liberals would happily spread it. 

I'm not saying that Clinton is without flaw, but I can also say quite easily that many of the talking points are literally taken from right-wing gossip and conservative groups. Like, I've seen the actual link to the original sites.

Quote

I for one, have wondered for a while if the content of those speeches might be summed up as 'thank you for your generous under-the-table campaign contribution, you have a friend in me.'  Were that the case, would your view change?

Not really. Being a friend to rich people is not by itself damning. Again, you're still equating that all rich people necessarily want to get no progressive reform done, period. George Soros might disagree with that a bit. If you're going to go on record and say that you must oppose any and all people who have money because they have money, no matter what, you're talking about a very different kind of revolution. 

Quote

This site lists a slew of current ballot initiatives, including minimum wage proposals in three states, two of them red.  I also note ballot initiatives that appear to be attacks against the political establishment, among other things.

And you've still not proved your original point about how the democrats have barely tried to help minimum wage laws. Now you're...I don't even know what you're talking about here. From your own table, the only states that have zero minimum wage increases are deeply red ones. 

[Shryke]

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Republicans cause the Clintons to have high negatives among Democrats?

She doesn't have high negatives among Democrats. Democrats like Clinton. Republicans don't. That's why her favourables aren't that great. Obama's numbers display similar behaviour.

There's also the issue others mentioned that her numbers with Democrats are lower then they would be absent a 20+ year smear campaign. That's totally another point.

But the larger thing is that this idea that Clinton is unpopular among Democrats is just not accurate. They like her alot. I swear I've pointed this out a billion times now here but people continue with the same narrative.

[ThinkerX]

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't know what is in those speeches, but I very much doubt that Hillary Clinton has made any explicit quid pro quo promises. (Or any implicit ones, I suspect.)

You missed the point.  I was questioning whether there were any speeches in the first place.  Given the utter secrecy, it seems a reasonable question.

[The Marquis de Leech]

55 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

You missed the point.  I was questioning whether there were any speeches in the first place.  Given the utter secrecy, it seems a reasonable question.

Given that Hillary is very well aware of the sort of hatchet campaigns that were launched against her husband, she'd have to be politically suicidal to give a speech other than a benign "here's what I'll do for America, together we'll prosper... et cetera." And Hillary is many things, but she is not politically suicidal.

[ThinkerX]

12 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Given that Hillary is very well aware of the sort of hatchet campaigns that were launched against her husband, she'd have to be politically suicidal to give a speech other than a benign "here's what I'll do for America, together we'll prosper... et cetera." And Hillary is many things, but she is not politically suicidal.

Again, given the utter secrecy, you can't really even claim that much.

 

Is there any independent verification that she actually gave the speeches?

[Martell Spy]

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html#

Democracies end

when they are too democratic.

And right now, America is a breeding ground for tyranny.

By ANDREW SULLIVAN

 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html#

Democracies end

when they are too democratic.

And right now, America is a breeding ground for tyranny.

By ANDREW SULLIVAN

 

Damn! That last line of that article is bloody fucking brilliant.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Again, given the utter secrecy, you can't really even claim that much.

 

Is there any independent verification that she actually gave the speeches?

Yes. Kinda.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969

Quote

 

Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman’s workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

At another speech to Goldman and its big asset management clients in New York in 2013, Clinton spoke about how it wasn’t just the banks that caused the financial crisis and that it was worth looking at the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law to see what was working and what wasn’t.

“It was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat,” one person who attended that speech said. “But in this environment, it could be made to look really bad.”

 

These are the rumours of sorts from people who apparently were there. Basically what you'd expect from paid motivational speeches in that kind of environment (ie - lots of people there, multiple speakers afaik, etc) Lots of praise and motivational bullshiting. Looks bad in the current environment but at the end of the day is utterly meaningless.

Every leak on the subject, from cray nutter sources to whatever you think politico counts as, tells a similar story from what I've read.

I mean shit, Elon Musk was giving a speech to the same crowd at the same event apparently. There's nothing terribly secretive going on here, it would just look bad.

[mormont]

11 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Remember how overwhelming unpopular the TPP was among ordinary folks - yet it got passed anyway.

Well, actually I think most 'ordinary folks' were unaware of it and/or didn't really understand most of it and/or didn't have strong feelings about it.

But yes, there was significant protest and objections by non-politicians to what is (rightly, in my view) seen as a step too far in free trade. As I say, I'm in agreement with that opposition. But I can't see in it some sort of danger of an imminent sweeping political and social revolution. Maybe that's just me, maybe I'm blinkered or cynical, but that's how I see it.

11 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Likewise, I note that minimum wage increases have passed in several states despite lackluster democratic party support and republican disdain. They defied the establishment without significant external support and won, or at least forced acknowledgement.

Were these really grassroots efforts - and if they were, and they won, doesn't that show the system is working?

11 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Plus, while not as solid, I see very little support for illegal immigration, and a great many ordinary people in both parties dead set against it

I see no opposition to it in the Sanders campaign, mind you.

11 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Trump and Sanders each included at least some of these items plus others in their campaigns.  Trump is effectively destroying the republican party as it stands based on his stances, something COMPLETELY unthinkable even a year ago.  Sanders went from a nobody to a significant threat to the democratic party establishment on a campaign based on these items.

Both Trump and Sanders are unlikely to become president.  However, only a complete fool would think the issues they campaigned on, the issues that caused major havoc in the political establishments, are just going to fade into the background.  Yet that seems to be what at least some of the people on this board are doing.

I think that supposition is based on previous experience. But, I'll be honest, I'm not clear what your point actually is. Is it that these issues are going to be on the political agenda? Well, I can imagine that they are. But I thought you were going further, talking 'bout a revolution (apologies). Issues come and go, but a revolution is something else. I can't see evidence of an imminent revolution in some successful ballot initiatives, some protests against a bad trade deal, support for some non-establishment candidates, and so on. These things seem to me to be the operation of a healthy democracy, not the signs that it's about to be revolutionised.

[BloodRider]

14 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 Karl Rove recently came out and said that his whole social media campaign was to target liberals with anti-Clinton stuff. 

Duuuude.  I would love a link for that.

[DanteGabriel]

33 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Duuuude.  I would love a link for that.

Here's a NYTimes article from a year ago talking about conservative groups targeting liberals with anti-Clinton social media memes:

Quote

For months now, America Rising has sent out a steady stream of posts on social media attacking Mrs. Clinton, some of them specifically designed to be spotted, and shared, by liberals. The posts highlight critiques of her connections to Wall Street and the Clinton Foundation and feature images of Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, interspersed with cartoon characters and pictures of Kevin Spacey, who plays the villain in “House of Cards.” And as they are read and shared, an anti-Clinton narrative is reinforced.

America Rising is not the only conservative group attacking Mrs. Clinton from the left. Another is American Crossroads, the group started by Karl Rove, which has been sending out its own digital content, including one ad using a speech Ms. Warren gave at the New Populism Conference in Washington last May.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?_r=0

[Kalbear]

Here's another one, from earlier this year.

Quote

 

Why is Karl Rove trying to help Bernie Sanders win the Democratic nomination?

Four years after Karl Rove wasted over $300 million from establishment GOP donors in his unsuccessful attempt to use his Super PAC American Crossroads to elect Mitt Romney president, he’s started running ads in the Democratic primary race against Hillary Clinton in Iowa. Why?

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Shryke said:

She doesn't have high negatives among Democrats. Democrats like Clinton. Republicans don't. That's why her favourables aren't that great. Obama's numbers display similar behaviour.

Not really. Obama's favorability is +6.5, while Clinton's is -16.5.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html