In Classic Clintonian Fashion, Dems Insult Their Own Voters

[eridani]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-classic-clintonian-fashion-dems-insult-their-own-voters-20150609#ixzz3cbprkFe3

They make it clear that turning away from Bill Clinton's cherished demographic of southern white moderates, and toward the Obama base of "young, nonwhite and female voters," is something they're only doing with extreme reluctance.

They describe rhetoric for the young-female-nonwhite coalition as "narrow," while a Bill Clinton-style turn toward the red states would be a "broader" strategy that would "lift the party with her."

In the Times piece, this line is followed by a slew of quotes from establishment Dems about the perils of turning toward the base. And it's capped by an on-the-record quote from Mook, Hillary's current campaign manager, who is described as "unmoved" by such concerns:

"I think everybody understands how tough it's going to be next year if we get through the primary… So I'm not concerned about hand-wringing on the strategy."

In other words: "We hate doing this, but it's the only way to win. Bear with us."

As political messaging goes, it's a remarkably perverse way to kick off a campaign. It's like going on a date and announcing before the appetizers arrive that the only reason you're here is that the person you really wanted to go out with turned you down.

<snip>

Moreover, the party wants big business to hang tough while Hillary slings Warren-Sanders-style anti-business rhetoric in an effort to increase turnout.

The truly crazy thing about this is that the Warren-Sanders strategy actually would be the broad bipartisan strategy, if only the Democrats would stop apologizing for it.

Particularly on the Wall Street front, there is a broad left-right coalition to be built, if the Democrats had any interest in building it.

Such coalitions have already succeeded in the House and the Senate, where politicians like Ron Paul and Sanders have teamed up to audit the Fed, and Republicans like David Vitter have teamed up with Dems like Sherrod Brown in campaigns against Too-Big-To-Fail banking monopolies.

[onecaliberal]

1. These people never learn. Does anyone still not understand why we fucking lose?!?

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Lose Elections or lose sight of what and who we need ?

[onecaliberal]

4. Both. Geezuz, it's mind boggling.

People rail against corporations and how they own us all and are throwing us all to the gutter but then election time rolls around and who do these same people support. The candidates who are owned by said corporations. It's insane, literally!

[orpupilofnature57]

19. It's the Disconnect we thrive at, Ego over common sense .

[orpupilofnature57]

2. I hate to say it, but Sanders/Warren are the only people acting like

Democrats .

[elleng]

5. and Martin O'Malley.

He has ACCOMPLISHED things. Democrats would be FOOLS to ignore him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1281794
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1281773
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1281770
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1281756
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1281757
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1281739

[delrem]

7. Yes, very good OPs. Keep posting.

It's early yet.

Here's the thing I think about a lot. HRC started this race 3 laps ahead, with a two billion dollar war chest and all that buys in the way of mercenary "pundits" and forum/media owners. And that's a big head start. It's an enormous amount of money that can buy up little web forums and pundits for less than peanuts. Just consider the good that could be done with that money if it weren't being spent on corporate candidates, so we'll vote to screw ourselves over.

And like the Bush family, the Clinton family has systems in place, people in place -- hell, the systems and people are interchangeable.

So it'll come down to HRC vs X.

I very much doubt that if it came down to Clinton vs O'Malley, with Sanders being pushed aside by the inevitability of actual votes, Sanders would weigh in on the side of Clinton -- against O'Malley. That's just my intuition speaking, of course, but how could any progressive do that? But I'm not so sure if O'Malley would swing his support to Sanders in the same situation.

[elleng]

12. Good points, delrem,

and unfortunately 'professional' Dems, like DNC, are virtually signed, sealed and delivered for HRC.

I agree that, if it came down to it, it's highly doubtful that Sanders would come down on the side of Clinton, and same about O'Malley, whose points of view are very close to those of Sanders.

There's lots more info at the O'Malley Group, fyi.

[Ed Suspicious]

8. I heard that his "his tough on crime" policies established/exacerbated the tension between the black

community in Baltimore and the police who patrol that community. Is this true or not.

[elleng]

13. About his record in Baltimore:

Last edited Tue Jun 9, 2015, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

GovernorOMalley did something a lot of these mayors don’t do: He walked w/ the small people…He walked the streets”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128164

another point, on GUN reform: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1281685

[Demeter]

6. Hillary has my sympathies, for all her struggles and obstacles and faux pas

but not my vote.

[L0oniX]

9. +1 for the Clueless - Trailer

[delrem]

18. "The uploader has not made this video available in your country."

Isn't that so precious.

eta: but since it got good reviews, I'm gonna watch it tonight.

[delrem]

11. The Clintons raked in $25 Million last year, as declared,

just for telling their corporate sponsors what their corporate sponsors wanted to hear.
That was for just one year of their lucrative "speaking tours".
The Clintons get that money win or lose, because they're such good bets.
Now HRC is on a "listening tour", where select people of select demographics are used as props to prove her "social consciousness".

I could never feel sympathy of any kind toward that.

I mean, jeez.....

[Doctor_J]

10. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to vote for president

I'll vote D on the rest of my ballot, but it's completely futile at this point. In a way I'm relieved that they're not going to conduct a campaign of lies like Obama did 8 years ago. If they were to pretend to be populists (from the Warren/Sanders/O'Malley wing), I would at least wring my hands, and might even fall for it again. The party swept the Repukes out of office in 2008 by pretending to be an agent of change. Few would believe that this time around anyway, so a straightforward, "I'm for wall street and having a Republican congress is just fine by me" message is probably better.

[Curmudgeoness]

16. I am hoping that you change your mind on that.

No matter who the Democratic candidate is, it has to be better than any of the Republican candidates getting the presidency. Maybe not as "better" as we would like, but there are often "lesser of two evils" votes that we have to make. I hate that it happens that way.

[WillyT]

14. ROFLMAO !!! - THAT... Was Great !!! - K & R !!!

As political messaging goes, it's a remarkably perverse way to kick off a campaign. It's like going on a date and announcing before the appetizers arrive that the only reason you're here is that the person you really wanted to go out with turned you down.

From OP.



THANK YOU !!!

[frylock]

15. mook: noun \mük\

slang

: a foolish, insignificant, or contemptible person

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mook

[hedda_foil]

17. Well, we can't say we don't know it before she began.

[bunnies]

20. That article perfectly outlines why so many of us...

dont believe a word her campaign says. They REALLY must think we're stupid.